Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

RNC Chicago passes resolution regarding historyFollow

#52 Aug 26 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,087 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** anal sex blow job marriage debate is just what this forum needs for new life!


I thought about making a topic on **** **** today to see if the Google Filter would explode. The idea popped into my head after I stumbled upon a video and photo shoot from a website that had two of my favorite models... (A couple of upstanding young ladies that go by the names Angelica and Eufrat). I figured if I described in detail what they were doing to each other I could fully test the capability of the Google Filter.

Edit:
Well. "*******" is filtered.

Edit2:
Ok... "****" wasn't filtered the first time, but once I edited the post it was. And Joph's quote is nearly fully filtered in my post, but only half filtered in his post.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 8:43pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#53 Aug 26 2014 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Can you imagine if people using Google found out about lesbians!?!?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Aug 26 2014 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,087 posts
Time to call the ACLU, Google is clearly anti **** **** Bisexual and Transgender. They'll get to the bottom of that.

Edit:
I figured out what it is... Two "bad" words in a row, it skips the second one. But once you edit the post, the first word is just **** so the next time it filters the next word...

Edit:
Will it do it again?

Edit:
Ok, so Bisexual and Transgender are ok. But no exclusively same **** stuff, that's naughty.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 9:04pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#55 Aug 26 2014 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Add those to the list of words censored because they're assumed to always be used in the worst possible context and not because they're actually offensive.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#56 Aug 26 2014 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
Well, there goes the Flintstones theme song!


Oh, I'm pretty sure "yabba dabba doo" is already filtered.

Huh, it isn't! How about yabba dabba doo doo?

So we can swear as long as we infantilize it? well, that's just great.



Edited, Aug 26th 2014 6:19pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#57 Aug 26 2014 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sometimes I just like saying ****.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 8:25pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#58 Aug 26 2014 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A **** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** **** *** anal sex blow job marriage debate is just what this forum needs for new life!


See signature.

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 12:40am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#59 Aug 26 2014 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it.
Huh. Personally, I start with "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please". It's up to the people who don't want ghey marriage to come up with a compelling reason to disallow it. You and yours have failed to do that.


Edited, Aug 26th 2014 11:15pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#60 Aug 26 2014 at 11:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is Zionist banned? Only one way to find out!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Aug 27 2014 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak?
You were complaining about freedom of speech a few months ago, so why aren't you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Aug 27 2014 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Which parts of their platform do you like?
I like a lot of the ideas, but the execution is atrocious. Like I like the idea of a free market and all that, but not the people that would have control over it. I don't believe for a second that prices would go down. That includes health care. I'd like to leave it in the people's hands, I really would, but hundreds of years of history says that's a bad idea. We should have a strong military force, but **** sometimes it goes overboard.

I don't particularly care about the labels involved. If anyone wants to narrow it down to a specific, that's their waste of time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Aug 27 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Add those to the list of words censored because they're assumed to always be used in the worst possible context and not because they're actually offensive.

"Lesbian"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Aug 27 2014 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
that's pretty offensive Joph. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#65 Aug 27 2014 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"****"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Aug 27 2014 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: nod
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#67 Aug 27 2014 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk! Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Aug 27 2014 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Now I can assume you just said ****.

Clarity! Smiley: schooled

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 9:51am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#69 Aug 27 2014 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More like ASSterisk, amirite??

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 10:04am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Aug 27 2014 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm going to replace all my posts with image macros.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#71 Aug 27 2014 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
Do it, asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Aug 27 2014 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm going to replace all my posts with image macros.

Screenshot

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Aug 27 2014 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Man, Paint sucks. Especially when you're still using Win XP version of Paint.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Aug 27 2014 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
Zam needs to provide a short haired banjo strumming smiley to use in place of the dirty word.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#75 Aug 27 2014 at 12:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,350 posts
Elinda wrote:
Zam needs to provide a short haired banjo strumming smiley to use in place of the dirty word.


Which word? Hipster?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#76 Aug 27 2014 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
Hipster needs a trilby.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#77 Aug 27 2014 at 12:18 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
I'm saying that trying to get you to admit to the flaws in your "reasoning" is pointless since you would never, ever do so. Therefore, I have no interest in playing "Gbaji's Thought Experiments" or whatever. I posted what I did to give Smash a chuckle. You go ahead and carry on as you were. Heck, maybe even try to imply that I'm too scared or incapable of matching your challenges or say "But consider this..." and type a little screed about how you've solved the liberal indoctrination mind puzzle. It'll make you feel better and Smash will still get his chuckle. Win-Win.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Ho ho! Chortle chortle.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Aug 27 2014 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
♪~(´ε` )
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Aug 27 2014 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't know you wore glasses.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Aug 28 2014 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same **** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.


How about "Homosexuals should not be treated as second and third class citizens, therefore they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights and benefits as heteros".


That's an end position, not a starting set of principles.

Why do you think being denied a benefit makes a group second or third class citizens? So because I don't receive food stamps, I'm a 2nd class citizen? Clearly, your argument has a logical flaw in it. Want to try again? This time, may I suggest actually doing what I asked and starting with the principles and then working towards the position instead of the other way around.

Quote:
With the current state of marriage and divorces, along with foster, adoptive and surrogate parenting, there really is no reason *not* to allow it. Except for personal or religious grounds. Which should be entirely irrelevant.


It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Aug 28 2014 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it.
Huh. Personally, I start with "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please".


Why? Again, that's an end point. You start with something like "liberty is the state of not having to ask permission to do something", then move to "we should have a society with maximum liberty", then to "how to you create a system of government that maximizes liberty", then you move to something like "People should be free to do what they want without interference or regulation *unless* their actions would cause greater harm to the liberty of others". Then, finally, you might just figure out how something like marriage and marriage benefits may fit in.

You're starting with the end you want, and then working backwards. That's exactly the point I was making.

Quote:
It's up to the people who don't want ghey marriage to come up with a compelling reason to disallow it. You and yours have failed to do that.


I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference. I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Aug 29 2014 at 3:49 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it.
Huh. Personally, I start with "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please".
Why? Again, that's an end point.
Maximum liberty is an end point? Did you suffer head trauma lately? (Again?)
gbaji wrote:


I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference.
No difference.
gabji wrote:
I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.
Because owning a cat is just like being ghey married? You grow more reprehensible with every post.


Edited, Aug 29th 2014 3:50am by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#83 Aug 29 2014 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shit, if you were a woman who wanted equal rights you'd at least be a kid who wants ice cream in Gbaji's eyes...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Aug 29 2014 at 5:22 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,087 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference. I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.


But if there existed a pet-owning tax credit, that applied to owning dogs, and fish, and gerbils. But cat owners didn't get the tax credits, you'd be against giving cat owners those same credits because you don't agree with owning cats?


Edited, Aug 29th 2014 8:05am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#85 Aug 29 2014 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same **** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.


How about "Homosexuals should not be treated as second and third class citizens, therefore they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights and benefits as heteros".


That's an end position, not a starting set of principles.

Why do you think being denied a benefit makes a group second or third class citizens? So because I don't receive food stamps, I'm a 2nd class citizen? Clearly, your argument has a logical flaw in it. Want to try again? This time, may I suggest actually doing what I asked and starting with the principles and then working towards the position instead of the other way around.

Quote:
With the current state of marriage and divorces, along with foster, adoptive and surrogate parenting, there really is no reason *not* to allow it. Except for personal or religious grounds. Which should be entirely irrelevant.


It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.
if your scenario start points can find rational for rewarding marriage, the *** of the individual is irrelevant. State sanctioned marriage has never been about reward, however. Nor is it singularly rewarding. Your approach to defending your discriminatory opinion is getting pretty convoluted.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#86 Aug 29 2014 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference. I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.
I'm not going to say this is retarded, but Congress is going to categorize you as a pizza.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Aug 29 2014 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
So because I don't receive food stamps, I'm a 2nd class citizen?


If you were told that you could never receive food stamps under any circumstances, sure.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#88 Aug 29 2014 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll just say again that, while Gbaji is stone-retarded on the topic, it's nice to be able to more or less ignore him knowing that his fight is already all but lost.

Another case going against the conservative side:
Quote:
Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was dismissive when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to 'tradition' as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," Posner said. Prohibition of same-*** marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate … and savage discrimination."

Also, a conservative plea for smaller, less intrusive government...
Quote:
"All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher said. "Men and women make babies, same-*** couples do not… we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism."


Smiley: facepalm

Edited, Aug 29th 2014 8:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Aug 29 2014 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I'll just say again that, while Gbaji is stone-retarded on the topic, it's nice to be able to more or less ignore him knowing that his fight is already all but lost.
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#90 Aug 29 2014 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
But it's so painfully stupid. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Aug 29 2014 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
How many consecutive rulings in favour of gay marriage have you had now? A dozen or so?

Edit: gay is not a swear word.

Edited, Aug 29th 2014 6:09pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#92 Aug 29 2014 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I didn't know you wore glasses.


Since the accident, that's just how he looks.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#93 Aug 29 2014 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
But it's so painfully stupid. Smiley: frown

Rush Limbaugh was having conniptions about the Utah ruling decriminalizing (not legalizing) polygamy in the state. Said that it was because we've changed the definition of marriage from "a man and a woman". Apparently that "New Conservative History" glosses over the fact that "man + women" has probably been on the marriage books for longer than one-and-one.

Also, it was ruled on the basis of religious freedom which was amusing. "Providing birth control via insurance" = horrible religious oppression, "Arresting people for cohabitation if they consider themselves spiritually married" = Conservative Religious Freedom!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Aug 30 2014 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.

"Rewarding" in what way differently than hetero couples? What makes it different?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#95 Aug 30 2014 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.

"Rewarding" in what way differently than hetero couples? What makes it different?


"Blah blah blah kids blah blah". Same old Gbaji argument as always.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#96 Sep 01 2014 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,586 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.

"Rewarding" in what way differently than hetero couples? What makes it different?

And then Gbaji says "procreation," and then you ask about straight couples who can't procreate. I forget the next step, but I'm certain you could look it up quite easily.
#97 Sep 01 2014 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Allegory wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /*** couples who marry.

"Rewarding" in what way differently than hetero couples? What makes it different?

And then Gbaji says "procreation," and then you ask about straight couples who can't procreate. I forget the next step, but I'm certain you could look it up quite easily.
I think the next step here was "They might, even if they can't so ....." and then some rambling about how same-*** parents (adoption argument) are totally inferior to "traditional" ones.




I win a Smiley: cookie, right?


Edited, Sep 1st 2014 6:12pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#98 Sep 02 2014 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
gbaji wrote:

So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak?
Why should they?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#99 Sep 02 2014 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I win a Smiley: cookie, right?
Well yeah, if you give it to white male hetero Christians it's just a natural occurring function and we shouldn't even think about it and just do it. Give the same thing to anyone else and it's just a reward for being evil and we can't possibly do that. That's how equality works.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Sep 02 2014 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it.
Huh. Personally, I start with "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please".
Why? Again, that's an end point.
Maximum liberty is an end point?


No. "Maximum liberty", is not. But "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please" is. WTF?

Quote:
Did you suffer head trauma lately?


I'll ask you the same question. The two things are not the same. You assume that "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please" is something that should exist in a state with maximum liberty, but fail to actually bother to take all the steps in between to get there. We can both agree that "maximum liberty" is good while disagreeing on exactly what specific conditions are indicative of that state.

You're skipping ahead. I'm directly staying "start at step one, and then walk one step at a time to the end point". But even after I say this, you keep skipping to the end. Start at the beginning and actually trace your path from the start to the end. When you do this, I think you'd be surprised how many of the things you just assume are intricately tied to a state of liberty actually are not.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference.
No difference.


Really? Are you seriously arguing that if I fail to support a government subsidy for something, this means I must be against that thing? That's... insane. And completely unworkable, since there's an infinite number of things we aren't subsidizing at any given moment. So what you can say I'm "against" is based solely on you proposing that we subsidize it. If you proposed that we subsidize free ice cream for everyone, and I oppose it, by your logic, that means I don't think people should have the freedom to eat ice cream.

Hmm.


Quote:
gabji wrote:
I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.
Because owning a cat is just like being ghey married?


In the context of testing your logic, yes. You are arguing that if we don't subsidize something, then we are against it. I'm using clear examples where this logic doesn't work to show you that your wrong. Now, if you want to base your argument for *** marriage benefits on something other than "but if you oppose them, then you hate *** people!!!", then we might actually get somewhere.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Sep 02 2014 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
In the context of testing your logic, yes.
So you're stupid on purpose.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CST