Goracle!
» Breaking News
Crystal Gunns/Louisa C. Tuck: School Pressured To Fire Porn Star Turned Lunch Lady
Amber Lynn [Breaking Beauty]
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
I commented over at Crooks and Liars the other day about this. As with Global Warming, the Iraq War, and a bunch of other stuff, Gore lives up to the Goracle nickname again.
I think this is a political winner for the Dem nominee (obviously Repubs can’t take this position–they’d lose the critical Asshole Vote).
It may have to be framed just right, involve some admission of being wrong in the past, and timed just so, but it’s a Post Will & Grace World. People and The Press would rightfully admire any candidate who took this position.
It’s very easy for the ‘Goracle’ (cripes what a stupid nickname) to take such positions now that he’s no longer in office. I really don’t see what the big deal is.
Yeah, Gore was just a bandwagon jumper when he spoke out against an Iraq invasion in the fall of ‘02. How’d that work out, anyway? You’re not in office, what were your Iraq War positions and predictions? Have they changed?
I still say it’s a political winner for the Dem nominee. Whoever that is may be too chickenshit to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a winner. Many Dems were too chicken to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing….
And Jay, what do you think? Should Republicans support Gay Marriage? Is that the right thing to do?
ed, for you (and Gore) to have been “right” about Iraq means Saddam would still be in power.
And if Gore’s “right” about Global Warming, than by his own admission, he’s doing 100X more to destroy the planet than the average citizen. Forgive me if I don’t bow to his omniciensce.
My bad, the Iraq War is totally Teh Awesome. Good catch SaveFarris. And thanks for your continued service to our country. And no fags getting married either–my bad!
“ed, for you (and Gore) to have been “right” about Iraq means Saddam would still be in power.”
And if Regan wasn’t a fucking idiot and the first Bush hadn’t been a liar, that wouldn’t have been a problem.
By the way, Saddam would have stepped down and accepted exile for less money than it cost the United States spends in a week there. And you wouldn’t have had all those dead Iraqis and American soldiers. And you wouldn’t have the economic crisis right now. And you would have had enough troops in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from growing in strength. Maybe even enough troops to catch Bin Laden.
“And if Gore’s “right” about Global Warming, than by his own admission, he’s doing 100X more to destroy the planet than the average citizen. Forgive me if I don’t bow to his omniciensce.”
Kind of ironic that you misspelled, ‘omniscience.’
Pretty much tells you as much as you need to know.
Fucking sub-human troglodyte.
Kind of ironic that you misspelled, ‘omniscience.’ Pretty much tells you as much as you need to know.
Hey stupid, it’s Reagan, not Regan.
Fucking sub-human troglodyte.
And you’re a chicken-shit punk that talks like a tough guy, anonymously from behind a computer screen. Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term “bitch-slap” in your sleep for a month.
The only time Algore has ever been animated was on Futurama. He’s a real credit to conservatives illuminating folly because he’s such a multi-faceted fool.
“Caught making campaign finance calls from the White House, something that is against the law, Gore declared that there was ‘no controlling legal authority’ regarding this improper behavior. Like any longtime legislator, he knew federal law prohibits soliciting campaign funds in a federal building”.
The only hot air we need worry about is what erupts from this dangerous, sanctimonious liar.
As for the poo-pushers, there’s no good reason for society to alter its entire legal and moral framework doing backflips to satisfy 7% of the population, 7% who wouldn’t even exist if their parents weren’t straight.
I could compose a witty response, but it would never be as appropriate as simply saying: bite me, you bigoted talking-points blob.
By the way, Saddam would have stepped down and accepted exile for less money than it cost the United States spends in a week there.
And you know this … how? I know, I know: dictators relenquish all their power without so much as a harsh word ALL THE TIME!!! How silly of me…
As for the rest, I guess I’m right on the issues. Because your only response was to make fun of my spelllyng and call me obscene names.
Classy!!!
“And you’re a chicken-shit punk that talks like a tough guy, anonymously from behind a computer screen. Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term “bitch-slap” in your sleep for a month.”
You know what? I’m not scared of you.
And for all of your complaints about me acting like an Internet Tough Guy, you actually posted physical threats against me.
That makes you a hypocrite as well as a sub-human moron.
Me: “By the way, Saddam would have stepped down and accepted exile for less money than it cost the United States spends in a week there.”
SaveFarris: “And you know this … how?”
I know this cause I read. I don’t rely on Fox News and others for my news.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/11/03/2003278553
SF: “How silly of me…”
Yes, how silly of you.
SF: “As for the rest, I guess I’m right on the issues. Because your only response was to make fun of my spelllyng and call me obscene names.
Classy!!!”
I call you sub-human, because you are. You are less than human.
As for your claims, I’ll deal with then when you present evidence. Otherwise there’s no need to argue them.
As for the poo-pushers, there’s no good reason for society to alter its entire legal and moral framework doing backflips to satisfy 7% of the population, 7% who wouldn’t even exist if their parents weren’t straight.
(1) Lesbians are gay, too, and don’t exactly fit your silly little slurs.
(2) Accepting gay marriage is not altering the “entire legal and moral framework.” In fact, it only alters one part of the law, which won’t actually affect straight people, unless you’re one of those straight people who somehow think their own marriage will be invalid because two gay people can do it too.
(3) The “good reason” to do this is that it’s wrong to engender legal superiority in a democratic society. You don’t want gay people to marry, then fine. Give up all the rights you have as a straight spouse, first.
You know what? I’m not scared of you.
So what?
And for all of your complaints about me acting like an Internet Tough Guy
I didn’t complain about it. I just stated you’re a big pussy for doing it and that’s a fact.
you actually posted physical threats against me.
Report me then.
That makes you a hypocrite as well as a sub-human moron.
Whatever you say coward.
As for Al Gore, when he was running for President he was opposed to gay marriage and said he supported President Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Now he says he supports gay marriage. Like I said, it’s easier to take a view outside the mainstream when you’re not in office or running for office. So let’s not start handing out awards for him espousing such views now.
ed, for you (and Gore) to have been “right” about Iraq means Saddam would still be in power.
This would be such a bad thing? I realize you take it as read that the world would be a horrible nasty joyless place if Saddam we’re still in power, but do you have any evidence that this is the case? I mean right now our goal is to get the citizens of Iraq back to the relative stability of how things were toward the end of his rule, and considering how monumentously the threat he posed to us was overstated, is it not possible that the citizens of Iraq and we ourselves might not just be slightly better off if we hadn’t invaded?
And if Gore’s “right” about Global Warming, than by his own admission, he’s doing 100X more to destroy the planet than the average citizen.
Ah, this delicious shit again, Gore’s flown in a plane, therefore all the emissions from it are his fault alone. Also those of the vehicles that taxied it on the runway, the tankers that shipped the fuel, the refineries that processed oil into fuel, all of it is Gore’s personal fault for not touring the country in a hot air baloon, so therefore he’s consciously trying to destroy the environment by promoting a movie about conservation.
Why, did you know his house used to use 12 times as much electricity as the Average Tennessee home? And is 4 times as big as one? And due to his personal secret service detail among other things has sgnificantly more people using more of that electricity more often than most of those homes as well? Why that means he’s guzzling electricity at a rate of (lets see, 12 times the electricity divided by 4 equivalent houses by at least twice as many people…) a billion-finity times as much as the rest of the world does! Oh sure he says he’s made his house more green in a remodeling process that begun long before that study a year ago from the Tennessee Center for Finding Absolutely Anything to Try and Make Al Gore Look Bad, but dont you see, its all a coverup! Al Gore is secretly plotting the destruction of the Sun!!!1!1!!!!one!1!!eleven!!!11!llll1l1l1l1l1!!!!!!!
In all seriousness though (or as much as I can pretend you’re worth) I like the “his own admission” part though, and I presume you have the actual quote that your statement references where he actually says “I am personally doing 100 times more than the average citizen to destroy the planet,” right? I mean otherwise that would kind of make you a disengenuous piece of shit, and we both know thats not possible, right?
Actually, a society should alter whatever part of its legal framework is necessary to avoid inflicting a meaningless, cruel and inefficient restraint on the liberty and lives of its citizens. That is, unless “freedom” is just something that hyper-patriotic chest-beaters say to themselves when they are beating something other than their chests.
“I just stated you’re a big pussy for doing it [acting like a tough guy on the internet] and that’s a fact.”
“Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term ‘bitch-slap’ in your sleep for a month.”
Fun with Syllogisms
Jay Statement 1: All tough guys on the internet are, factually, pussies.
Jay Statement 2: I, Jay, am tough, and am also on the internet.
Logical Jay Conclusion: … oh, you know I think I’m gonna let you fill in the blank here yourself friend, would you care to tell the class what you’ve just said you are?
Also, my link above isnt working for me, dont know if is is for anyone else, but here’s the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html
Actually, a society should alter whatever part of its legal framework is necessary to avoid inflicting a meaningless, cruel and inefficient restraint on the liberty and lives of its citizens.
Nobody’s liberty is being restrained because they’re not allowed to legally marry.
Rex, I’m not hiding behind an anonymous identity. THAT’S the difference between me and somebody like CS Coward. It’s also the reason why you don’t see me calling people “fucking sub-human troglodytes” like he does. It’s very easy to tell people to “shut the fuck up” and call people “sub-human” when you operate anonymously. It would be better if some here that are left of center would call him out on using such language (to my knowledge, he’s the only one, left or right that is forever doing it), but that might be asking too much.
Nobody’s liberty is being restrained because they’re not allowed to legally marry.
Oh yeah? Gay guy’s in the hospital, they only allow family in to visit, his partner is, in fact, allowed to see him? This is fascinating, and must be true across the country or otherwise you wouldn’t have said what you just did, right?
Homosexual partners actually can share medical plans in spite of not having any connection in the eyes of the law, right? My word, I’ve been decieved by all those gays who must have been lying when they said otherwise, yes?
Among the 1,138 other Govt. incentives toward marriage (as per a 2004 CBO study), West Virginia gives married couples a $100 cash incentive to get married, and this, in fact, doesnt amount to welfare for straight people at the expense of gays who, feeling no restraining of liberty as you say, Jay, presumably must pay fewer taxes or something to even it out, right? Gotta be, right?
Wow, thats a relief, otherwise it would look kinda silly for you all to keep fighting to preserve the sanctity of Rush Limbaugh’s third divorce and everything. Load off my mind, man.
It would be better if some here that are left of center would call him out on using such language…
Fair enough. C.S.? Yeah, the whole thing with calling Ferris a SubHuman Troglodyte for misspelling Omniscience (in a comment that itself misspelled Reagan no less) you kinda come off like a toolbox. I mean I like you and its not like I’m personally offended, just that whenever that sort of thing happens these threads tend to devolve into insults about insults and “no man I’M a kick YOUR ass” prickwaving. And while I realize there may be some here who disagree, I’m sure we’d all at least like to think we’re above that kinda crap.
Now, thats 4 comments in an hour, I should probably get back to pretending to work for a little while at least.
Jay: “Rex, I’m not hiding behind an anonymous identity.”
Really? Then what’s you last name.
Jay: “It would be better if some here that are left of center would call him out on using such language”
Fuck. Shit. Damn. Asshole. Dickhead. Crack-Smoking Donkey Fucker.
These are just words. They are only considered forbidden because of a social constraint that has its basis in the fear of witchcraft and sorcery.
Seriously. ‘Fuck’ is considered a naughty word because at one time it was thought that if you said the right syllables in the right order, you could cast real magical spells. That’s why it is still referred to as, ‘cursing.’
(Also, they refer to chicken meat as light and dark because it was considered impolite to say breast or thigh, even when you were talking about chicken meat.)
Since I am not stupid enough to believe in magic, or repressed enough to consider sex a bad thing, I think it is pointless to restrict the words I used because someone does.
Rex: “Yeah, the whole thing with calling Ferris a SubHuman Troglodyte for misspelling Omniscience…”
That’s not why I did it. I call SaveFarris, Jay, Jay Tea and others Subhuman, because they are.
For instance, when confronted with the facts that universal, or socialized medicine would save money and lives, Jay said he was still against it because of political philosophy. He put his political philosophy over the lives of other people. You can’t be human and think that way.
I’ve dealt with SaveFarris so many times where he has proven he isn’t worth treating with even the minimum level of respect.
Rex: “…just that whenever that sort of thing happens these threads tend to devolve into insults about insults and ‘no man I’M a kick YOUR ass’ prickwaving.”
I will admit to the insults, but I don’t think I’ve ever threatened anyone here.
Now Rex, hold on. Everything you’re talking about has nothing to do with ‘liberty.’ People need to separate conversations about tax issues, hospital visitations, and medical coverage when it comes to gay marriage because none of that has to do with liberty. Paying lower taxes, sharing a health care plan, and visiting somebody in a hospital are not rights we have that mandate government protection.
I think gay marriage advocates would make their case much easier if they were to get past all of the hyperbole and just make the case that they want the same advantages that those in heterosexual marriage enjoy (”I want that hundred bucks they get in WV and want to be the beneficiary of my husbands $255 one time payout from Social Security when he passes.”), they’d have an easier time convincing people. But when they get melodramatic, it turns people off.
For instance, when confronted with the facts that universal, or socialized medicine would save money and lives, Jay said he was still against it because of political philosophy. He put his political philosophy over the lives of other people. You can’t be human and think that way.
Oh please. First of all, I’m certain I didn’t say I was opposed to it in the way you put it, and secondly, you’re thinking is ridiculously simplistic.
I could turn around and say, “We need to ban all forms of motorized transport except for emergency vehicles, law enforcement and military vehicles. After all, it would save nearly 50,000 lives per year. And if you’re opposed to it, then you’re just sub-human scum because no person can be human and think that way!”
See how absurd that sounds? Your view on universal health-care is no better.
I’m gone for 3 hours and a flame war breaks out? Sweet!
CS: Saddam’s got a worse track record when it comes to lying than does Clinton (or Bush, for that matter.) Just because he said it, you’re going to believe him? The article you cite stresses that there is ZERO evidence to back up the claim. But a proven liar says so, and that’s proof enough in your book: whatever.
I’m so sub-humanly troglodyte-ish that my very existence is proof enough of your claim? Funny, I didn’t know sub-human troglodytes could, you know, read and post and stuff.
You’re gonna have to do better than that. (Like I said, can’t compete on the issues…)
Rex: Gore can fly in as many planes and run the air conditioner at his mega-mansion 24/7/366 for all I care. Laissez les Bons Temps Rouler!
It’s when he starts to lecture me (by which I mean society) that *I* have to re-arrange my life or have the blood of 6 billion people on my hands that I tend to say “Hey, wait a minute. Why don’t YOU cut down first and then we’ll talk.” If this is SUCH a crisis, you think he’d take his own advice and walk the walk.
And yes, getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD thing. The people of Iraq no longer have the Sword of Damocles hanging precariously over their necks (Baghdad wasn’t exactly the kite-flying utopia anti-war’ers want to make it out to be.)
Everything you’re talking about has nothing to do with ‘liberty.’
A gay man is not free to enjoy the same benefits that he would if he were a straight man. 50 years ago a black man was not free to enjoy the same benefits that he would if he were a white man. Apples and Oranges, I agree, but both are fruit, and if the one is an issue of liberty then so too is the others.
Moreso on the gov’t incentive side in fact, I could argue. Say we have Steve and Gary, who are respectively Straight and Gay. Both make the same salary and pay the same taxes and thats fine, but Steve, being straight, can recieve certain benefits for being monogamous that Gary cannot. Gary is arguably seeing less return for his taxes than if he were straight, and as a result is experiencing a net loss of funds. Less funds which make him less free to do what he would prefer with that money if he had it. (You know that whole Money=Freedom, Taxes=Oppression thing the anti-tax crowd keeps on about? I don’t really agree with that hyperbole but its basically what I’m going for here) To force the gay man to recieve less return for his taxes simply because he’s gay is, in that context, an issue of liberty, to say nothing of justice.
But when they get melodramatic, it turns people off.
Scientific Fact: Did you know the average homosexual male is 75% Drama by volume? It am being true!
Anydangway, I don’t really think so, people are coming around either in spite or because of how they’re framing this as a civil rights issue. Course I suppose former senator Rick “Mmm, Frothy” Santorum and his Man-On-Dog ilk help a bit too.
If this is SUCH a crisis, you think he’d take his own advice and walk the walk.
Again: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html
He was and has been doing it since before you people had been making such an obscene stink about it. I even point directly to an article that explains as much, and you, what, intentionally ignored it because the facts would have gotten in the way of your pathological need to complain? What are you, some sort of subhuman troglodyte or something?
…oh dear god what have I done?
And yes, getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD thing. The people of Iraq no longer have the Sword of Damocles hanging precariously over their necks.(Baghdad wasn’t exactly the kite-flying utopia anti-war’ers want to make it out to be.)
…okay I asked for evidence and you respond with mythological anecdote. One you clearly don’t even understand to use it like that. The Sword was all Damocles could look at during his King for a Day sting unter Dionysius and could enjoy none of the bountiful pleasures of food and flesh perpetually offerred to him. Now, not only did the Iraqi people not enjoy god-like power or authority under Saddam’s dictatorial rule, but as you just fscking stated, Iraq was hardly a utopia for them to enjoy if only Saddam were removed. Damocles is a parable about being too in love with power without considering the consequences such power would bring. Put another way, being in love with the idea of invading Iraq and “fixing” it without planning at all for the post war responsibility.
Breifly stated, Ferris, not only have you failed to offer proof of your theory, but in your pathetic belief that you could win through allegory, you just argued against your own fucking point.
http://youlose.ytmnd.com/
(P.S. how the hell does Wordpress comments handle Links if not through “a href”?)
“If this is SUCH a crisis, you think he’d take his own advice and walk the walk.”
But you don’t join the military to join George’s excellent adventure in Iraq. Interesting. Hypocrite much?
A gay man is not free to enjoy the same benefits that he would if he were a straight man. 50 years ago a black man was not free to enjoy the same benefits that he would if he were a white man. Apples and Oranges, I agree, but both are fruit, and if the one is an issue of liberty then so too is the others.
Can’t agree with that Rex, sorry. 50 years ago in this country a black man could be prevented from voting, had to ride in the back of the bus, go to different movie theaters, drink from different water fountains and be denied entry to an eating establishment. I could never even begin to imagine how something like that could have felt. That’s aside from the fact that blacks had a much tougher time getting justice in the court system at that time.
Nobody can, with any degree of intellectual honesty make the claim that gay Americans suffer the same level of bigotry because they’re missing out on a supposed tax benefit or hospital visitation.
As for your example, it doesn’t fly. There are a lot of people that benefit from certain tax laws that others do not. What if Gary owned his own home while Steve rented even though the mortgage and rent payments were the same? Gary would benefit from the mortgage interest deduction and Steve would not. Is somebody ready to go out and fight for the liberty of renters?
As for the melodrama, I specifically talked about “gay marriage advocates”, not homosexuals. Unless Al Gore isn’t telling us something, I would say he’s an advocated of gay marriage.
You can’t tell a gay person just from looking. That’s how they get away with the bus thing.
What if Gary owned his own home while Steve rented even though the mortgage and rent payments were the same?
But theres nothing legally preventing Steve from owning his own home though. Steve is free to Own a Home, Gary is not free to Marry.
Nobody can, with any degree of intellectual honesty make the claim that gay Americans suffer the same level of bigotry because they’re missing out on a supposed tax benefit or hospital visitation.
I wasn’t trying to directly equate the two. I did, in fact, say I realized they were Apples and Oranges in terms of the degree of one persecution vs another and was not trying to minimize the one or aggrandize the other, merely to suggest they are similar in principle.
Here’s a thought experiment for you then. Lets say we want to go a few generations back for how we define “traditional” marriage and decide that only white people can be married and blacks can’t. As a result of this single unnecessary prohibition black couples are prevented from taking advantage of those same benefits that gay couples currently. They ask why they cannot wed, and are given tortuous interpretations of scripture, told their lifestyle is immoral, and not explicitly prohibiting their monogamy in a constitutional amendment would directly lead to dogs raping babies. Can you imagine the offense to the U.S. black community? Can you imagine them acting in any other way than by fighting as hard and loud as possible?
Can you imagine yourself then calling their actions “melodramatic” since they are only “missing out on a supposed tax benefit or hospital visitation?”
What then makes it okay to deny marriage to gays because they’re gay, but not to blacks because they’re black?
But theres nothing legally preventing Steve from owning his own home though. Steve is free to Own a Home, Gary is not free to Marry.
Good point.
What then makes it okay to deny marriage to gays because they’re gay, but not to blacks because they’re black?
First of all, let me repeat that I am on record as being supportive of civil unions. ‘Marriage’ in my view is not even something the government should involve themselves in as it is largely a religious institution. The legal protections themselves can be carried out through civil unions.
That being said, the difference between the gay couple and the black man and white woman is that we’re talking about a heterosexual marriage and a gay marriage. Societal norms often come into play with regard such institutions and through the history in this country, marriage is seen as that between a man and a woman who are not related. Throughout history we have seen societies where people have been married as early as 13 years of age. That’s not something we allow in the United States. Nor do we allow a man or woman to have more than one spouse. Marriage between brothers and sisters is prohibited though it was common in Ancient Egypt and amongst Incans.
First of all, let me repeat that I am on record as being supportive of civil unions.
…this… actually changes how I was approaching this debate and I thank you for clarifying it. Man this is like the third time this has happened where you and I aren’t having the argument I think we’re having.
That being said, the difference between the gay couple and the black man and white woman is that we’re talking about a heterosexual marriage and a gay marriage. Societal norms often come into play with regard such institutions…
Presuming the two gay men were white though, you could make the same sort of differentiation phrasing the heterogenous coupling as “normal” and the mixed race couple as not. The problem is the idea of the Societal Norm as any kind of rubrick to judge how we should behave toward one another, and a lot of injustice has been done to different groups in the name of that sort of Normalcy.
As an example I would point out I wasn’t initially talking about banning interracial couples but blacks from marrying other blacks, as would have been the “Societal Norm” in an age when they were considered property and not people, which itself is another injustice perpetuated simply because it was the “Societal Norm.” Our laws should not concern themselves with how we’ve always behaved but how we should behave, and not what is familiar but what is just.
However, I’m basically going to stop arguing since it seems we, in principle, agree that gays deserve the same rights and monogamy-incentives as straight people, though we’re quibbling on CivUnion v Marriage terminology and how best then to achieve this equality. I’d personally go a bit further to erase the distinction and simply have the law recognize both gay and straight marriages as “Civil Unions” to remove the religious terminology from the law’s purview altogether, and if the people involved want to call it Marriage they’re certainly free to.
Jay: “Oh please. First of all, I’m certain I didn’t say I was opposed to it in the way you put it,”
What you are certain of and reality are not always the same thing.
Jay: “and secondly, you’re thinking is ridiculously simplistic.”
And you would know simplistic.
Jay: “I could turn around and say, ‘We need to ban all forms of motorized transport except for emergency vehicles, law enforcement and military vehicles. After all, it would save nearly 50,000 lives per year. And if you’re opposed to it, then you’re just sub-human scum because no person can be human and think that way!’”
Wow. That’s a fucking stupid analogy. You are comparing having a car to not having proper health insurance. There is a benefit to having a car, there is no benefit to having no health insurance.
And you wonder why I insult you.
Seriously… If you don’t like me calling you subhuman, act like a human. There’s plant life that could out smart you.
SaveFarris: “Saddam’s got a worse track record when it comes to lying than does Clinton (or Bush, for that matter.)”
But he’s more trustworthy than you are. Yes, even after he was hanged, he still had a better grasp on truth than you do.
Case in point…
“It’s when he starts to lecture me (by which I mean society) that *I* have to re-arrange my life or have the blood of 6 billion people on my hands”
You are such a goddamn liar.
Gore doesn’t say that, he says we need to be more energy efficient and find cleaner sources of fuel.
You are unwilling or unable to participate in an intellectually honest debate. This is why I call you subhuman.
For Jay and his deliberate ignorance:
Some legal rights and priveleges of marriage (may vary from state to state)
joint parenting
joint adoption
next-of-kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions
joint insurance policies, home, health, auto
dissolution and divorce protections (property, child custody)
Immigration and residency
Inheritance in the absence of a will
Inheritance of joint property through right of survivorship
Benefits such as annuities, Social Security, Medicare
Veteran’s discounts
Joint filing of customs claims
Wrongful death benefits
Bereavement or sick leave
Disposal of remains
Crime victim’s recovery benefits
Domestic Violence protections
Judicial and evidentiary protections
The question isn’t whether prohibiting gay marriage is a restriction of liberty, because, by definition, it obviously is, but whether it’s a reasonable restriction of liberty. I don’t see any reason why the government should restrict homosexuals from being able to legally marry for any reason other than RELIGIOUS beliefs and bigotry, which have no business in government in the first place.
Wow. That’s a fucking stupid analogy. You are comparing having a car to not having proper health insurance.
No stupid. I am showing you how absurd it is to say that if you’re opposed to something that would “save lives”, it makes you sub-human. It’s not a comparison, it’s an illustration. Cripes.
Me: “Wow. That’s a fucking stupid analogy. You are comparing having a car to not having proper health insurance.”
Jay: “No stupid. I am showing you how absurd it is to say that if you’re opposed to something that would “save lives”, it makes you sub-human. It’s not a comparison, it’s an illustration. Cripes.”
It’s a stupid analogy and you are a stupid person for thinking it’s a compelling argument. I don’t know how I can dumb this down for you without breaking out the finger paints.
You compared universal health care to banning cars, motorcycles, etc. And yes, you did compare the two.
Of course, you are so dumb, you think the point you are actually making is…’ just saying something saves lives doesn’t make it right.’ However, that is a strawman attack. I.E. a lie. No one is arguing that. No one is saying every place that can be shown to save some lives is good.
Universal health care saves lives, saves money, and you are against it because it contradicts your political philosophy. You think that the government shouldn’t get involved in health care because the health and welfare of its citizens is outside the scope of what government should with. And again, this is a stupid thing to think, and you are a stupid person for thinking it.
It’s a stupid analogy
It wasn’t an analogy. Learn something.
and you are a stupid person for thinking it’s a compelling argument.
It wasn’t a compelling argument because I wasn’t making an ‘argument.’ For me to have been making an argument would have meant that I was serious about banning all forms of motorized transportation. Clearly I was not doing that.
However, that is a strawman attack. I.E. a lie. No one is arguing that. No one is saying every place that can be shown to save some lives is good.
First of all, a strawman argument is not a lie. Secondly, you did argue that being opposed to universal health care because it “saves lives” makes a person less than human. That’s what you said, so don’t try and gloss it over now.
It’s a bogus argument and it’s a logical fallacy because it is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. This is what you do. You can’t debate issues on the merits or the facts so you resort to stupid shit like calling people “Fucking sub-human troglodytes.” That makes a coward, but also an intellectual coward. And with that I’m done with you. I had an ignore switch for another bottom feeder that used to hang around here and I’ve put in a new one just for you. This way I can limit my discussions to people like Spider and Rex who I will disagree strongly with, but can discuss an issue intelligently.
“It wasn’t an analogy. Learn something.”
Yes is was, Jay.
You were comparing that argument to mine to show why both were faulty, so it was an analogy.
“It wasn’t a compelling argument because I wasn’t making an ‘argument.’”
Yes you were, Jay.
You were offering that analogy as evidence that your position is valid, which is the definition of an argument. (At least one of the definitions.)
“First of all, a strawman argument is not a lie.”
Yes it is, Jay.
A strawman argument is when you create a false version of your opponent’s argument and defeat it instead of the real argument. In other words, you lie about what your opponent is really saying.
Perhaps you need to invest in a dictionary.
“Secondly, you did argue that being opposed to universal health care because it “saves lives” makes a person less than human. That’s what you said, so don’t try and gloss it over now.”
Actually, I argued that if you were opposed to a health care system that would save lives and save money because it conflicted with your political philosophy, then you were less than human. You left out three key details: 1.) There is currently a health care system, 2.) The costs of the health care system would by substantially less, 3.) The opposition to this new health care system is based on political philosophy.
Since you lied about my position, the rest of your argument is null and void.
“This is what you do. You can’t debate issues on the merits or the facts so you resort to stupid shit like calling people ‘Fucking sub-human troglodytes.’”
Jay, you were wrong about everything in your post. Simple definition allude you. You lie, repeatedly. You are incapable of conducting an intellectually honest debate because you don’t have the intellect or the honesty to do so. If you don’t want me to call you sub-human, don’t act sub-human.
Now, isn’t it about time you ran away from this thread?
And you’re a chicken-shit punk that talks like a tough guy, anonymously from behind a computer screen. Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term “bitch-slap” in your sleep for a month.
And you headbutt polar bears in half, right Jay?
Rex, I’m not hiding behind an anonymous identity. THAT’S the difference between me and somebody like CS Coward.
It’s cowardice to hide one’s identity because we know that commit identity theft or go to our houses and kill our family or whatever it is internet psychopaths like you do?
It would be better if some here that are left of center would call him out on using such language (to my knowledge, he’s the only one, left or right that is forever doing it), but that might be asking too much.
He does it because whenever he tried to confront you on your falsehoods, you would run with your tail between your legs. Can’t say I entirely blame him.
Can’t agree with that Rex, sorry. 50 years ago in this country a black man could be prevented from voting, had to ride in the back of the bus, go to different movie theaters, drink from different water fountains and be denied entry to an eating establishment. I could never even begin to imagine how something like that could have felt. That’s aside from the fact that blacks had a much tougher time getting justice in the court system at that time.
Nobody can, with any degree of intellectual honesty make the claim that gay Americans suffer the same level of bigotry because they’re missing out on a supposed tax benefit or hospital visitation.
So…what you’re saying is that gays don’t get the same rights as heterosexuals because they haven’t suffered enough? Do you have some sort of graph or flow-chart that shows how much of what type of suffering a minority has to go through before they are afforded certain rights? And if so, could you e-mail it to me? My address is zython@gmail.com .
I could turn around and say, “We need to ban all forms of motorized transport except for emergency vehicles, law enforcement and military vehicles. After all, it would save nearly 50,000 lives per year. And if you’re opposed to it, then you’re just sub-human scum because no person can be human and think that way!”
Hmm…
It wasn’t an analogy. Learn something.
analogy
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
That seems to fit the bill. Maybe you should retake 7th grade English.
It wasn’t a compelling argument because I wasn’t making an ‘argument.’ For me to have been making an argument would have meant that I was serious about banning all forms of motorized transportation. Clearly I was not doing that.
So what WAS the purpose of that paragraph, then? To test your keyboard?
Jay: “Rex, I’m not hiding behind an anonymous identity. THAT’S the difference between me and somebody like CS Coward.”
Zython: “It’s cowardice to hide one’s identity because we know that commit identity theft or go to our houses and kill our family or whatever it is internet psychopaths like you do?”
I love how he makes this claim, and has done so previously. However, he’s only given us Jay as his name. Which could be his first name, or even just an initial.
As I’ve pointed out in the past, C.S.Strowbridge is my name. It is not an pseudonym. It is how I sign legal documents.
Of course when I asked for Jay’s last name, he ignored me.
Zython: “He does it because whenever he tried to confront you on your falsehoods, you would run with your tail between your legs. Can’t say I entirely blame him.”
We have a winner!
I can debate people in whatever style they want, and with as much respect as they deserve. As soon as you show that you are unwilling to debate in an intellectually honest way, I will treat you accordingly. And I believe in being blunt. Hiding behind flowery words when insulting someone is dishonest.
His last name is Jay Caruso, he advertises his ignorance in a lot of different places.
He’s threatening people, he’s challenging them to fights, he’s turned into Frank. I wonder if he dates trannies, then the metamorphoses will be complete.
“His last name is Jay Caruso, he advertises his ignorance in a lot of different places.”
Caruso? He’s not related to David Caruso, is he? That’s the only way I could hate him more. The squint / squat method of acting just baffles me.
go to our houses and kill our family or whatever it is internet psychopaths like you do?
Heh. I’m an “internet psychopath” now. That’s the first I ever heard that accusation. Funny.
He does it because whenever he tried to confront you on your falsehoods, you would run with your tail between your legs. Can’t say I entirely blame him.
Riiiight. Considering his ‘confrontations’ consist of nothing but namecalling, calling people liars and telling people to “shut the fuck up”, there isn’t much to say. Of course, it says a lot about you for defending his nonsense.
So…what you’re saying is that gays don’t get the same rights as heterosexuals because they haven’t suffered enough?
Uh no. I said exactly what I wrote. Learn to read for content.
That seems to fit the bill.
No, it doesn’t fit the bill.
Illustration: An example intended for explanation
It’s not an analogy because the example I used is fictitious (unless there is some idiot out there calling for a ban on all motorized vehicles) so there’s nothing ‘real’ to compare. Understand? The example was given to show how ASININE the mindset is to accuse somebody of being ’sub-human’ because they may be opposed to something that “saves lives.” I’m going to charge for the next debate class.
EL, I didn’t threaten anybody, nor did I challenge anybody to a fight. I just don’t have much use for people that act like bullies from behind a computer screen nor do anything but call people names.
Hell, scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread. In his first comment he’s calling Farris a “Fucking sub-human troglodyte.”
Look at this thread here. His first comment is:
“Wow, matt621, are you trying to prove you are moke fucking retarded than Jay? If so, you are off to a great start.
The house collapse was an issue for many, many years now and has zero to do with the minimum wage increase.
So kindly go fuck yourself and come back only when you have the ability to debate.”
This is his MO on just about EVERY THREAD he responds in. He attempts to bring the discussion into the gutter. But of course, nobody is going to call him out on such crap because “He’s on our side!”
“Illustration: An example intended for explanation
It’s not an analogy because the example I used is fictitious (unless there is some idiot out there calling for a ban on all motorized vehicles)”
Holy shit, Jay. You just don’t fucking get it. You brought up an example as a comparison. You said, in effect, ‘Just as the car argument is faulty, so is yours.’ That is the fucking definition of an analogy, you illiterate prick.
“The example was given to show how ASININE the mindset…”
And you did that by comparing to things you thought were similar, which is a fucking analogy.
Seriously, Jay. It’s time for you to run away. You’ve lost this argument and now you are only making a fool of yourself.
“EL, I didn’t threaten anybody, nor did I challenge anybody to a fight.”
You are a liar.
And you’re a chicken-shit punk that talks like a tough guy, anonymously from behind a computer screen. Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term “bitch-slap” in your sleep for a month.
That’s a threat.
“Look at this thread here. His first comment is:”
And look at Matt’s first comment…
Do you see anything, and I mean anything that suggests he had any desire or ability to debate here?
It’s not like he brought up a reasonable point in a respectful way and I attacked he. He started out acting like a ignorant jackass and I was only too happy to treat him like one.
Uh no. I said exactly what I wrote. Learn to read for content.
Translation: “I lost the chart.”
(unless there is some idiot out there calling for a ban on all motorized vehicles)
You and I both know of the vast quantities of stupid the internet can hold. You could probably find someone saying just that if you look hard enough.
EL, I didn’t threaten anybody, nor did I challenge anybody to a fight.
Uh…earlier, you wrote:
Man, what I wouldn’t give for five minutes to see you in person. You’d hear the term “bitch-slap” in your sleep for a month.
As you were saying?
This is his MO on just about EVERY THREAD he responds in. He attempts to bring the discussion into the gutter.
Like I said, he started doing this after getting fed up with your hit and run debate “tactic”.
But of course, nobody is going to call him out on such crap because “He’s on our side!”
Hey, I never said I condoned this, I just said I can empathize with his frustration.