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.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- RNC Chicago passes resolution regarding history
RNC Chicago passes resolution regarding historyFollow
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
♪～(´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.
I didn't know you wore glasses.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "gay 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.
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 /gay couples who marry.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
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.
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 /gay 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
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.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /gay marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge 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.
Edited, Aug 29th 2014 3:50am by Bijou
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
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.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /gay 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.
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 "gay 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.
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 /gay couples who marry.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
I'm not against /gay 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.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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.
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:
Also, a conservative plea for smaller, less intrusive government...
Edited, Aug 29th 2014 8:43am by Jophiel
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-sex marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate … and savage discrimination."
"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," Posner said. Prohibition of same-sex 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-sex couples do not… we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism."
Edited, Aug 29th 2014 8:43am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
But it's so painfully stupid. 
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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
Edit: gay is not a swear word.
Edited, Aug 29th 2014 6:09pm by Aethien
Jophiel wrote:
I didn't know you wore glasses.
Since the accident, that's just how he looks.
Just as Planned.
lolgaxe wrote:
But it's so painfully stupid.
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.
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /gay 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.
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /gay 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.
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /gay 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.
Allegory wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about "allowing" it, but "rewarding" it. There is no reason to reward /gay 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 win a
, right? Edited, Sep 1st 2014 6:12pm by Bijou
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Friar Bijou wrote:
I win a 
, right?
, right?George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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.
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 /gay marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge 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.
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 gay marriage benefits on something other than "but if you oppose them, then you hate gay people!!!", then we might actually get somewhere.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
In the context of testing your logic, yes.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 395
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (395)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- RNC Chicago passes resolution regarding history
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC