EPTCalling this policy "marriage" is a fucking terrible idea and confuses everyone who thinks they know what marriage is.
Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Severedevil
United States4832 Posts
Calling this policy "marriage" is a fucking terrible idea and confuses everyone who thinks they know what marriage is. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:14 Elegy wrote: Ah of course, people mis-using logical fallacies once again. I think TL should simply ban all mentions of logical fallacies because only 1-2 people on this forum have ever used them correctly. Wrong again, but you get points for trying. I remember an earlier thread about collateral damage in which I soundly disproved everything kzn said with clear logic, but he conveniently ignored it and instead tried to dispute it on some pathetic ground of definition, something I again disproved and he ignored. I think the best way to "argue" with him is in the same manner, simply by saying something is wrong and then not justifying it, maybe throwing in an incorrectly-used logical fallacy (or correctly used, yet still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand) Welcome to the internet... 1-2 people, right... Maybe we should ban for exageration too? or how about... Welcome to Internet101, rofl.... Congrats on observing the most basic of anonymous argumentative tactics. C'mon this is how it works man. (or ban me for misspelling exaggeration?) Just saying... You're stating the obvious, and those to whom your talking aren't listening. Regardless, in my opinion, the whole matter is a waste of government money and time, and a waste of media time and money. Any respectable nation wouldn't even have to talk about this. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:17 Severedevil wrote: The government (as well as its people) has a vested interested in high-quality citizens. It screens immigrants to check if they're desirable, and there's a citizenship test. We have this idea that anyone born here should automatically be a citizen, but even if we accept that framework, there's no reason the government can't incentivize the creation of more desirable citizens. Calling this policy "marriage" is a fucking terrible idea and confuses everyone who thinks they know what marriage is. This is why you, me, and kzn would make good architects for a much more simplified tax and immigration code | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: See Kant or Cummiskey if you want to see a more fleshed out rationalization for those claims. And see Machiavelli for a complete disagreement. And see Mill for a wildly different rationalized ethical view. There is nothing about Kant that makes his view any more likely to represent how things "should" be than any other view. You might not like moral skepticism, but you're going to have to accept it until you can actually overcome it. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4832 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:19 Romantic wrote: This is why you, me, and kzn would make good architects for a much more simplified tax and immigration code Maybe we should all get married! | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:14 Elegy wrote: I remember an earlier thread about collateral damage in which I soundly disproved everything kzn said with clear logic, but he conveniently ignored it and instead tried to dispute it on some pathetic ground of definition, something I again disproved and he ignored. Your delusions are cute, but not really relevant. You didn't disprove shit. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
It ain't legal in Washington. Who is volunteering for the sex change? | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:20 kzn wrote: Your delusions are cute, but not really relevant. You didn't disprove shit. Ah, but you failed to disprove what I said. Thus I win. You just can't say "durp durp durp im cool because im right-wing anarchist durp" and then not disprove what I said. Doesn't work. oh, ZOMG FALLACY WHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTT!!?!? | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:17 Severedevil wrote: The government (as well as its people) has a vested interested in high-quality citizens. It screens immigrants to check if they're desirable, and there's a citizenship test. We have this idea that anyone born here should automatically be a citizen, but even if we accept that framework, there's no reason the government can't incentivize the creation of more desirable citizens. Calling this policy "marriage" is a fucking terrible idea and confuses everyone who thinks they know what marriage is. So who exactly can tell me what marriage really is? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:23 Elegy wrote: Ah, but you failed to disprove what I said. Thus I win. You just can't say "durp durp durp im cool because im right-wing anarchist durp" and then not disprove what I said. Doesn't work. oh, ZOMG FALLACY WHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTT!!?!? Yeah I pretty much win this argument already. That was easy. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
Then you make a one-liner post attempting to take the moral high ground when its clear that you failed to respond to the points in contention, as you have done once again Boy, that was easy. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:26 Elegy wrote: I make a unjustified claim. Fixed and removed irrelevant parts. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On a final note, I find it interesting how you can claim my point is unjustified when you failed utterly to respond to the justification itself, making any post of yours, sadly, irrelevant. If you can't understand such a basic concept... | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:32 Elegy wrote: He does it again, fails to respond to the issue in contention. As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I think I'll stop raising my post count in this thread. On a final note, I find it interesting how you can claim my point is unjustified when you failed utterly to respond to the justification itself, making any post of yours, sadly, irrelevant. If you can't understand such a basic concept... And you've made the same post 4 times in 1.1 page. Get off your high horse. ROFL Like you or them have the most compelling arguments in the subject, or as if you're actually working to accomplish anything. How about we stay on topic? Or atleast just link us all to your respective theses and stay on topic? The least you could both do is mention the respective philosophers your 'supporting' cause we both know this isn't your original thought. Or maybe you could at the least address his grievances? He is atleast attacking something you said, your just saying ROFL look what he said. C'mon, gonna argue against logical fallacies and then high horse it up like a pious? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:32 Elegy wrote: He does it again, fails to respond to the issue in contention. As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I think I'll stop raising my post count in this thread. On a final note, I find it interesting how you can claim my point is unjustified when you failed utterly to respond to the justification itself, making any post of yours, sadly, irrelevant. If you can't understand such a basic concept... The issue in contention? Your contention has to do with a thread that I stopped posting in weeks ago, mostly because I got bored of repeating my argument when you failed to grasp it over and over. I'm not going to go hunt down the entire thread and start linking people to it so they can make their own decision. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
Go us. California is the kingpin state of the union. RAWR! | ||
|
SkyLegenD
United States304 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The only difference between a republic and a direct democracy is that a republic is composed of direct democracies. If the people are unfit to make legislation, democratic government of any kind will inevitably fail. [edit] Granted that it sounds like you're supporting a form of republicanism which basically hands dictatorial power to an unelected branch of government, so it wouldn't fail in that case. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote: Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism. The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. | ||
| ||
