Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#352 Feb 25 2015 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm curious how Smash hides himself from the recent visitors

SQL injection. Shhhhhh
____________________________
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.

#353 Feb 25 2015 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. I don't. If Montana decided to not grant hunting licenses to *** people, would you argue that a hunting license granted to a *** person in Oregon should allow him to hunt in Montana?

No, because, and I'm repeating myself here, that's not the issue. That clause could be removed from the Constitution for all I care, it's pretty much useless as anything but as an example of what federalism means for young children. Sexual orientation shouldn't be something that can be used to deny basic privileges. Neither should race. Neither should gender. It's really not that complicated. The idiotic reaches you have to make to find examples to pretend are parallels when there are so many at ground level as just astonishing. What about blindness! Should California have to allow blind people to drive school buses because Ray Charles played piano?

There's an arbitrary set of protected classes our society has deemed shouldn't be used as an arbitrary basis for discrimination. Race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, etc. Some of that is codified as law, already, some isn't but eventually will be. We don't need to play pretend there's some rational basis for any of that. There isn't. It's just part of the social compact of the US. We don't tell kids in wheelchairs they can't go to school, we don't tell black people they can't drive a car and we don't tell two women they can't marry each other. Both of my children understand this, implicitly. Why is it so fucking hard for you to? How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?


That's wonderful Smash. But not one word of what you just wrote addresses the issue of arguing that because State A grants a marriage license to a gay couples, and that couple moves to state B which doesn't grant licenses to gay couples, that state B should be forced to recognize that marriage as a marriage within their own state. Not. One. Word.

I get that you want State B to change their laws. Great. Fight for that. But doing so by attempting to change the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause so as to force State B to grant marriage benefits to gay couples in the hopes of forcing them to abandon their position is a crappy way of doing this. Because... In the process of doing so, you have changed the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause. Not just for SSM, but potentially for a host of other things as well.

That is the point I'm making. You keep ignoring what I'm saying and responding with "But it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation!!!. Waaaaah!!!". All you're really doing is proving my point for me: That SSM advocates are so focused on the cause they're fighting for that they are not even aware of the legal ramifications of the methods they're using. You're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, and even after I point out that this is a bad idea, you respond with "but there's a fly that must be swatted!!!".

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Edited, Feb 25th 2015 6:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#354 Feb 25 2015 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That's wonderful Smash. But not one word of what you just wrote addresses the issue of arguing that because State A grants a marriage license to a *** couples, and that couple moves to state B which doesn't grant licenses to *** couples, that state B should be forced to recognize that marriage as a marriage within their own state. Not. One. Word.

No, because, and I'm repeating myself here, that's not the issue.

Does the color help?

that's not the issue

Does that clarify it any?

I get that you want State B to change their laws. Great. Fight for that. But doing so by attempting to change the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause so as to force State B to grant marriage benefits to *** couples in the hopes of forcing them to abandon their position is a crappy way of doing this.

Yeah, I agree, as I've stated before. You're arguing against "people say this..." without any people, of course. Just you and your imaginary friends.
____________________________
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.

#355 Feb 25 2015 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That is the point I'm making. You keep ignoring what I'm saying

No, I'm ignoring the part where you pretend I care about this clause that in the post you're *actually replying to* I literally said "remove it from the Constitution, I don't care". I'm not sure what a more appropriate response than ignoring that would be. I can't really force you to not pretend things are happening. I think it's pretty clear to anyone who can read that I have no interest in that method of legal attack, something I've mentioned in pretty much every post while you flounder around arguing how poor of a legal attack it would be. Not effectively, it should be noted. You don't seem to understand the Constitution very well (surprise to everyone!), but I don't really have time to clean up your rhetoric about something we're not actually arguing about.
____________________________
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.

#356 Feb 25 2015 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That's wonderful Smash. But not one word of what you just wrote addresses the issue of arguing that because State A grants a marriage license to a *** couples, and that couple moves to state B which doesn't grant licenses to *** couples, that state B should be forced to recognize that marriage as a marriage within their own state. Not. One. Word.

No, because, and I'm repeating myself here, that's not the issue.

Does the color help?

that's not the issue

Does that clarify it any?


That you've completely failed to grasp the issue? Yes.

You do get that I was the one who compared the argument for CC licenses transferring across state lines to SSM doing the same, right? That's the issue we're talking about. The argument about whether a given state should grant SSM isn't remotely part of the discussion.

That's what I'm talking about, so you responding with something completely different is silly by itself. But to then insist that what I'm talking about isn't the issue? Full on psychosis time.

Quote:
Yeah, I agree, as I've stated before. You're arguing against "people say this..." without any people, of course. Just you and your imaginary friends.


Then argue that position. Why on earth you spin off into a random tangent, I have no clue. Other than to muddle the issue with so much BS, that you hope no one will notice the gaping flaws in anything you say, I suppose. I'm just speculating though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Feb 25 2015 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You do get that I was the one who compared the argument for CC licenses transferring across state lines to SSM doing the same, right?

Sure, that's why I effortlessly dismantled it and you've been spinning your wheels for 90 posts trying to somehow cobble these two wildly disparate things together so you can call people hypocrites. When they aren't. I don't really know why. I guess you can't just say you like guns but not lesbians or whatever because your mentally ill.
____________________________
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.

#358 Feb 25 2015 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
You "dismantled" it by not actually addressing it at all, but instead changed the subject. Go you! I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Feb 26 2015 at 12:53 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?
I've been asking him that for years and he never gives an answer. Aggressively ignores that issue, one might say.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#360 Feb 26 2015 at 1:11 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I'm curious how Smash hides himself from the recent visitors. I bet he's on here hitting F5 waiting for people to post, but manages to hide it even though he's logged in ready to hit that post button.
I would assume it's related to a known issue. Sometimes people just don't show up in the visitor list, often while browsing in Incognito Mode.
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm curious how Smash hides himself from the recent visitors

SQL injection. Shhhhhh
Or, you know, Smash could just be a "1337 H4X0R!!1". Smiley: tongue



#361 Feb 26 2015 at 4:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Do states recognize other gun permits (non-CC) across each other's borders, like they do with "regular" marriage licenses?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#362 Feb 26 2015 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
So, on a slightly different yet somehow still familiar topic, a Texas politician has proposed legislation that would make it illegal for a person to use the "wrong" restroom. Right and wrong to be determined by their chromosomes. I'm not sure if you'd be tested right there at the door to the ladies' room, or what.

One look at that shirt she's wearing tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Debbie Riddle.

Makes me wonder about criminalizing women sneaking into the men's room at packed clubs, since the women's restroom is always a mob scene.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#363 Feb 26 2015 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I think politicians should be tested for mental handicaps after being elected and before being put into actual office.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#364 Feb 26 2015 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Texas also found Eddie Ray Routh, the guy who shot and killed the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle and friend guilty and didn't chuck him into Death Row.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Do states recognize other gun permits (non-CC) across each other's borders, like they do with "regular" marriage licenses?
Ownership is recognized. Open carry depends on the city and/or county.
gbaji wrote:
Why on earth you spin off into a random tangent, I have no clue.
None? Considering, as you admitted, you brought up and have been desperately trying to spin off into discussing same sex marriage instead of the actual conceal carry topic that you botched royally, one would think you'd have some clue.

Edited, Feb 26th 2015 9:34am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#365 Feb 26 2015 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Do states recognize other gun permits (non-CC) across each other's borders, like they do with "regular" marriage licenses?

Depends on the state. Needless to say, some are more permissive than others.

It's a failure of a comparison from the start though. For one thing, states don't recognize my marriage license, they recognize my marriage. My marriage license wasn't valid outside my county, much less outside my state. It gave me permission to be married within my county, which I was, and is now largely irrelevant. If Gbaji is arguing that concealed carry licenses should be treated "just like marriage licenses" then I'm all for that Smiley: laugh

But even inter-state reciprocity in things like marriages and driving privileges aren't absolute. Some states (Illinois included) don't accept marriage between first cousins even if that marriage occurred in a permissive state. Likewise, states vary on acceptance of one another's driving permits despite the fact that they originate from the same authority as licenses. My kid's permit is fine in Indiana and Ohio but suddenly becomes invalid in Pennsylvania. Also, reciprocity on drivers licenses is largely a voluntary action between states because they recognize the benefits. There are some federal boards dedicated to setting rules but most states aren't members (I assume there's also federal rules for commercial licenses under regulating interstate commerce but I'm too lazy to look). The same benefits don't exist for allowing the most permissive state to set the concealed carry requirements for the nation, thus the "conservative" demand for federal fiat, forcing states to comply. This is a little more complex and faceted than someone wants to think about though when their argument is "Just like marriages, Oh HO! I got you now!"


Edited, Feb 26th 2015 8:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#366 Feb 26 2015 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Logic
When will you ever learn?

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#367 Feb 26 2015 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Also, Comcast won't be throttling NetFlix anymore, at least not right out there in the open.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#368 Feb 27 2015 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?
I've been asking him that for years and he never gives an answer. Aggressively ignores that issue, one might say.


Um... It's a complex question fallacy (like "when did you stop beating your wife"), and thus does not deserve a response. If you ask me how I square my positions ethically, I'd be happy to answer.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#369 Feb 27 2015 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Do states recognize other gun permits (non-CC) across each other's borders, like they do with "regular" marriage licenses?

Depends on the state. Needless to say, some are more permissive than others.

It's a failure of a comparison from the start though. For one thing, states don't recognize my marriage license, they recognize my marriage. My marriage license wasn't valid outside my county, much less outside my state. It gave me permission to be married within my county, which I was, and is now largely irrelevant. If Gbaji is arguing that concealed carry licenses should be treated "just like marriage licenses" then I'm all for that Smiley: laugh


Yeah. I was trying to avoid the linguistic argument in favor of an assumption that we all understood what we were talking about regardless of whether we call the thing a permit, a status, a license, or contract. I believe I initially began by talking about the marriage status, but everyone else talked about marriage licenses, so rather than get into constant arguments over labeling, I just used the same language. Again, I'm assuming we all know we're talking about the marriage status and set of benefits such a status confers, and not the piece of paper that was signed which authorized you to obtain the status in the first place.

Quote:
But even inter-state reciprocity in things like marriages and driving privileges aren't absolute. Some states (Illinois included) don't accept marriage between first cousins even if that marriage occurred in a permissive state. Likewise, states vary on acceptance of one another's driving permits despite the fact that they originate from the same authority as licenses. My kid's permit is fine in Indiana and Ohio but suddenly becomes invalid in Pennsylvania. Also, reciprocity on drivers licenses is largely a voluntary action between states because they recognize the benefits. There are some federal boards dedicated to setting rules but most states aren't members (I assume there's also federal rules for commercial licenses under regulating interstate commerce but I'm too lazy to look). The same benefits don't exist for allowing the most permissive state to set the concealed carry requirements for the nation, thus the "conservative" demand for federal fiat, forcing states to comply. This is a little more complex and faceted than someone wants to think about though when their argument is "Just like marriages, Oh HO! I got you now!


Yup. I mentioned this earlier as well. Some things are honored, some are not. Again, I'll repeat my assertion that the side purpose of this whole exercise is to get people who might think in absolute terms about such things to realize that it's not that simple.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#370 Feb 27 2015 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Except that "concealed carry" isn't a status and marriage (after the fact) isn't a licensed permission. So comparisons between the two are immediately flawed and barely worth discussing. If we're pretending that legislation about the former is some "gotcha!" thought-experiment about the latter, that says more about the people trying to create the experiment than it does anything else.

Also, you were the first person to use the phrase "marriage license" about the topic in this thread. I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Edited, Feb 27th 2015 7:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#371 Feb 27 2015 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?
I've been asking him that for years and he never gives an answer. Aggressively ignores that issue, one might say.


gbaji wrote:
Um... It's a complex question fallacy (like "when did you stop beating your wife")
No. It's not.

gbaji wrote:
and thus does not deserve a response.
Yes. It does.


If you want to explain how you landed on the Island of Me and Money First and Fuck Everybody Else, then I'm all ears.


Edited, Feb 27th 2015 6:58pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#372 Feb 27 2015 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... It's a complex question fallacy (like "when did you stop beating your wife")
No. It's not.


Um... Yes, it is. A textbook example of one, in fact.


It meets condition (a), in case you're wondering.

Edited, Feb 27th 2015 6:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#373 Feb 27 2015 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Only if you meet the condition of having basic human empathy, which your posts here clearly show you don't, so......
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#374 Feb 27 2015 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
It has to meet both conditions (a) and (b), according to that website.

Quote:
The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that


You can answer 'I didn't', which seems to be a pretty simple thing to do. Of course, you can answer 'I never beat her in the first place' or 'I can't admit what isn't true'' etc etc. Who knows how straightforward an answer has to be to be an apparent answer.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#375 Feb 27 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
It has to meet both conditions (a) and (b), according to that website.

Quote:
The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that


You can answer 'I didn't', which seems to be a pretty simple thing to do. Of course, you can answer 'I never beat her in the first place' or 'I can't admit what isn't true'' etc etc. Who knows how straightforward an answer has to be to be an apparent answer.


Well, it kind of does. Unless he doesn't answer it. The question is "How did you?", not "Did you?". So it assumes he has, and if he answers "How" (rather than avoiding the question and saying something like "I didn't") he would be admitting to doing so...

Edited, Feb 27th 2015 10:11pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#376 Feb 27 2015 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
OK.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 240 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (240)