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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

…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.

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.

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?

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.

But you don’t join the military to join George’s excellent adventure in Iraq. Interesting. Hypocrite much?