Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 15th, 2008, 06:50 PM       
*snip* Double post.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
ZeldaQueen ZeldaQueen is offline
Insane Writer
ZeldaQueen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the border of my Outer Circle of Thought
ZeldaQueen is probably a spambot
Old Oct 15th, 2008, 10:03 PM       
Quote:
All men are created equal does not mean everybody gets any priveledge they want exactly how they want it. The fact is, gay men have just as much of a right to marry a woman as anybody else.
So in other words, people are allowed to be gay...as long as they're not gay?
__________________
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Colonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's army
Old Oct 15th, 2008, 10:25 PM       
That's what Pope John Paul II said - Homosexuals are called by God to a life of celibacy.

Or something like that.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 01:04 AM       
Quote:
Why wade through the legal labyrinth of changing all the laws that pertain to married couples to also cover same-sex unions when merely changing the marriage law itself would take care of the problem?
I don't know, because it would be more fair and correct? Do you really have to change every law..?
and no offense but enough time has been spent arguing this legalizing it delegalizing it etc. that i think finding an actual solution and investing some effort into it might be worthwhile. Expedience

Quote:
And is it so bad that single women have chosen to have babies on their own without the social pressure of marriage?
Well, yes. For the most part the most abuse occurs among co-habitating adults. Short-term relationships are usually worse than that. Children also have less of a stable relationship to look up to and form values based on. There's a lot of other problems associated with being born into a household without both parents.

Quote:
Isn't this a matter of changing perceptions regarding marriage allowing individuals to make their own choices on their own terms without being ostracized?
I don't know isn't law about limiting people's freedoms to some extent so that society can function more evenly and fairly? Isn't it accepted to some degree that people don't have the right to make certain choices/?

Quote:
And you have every right to marry a man (I assume you are a man) in the state of Massachusetts, so what would you care if I took away your right to marry a woman?
This is a good response. The only problem is that you could only bring this up if I complained that the rights aren't equal. Which I haven't done. Instead, I've been bringing up reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Quote:
If a person's marriage was so weak to begin with that a gay or interracial couple getting married destroyed it, then perhaps that person wasn't meant for marriage to begin with.
It's not just about divorce but about the value they attach to their marriage. And it's not just about their marriage, either, it's about the institution of marriage -- which they just happen to be a part of. In effect I think they take it as a type of mockery of their own marriage. Most people don't like it when other people mock things which they hold dear.
In i n truth, it's exclusivity may have a large part to do with their feelings on the issue. Do you want to be part of a club that lets everybody in and has no restrictions? And the value society places on it, as well; they think that it shows society holds less of a regard for it. And thus their marriage, which maybe makes them feel bad about themselves.

I don't really know if marriage is necessarily about people loving each other and being together. If so, a lot of people would never marry. Maybe part of the reason why we should keep the institution of marriage as cohesive as possible is so that the less stable elements in society will still have something to come together for.

Quote:
There's a huge difference between rape and murder and consensual sex between adults.
We're talking about humans but ok. Regardless, a reason dimnos had (who i was talking to and you are taking this out of context) was that we should let gay people do whatever they want and mind their own business because it's not harming us. I think. That should be pretty close and at the least is charitable.
The fact is, one of the main concerns regarding this is that it is harming some people. And there are a lot of victimless or harmless things which we would consider wrong. That is not a reliable method for determining right and wrong ;/

Quote:
I'm quite sure it doesn't. Unless you want to start quote mining from the Old Testament, which as I recall, also prohibits the consumption of pork and shellfish. Do you want to cast lobstermen out of society and/or kill the fuck out them too?
Well the typically quoted verses like this are in deutoronomy and romans i think. the one about lying with men lying with men and dressing like a woman or having sex with an animal being bad is towards the end of it ;o i think the other one is romans
but yea shellfish can make you sick and pork gives you worms.

Quote:
By that reasoning we should demolish the Buddhist temples for idolatry. Do you think that is a good idea?
Maybe. But anyway, he was saying that sin is between man and god, and that humans have no right to intervene or pass judgment. Which is clearly ridiculous. I was presenting a moral imperative related to the example I previously used. There's another similar argument he made, too, like the thing about not interfering when you think something is wrong. Sometimes we have to stop wrongs in order to be right
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #55  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
glowbelly is probably a spambot
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 10:10 AM       
i was totally saying hi to kahl because no offense, jeanette, but he is way prettier than you (and me for that matter) :D
__________________
porn is just babies as work-in-progress
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 04:26 PM       
Quote:

I don't know isn't law about limiting people's freedoms to some extent so that society can function more evenly and fairly? Isn't it accepted to some degree that people don't have the right to make certain choices/?
If that's the case, then perhaps it would be better for families to outlaw divorce entirely.

This is a good response. The only problem is that you could only bring this up if I complained that the rights aren't equal. Which I haven't done. Instead, I've been bringing up reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Quote:
It's not just about divorce but about the value they attach to their marriage. And it's not just about their marriage, either, it's about the institution of marriage -- which they just happen to be a part of. In effect I think they take it as a type of mockery of their own marriage. Most people don't like it when other people mock things which they hold dear.
If its about preventing marriage from being mocked, then I think that the first point of order would be to shut down the 5 minute wedding chapels in Las Vegas where the marriage is performed by Elvis impersonators rather than to stop gay marriage. Furthermore, if someone mocks a religious person's beliefs, does that mean that they stop going to church? Lord knows religion has been mocked mercilessly in this country, yet fully half of it identifies as Christian.


Quote:
In i n truth, it's exclusivity may have a large part to do with their feelings on the issue. Do you want to be part of a club that lets everybody in and has no restrictions? And the value society places on it, as well; they think that it shows society holds less of a regard for it. And thus their marriage, which maybe makes them feel bad about themselves.
It isn't a matter of society holding marriage in less regard, it is a matter of them holding marriage in less regard. Would I want to be a part of a club that only let in single Ashkenazi Jewish women with plantar faschitis and anthropology degrees who are stuck in shitty retail jobs? I could be part of it, but what is the point? The exclusion of everyone who isn't like me from the club does not mean that it is somehow a great club to be a part of, its just arbitrary.

Quote:
I don't really know if marriage is necessarily about people loving each other and being together. If so, a lot of people would never marry.
Marriage is about entering a recognized social contract with a person who you love and want to be with. It is loving a person to the point where you are willing to enter into this legally binding agreement with them.

Quote:
Maybe part of the reason why we should keep the institution of marriage as cohesive as possible is so that the less stable elements in society will still have something to come together for.
I think we could benefit from the less stable elements of society NOT getting together and raising children.


Quote:
Sometimes we have to stop wrongs in order to be right
But do you try to intervene and keep people from eating pork and shellfish because of the health risks? Is is your place to say we can't have Red Lobster? The negative health risks from these foods present a more obvious and uncontestable danger to public health than gay marriage ever could, yet there is no controversy surrounding them. Why the double standard?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 07:23 PM       
Quote:
If that's the case, then perhaps it would be better for families to outlaw divorce entirely.
I agree. Especially if there are children in the household! but you could ask which would be in their best interest... and anyway, there is a difference between having two parents in your life for the first ten years and then them divorcing, than never having two parents.

Quote:
If its about preventing marriage from being mocked, then I think that the first point of order would be to shut down the 5 minute wedding chapels in Las Vegas where the marriage is performed by Elvis impersonators rather than to stop gay marriage.
Okay I can agree with that but I don't necessarily see why this means we should let gays get married. If anything it means both of them should be stopped.

Quote:
Furthermore, if someone mocks a religious person's beliefs, does that mean that they stop going to church?
This isn't just about some person sitting on the side going, "MARRIAGE IS STUPID" or something. This is about the church itself becoming a mockery, not merely people mocking the church. I can guarantee you, if a church was a mockery and there were always people inside the church mocking the people coming to church they probably wouldn't go back to that church unless they liked jokes.

Quote:
It isn't a matter of society holding marriage in less regard, it is a matter of them holding marriage in less regard.
Oh ok i guess i forgot that you were the one making these arguments.

Quote:
Would I want to be a part of a club that only let in single Ashkenazi Jewish women with plantar faschitis and anthropology degrees who are stuck in shitty retail jobs? I could be part of it, but what is the point?
What is the point? Why would you want to be part of a club that doesn't let people like you in? Why should gays want to be part of a group that doesn't want them in?

Quote:
The exclusion of everyone who isn't like me from the club does not mean that it is somehow a great club to be a part of
That's total horseshit. When you hang out with your friends do you want a bunch of douchebags coming along and trying to hang out with you? Aren't there clubs specifically for black people? Do you think they should have to let white people into the club?
Do you think chess clubs should let in people that don't play chess?
What's the point of clubs if they are for everyone?
no girls allowed ok
EXCEPT regular girls

Quote:
Marriage is about entering a recognized social contract with a person who you love and want to be with. It is loving a person to the point where you are willing to enter into this legally binding agreement with them.
So if you want it, then you should be able to have it? Is that what marriage is about? Should pedophiles be able to marry youngens because they both think they love and want eachother? And why do they have to have marriage when they could have other social contracts?

Maybe marriage has as much to do with individuals happiness as it does with societies functioning ;/ cause again marriage isn't necessary for love or happiness.

Quote:
I think we could benefit from the less stable elements of society NOT getting together and raising children.
Yea, well, unfortunately it's going to happen anyway.

Quote:
But do you try to intervene and keep people from eating pork and shellfish because of the health risks?
People eatting pork and shellfish won't actually be detrimental to social institutions Plus I'm not exactly sure what the restriction on pork and shellfish is, only that the uncleanliness and unhealthiness of them is one potential reason. especially when it comes to pork

anyway, i gave you a secular reason why we should interfere when people are doing wrong so there you have it...

Quote:
to public health than gay marriage ever could, yet there is no controversy surrounding them. Why the double standard?
gay marriage is a threat to public health?

and you know what from now on if you're going to respond to me when I'm talking to someone else read what they said first before-hand, because what they say is important as to how you can criticize me without being accurate.
__________________
NEVER

Last edited by kahljorn : Oct 16th, 2008 at 08:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 08:12 PM       
nevermind
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 08:21 PM       
Before we continue, do you actually, seriously believe that my counterexamples of divorce and interracial marriage should be outlawed for the same reasons that you use to support your positions against gay marriage, or are you simply taking those stances just for the sake of this debate in order to neutralize my arguements against gay marriage?

Because I suspect that its the latter, and I'm frankly beginning to tire of this rhetorical dance. Most people opposed to gay marriage would not take the stances you've taken when the subjects of divorce and interracial marriage when faced with my arguements. Is this the best debating strategy that you can come up with?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Colonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's armyColonel Flagg has joined BAPE's army
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 08:50 PM       
This thread is making my tummy hurt.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
ZeldaQueen ZeldaQueen is offline
Insane Writer
ZeldaQueen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the border of my Outer Circle of Thought
ZeldaQueen is probably a spambot
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 10:26 PM       
On the whole divorce issue: Yes, I think that families should ultimately remain together and provide a healthy, nurturing environment for their children. But many times divorce would help out. What if the parents wind up not getting along at all and the children actually suffer from it? My best friend grew up like that and now lives with another relative and loves her stepmother much more than her birth mother. My point is that many times lust is mistaken for love and things don't work out the first time around. My belief is that if that happens, there's no shame in parting.

Another thing about divorce is what about abusive or bad relationships? Before women began gaining rights, they couldn't get divorces if their husbands hurt them or cheated on them.

And about people marrying underage children: I might be mistaken but isn't parental consent required for someone under the age of eighteen to be married? If that's the case and an underage child is married then I'd blame the parent for the immorality of the situation.
__________________
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 10:59 PM       
Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. There's a significant difference between them and gay marriage.
many people have argued that interracial marriage did weaken the institution of marriage. And while it's not one you might hear when you are debating suzy jackass in her cozy church surrounding on your weekly ego trip, it's a perfectly good argument and is actually an answer to your question.

you didn't use the divorce argument properly. Here's the context of the argument: isn't
Quote:
law about limiting people's freedoms to some extent so that society can function more evenly and fairly? Isn't it accepted to some degree that people don't have the right to make certain choices/?
therefore divorce should be outlawed by families. SOCIETY SHOULD BE FAIR SO OBVIOUSLY FAMILIES SHOULDNT GET DIVORCED

What you should have said is that divorce points to the fact that society has already decreased the sanctity/value of marriage -- and or reduced it to a purely legal or economic institution. I'm not really sure what I'd say after that. I'd have to think about it for a while but I'm sure I could draw some distinctions and make some fun arguments.
also i might take advantage of that fact to argue why marriage and the benefits should be separate.

and you so took t his out of context

Quote:
Is this the best debating strategy that you can come up with?
;/
__________________
NEVER

Last edited by kahljorn : Oct 16th, 2008 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 16th, 2008, 11:13 PM       
Quote:
Yes, I think that families should ultimately remain together and provide a healthy, nurturing environment for their children. But many times divorce would help out.
i agree with this, actually, and kind of alluded to it. The sad thing is that often these relationships are replaced with other abusive relationships. But anyway, this is probably the type of response I'll give to jeanette in a little while if she keeps arguing about what is most good for the family institution.

Quote:
And about people marrying underage children: I might be mistaken but isn't parental consent required for someone under the age of eighteen to be married? If that's the case and an underage child is married then I'd blame the parent for the immorality of the situation.
Certainly you could argue something like that. But you could also ask if giving the parents the rights to allow their kids to marry at a young age makes society unjust.

but that's actually not the point I was getting at. The point is that if we allow anybody who has love and commitment to one another to marry, then we should allow many types of marriages we wouldn't normally allow: Group marriages, pedophilean, and incestual just to name a few because these person's can love each other just like gay people can. I guess focusing on group marriages and polygamy is better because it doesn't seem as ridiculous...
This merely indicates that the love persons have for eachother isn't the sole reason they should be allowed to marry. Many people's arguments boiled down to something like this, or that people should have the priveledge of marriage however they want and we shouldn't interfere because it's not our business.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 01:07 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. There's a significant difference between them and gay marriage.
many people have argued that interracial marriage did weaken the institution of marriage. And while it's not one you might hear when you are debating suzy jackass in her cozy church surrounding on your weekly ego trip, it's a perfectly good argument and is actually an answer to your question.
That is a valid counterpoint. Much better than your initial arguement that interracial marriage devalued the institution of marriage for bigots and therefore should be illegal. You're getting better at this.

I'd also like to point out that recent studies have shown that the children of divorced parents are no more likely to have emotional problems than other children.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
bigtimecow bigtimecow is offline
rockfuckcunt
bigtimecow's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: mash and two tits
bigtimecow is probably pretty okbigtimecow is probably pretty okbigtimecow is probably pretty ok
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 01:17 PM       
i havent read anything in this thread but yay for gay marriage
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Bigtimecow you are like the Fonz of girls pussies.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 01:59 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanette
That is a valid counterpoint. Much better than your initial arguement that interracial marriage devalued the institution of marriage for bigots and therefore should be illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneofkahljornsfirstpostsaboutinterracialmarriages
Yep. And it still bothers a lot of (racist) people when they see a black and white walking around holding hands. Hasn't the divorce rate also climbed for a while with it being at about 40% right now? Maybe that's all due to blacks and whites being allowed to marry eachother. lol Plus hasn't there been less marriages over the years and more children born outside of marriages as well?
and also blacks and whites marrying isn't as common a thing as gay people marrying probably would be. Besides that, at least blacks and whites marrying was between a man and a woman.next thing you know we'll have a 90% divorce rate and people arguing for group marriages and other abominable marriages which i won't even touch on!
Guess i've been good at this all along, huh?
And, actually, the point was never that it devalues it for BIGOTS ONLY, but that it devalued it as an institution period and caused the divorce rate to climb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanette
I'd also like to point out that recent studies have shown that the children of divorced parents are no more likely to have emotional problems than other children.
Oh, yea? Which study is that? And what about children born out of wedlock, another scenario which I focused on. In fact, I even mentioned on this page of the thread that NEVER HAVING TWO PARENTS is much different than having parents AND THEN them getting divorced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
I agree. Especially if there are children in the household! but you could ask which would be in their best interest... and anyway, there is a difference between having two parents in your life for the first ten years and then them divorcing, than never having two parents.
Jeanette your problem is that you like to use stock arguments which you've memorized, so you tend to focus on the arguments which spark those stock arguments. Usually you don't even apply them correctly, though.

and learn to take a joke for fucks sake.

Quote:
You're getting better at this.
Why do you keep trying to insult my intelligence?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 06:30 PM       
I will return to this thread and give your arguements proper attention when I am no longer suffering from diarrhea brought on by the consumption of aspertame-laden Diet Red Bull.

Last edited by Jeanette X : Oct 20th, 2008 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 09:48 PM       
alright :O
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #69  
ZeldaQueen ZeldaQueen is offline
Insane Writer
ZeldaQueen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the border of my Outer Circle of Thought
ZeldaQueen is probably a spambot
Old Oct 19th, 2008, 11:06 PM       
I think Jeanette X has a valid arguement to excuse herself from most any debate right now, including presidential.
__________________
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 20th, 2008, 02:08 AM       
uhhhh alright :O

it's not like she's being forced to sit at the dinner table till she finishes her plate of debate
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 21st, 2008, 11:08 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
And, actually, the point was never that it devalues it for BIGOTS ONLY, but that it devalued it as an institution period and caused the divorce rate to climb.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Simply because the divorce rate went up after interracial marriage became legal doesn't mean interracial marriage caused it. Its like saying that ice cream sales cause drowning because they both go up in the summer. Furthermore, if we were to extend your arguement, would you say that schools should still be segregated because integration devalues the institution?

Quote:
Oh, yea? Which study is that?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...behavior_N.htm


Quote:
And what about children born out of wedlock, another scenario which I focused on.
What about it?

Quote:
Jeanette your problem is that you like to use stock arguments which you've memorized, so you tend to focus on the arguments which spark those stock arguments.
Eh, perhaps I do.

Quote:
Why do you keep trying to insult my intelligence?
Because:
A. You insult mine
B. Your arguments are rather preposterus
C. This is I-Mockery.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 21st, 2008, 12:58 PM       
Quote:
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Simply because the divorce rate went up after interracial marriage became legal doesn't mean interracial marriage caused it. Its like saying that ice cream sales cause drowning because they both go up in the summer. Furthermore, if we were to extend your arguement, would you say that schools should still be segregated because integration devalues the institution?
Yea, I told you it was a false cause like a whole page ago ;/ Good job catching up.

There's lots of things that could be said about segregation of the school and the military, but the most important is probably that race is not the same as gender and education or military don't have any reason to be oriented towards a specific racial group.

Quote:
What about it?
Uh they are different than children born in divorced homes?

from your study:
Quote:
By contrast, Marquardt compared the children of divorced families with those of married parents. She defends that approach as valid. "What he's doing is controlling for so many things he's making the effects of divorce disappear," she says. "People like me have some real qualms about that."
lol. You see the problem with this is that it actually fits into what I was saying. Some families should be divorced. The fact is that some of the families that should be divorced already have problems which have affected the children. The divorce doesn't make much of a difference when there has already been problems ;/
there's a lot to be said about this study, but there's at least one. Another is that it says divorce doesn't necessarily cause bad behavior, but how many problems are there beside that? and aren't we also talking about long-term effects which extend into being an adult -- and then are passed onto the future generation? His study didn't really say anything about this ;/

being born into a parentless family is way different than this. Which again, I already mentioned.

Quote:
Because:
A. You insult mine
B. Your arguments are rather preposterus
C. This is I-Mockery.
A. Not as much as i should.
B. Then how come they aren't easily refuted. You can't just say something is preposterous because you don't agree with it.
C. So what? You act like a complete dipshit and then insult my intelligence? THAT seems a little preposterous.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 21st, 2008, 04:58 PM       
Quote:
Yea, I told you it was a false cause like a whole page ago ;/
And I might have been able to find it if you didn't write such convoluted prose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
There's lots of things that could be said about segregation of the school and the military, but the most important is probably that race is not the same as gender and education or military don't have any reason to be oriented towards a specific racial group.
But why does your arguement that interracial marriage devalues marriage even between people of the opposite sex not apply to these other racially-mixed institutions?

Quote:
Some families should be divorced.
Didn't you argue earlier that divorce ought to be illegal? How can I debate you when you aren't consistent?

Quote:
B. Then how come they aren't easily refuted. You can't just say something is preposterous because you don't agree with it.
I shouldn't have to refute something as stupid as your arguement that racial marriage devalues the institution of marriage. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, you haven't once revealed your real views on these issues. How can I be expected to duel you blindfolded?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 21st, 2008, 06:21 PM       
Quote:
Didn't you argue earlier that divorce ought to be illegal? How can I debate you when you aren't consistent?
No. I didn't argue anything ;/ Actually what I said was smething like, "I a gree, but then you could ask w hat would be worse for the family" and then I went on to mention that there is a difference between divorced families and families without two parents. All in the same paragraph. It's on this page, scroll up and read.

Quote:
But why does your arguement that interracial marriage devalues marriage even between people of the opposite sex not apply to these other racially-mixed institutions?
Well, for one, because race is irrelevant to this entire issue (which I pointed out in my first p ost but you guys kept arguing over) and like 80% of the shit I said about racial marriages was an obvious joke that idiots like yo u and dimnos couldn't pick up on and continued to argue over because you knew you couldn't counter any of the other arguments.

and I'm sure if I thought about it a while I could figure out why they are different. I could probably just point out that they are different institutions which serve different purposes, and that education isn't as much of an umbrella institution as marriage.. Or I could point out that there wasn't any long-term effect on school attendance (even though I'm sure there was one at some point). Or that there was still a lot of segregation. Or that black people aren't fucking white people with books. I don't know.

Quote:
And I might have been able to find it if you didn't write such convoluted prose.
Yea, ok. That post I made in response to you was like two paragraphs. If you had bothered to read it rather than skim it for crap your stock arguments applied to you would've noticed it.

At least I have the gumption and intelligence to argue something I've never argued before or even read arguments about. You on the other hand argue things everybody has heard probably ten thousand times.
Quote:
I shouldn't have to refute something as stupid as your arguement that racial marriage devalues the institution of marriage. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, you haven't once revealed your real views on these issues. How can I be expected to duel you blindfolded?
Ok. ITS JUST TWO STOPID. you're a jackass. Go chase your tail elsewhere. Besides begging the question, what are you appealing to here?

Nobody here would argue against gay marriage. Just like nobody here would really argue for that whole futurism thing. All y ou're doing is representing the cliche, and your arguments are so mainstream right now ;/ This thread wouldn't have gotten past page two without me arguing something I don't even really believe in.

I don't have to believe in my counter-arguments for them to be relevant criticisms.

and actually I did state my views (or a view anyway) on this issue a couple of times and you ignored them like a jackass because it wasn't something you could throw your stock arguments out at. I've only mentioned this in like 30 posts in this thread but apparantly you're too much of a dipshit to realize it.
Go fuck yourself.
If you're going to argue, argue, but fuck this crap. I'm not going to sit around and justify myself to you any further.

And you're not arguing blind folded

and don't tell me you are arguing your view, that's ridiculous ;/ Nothing you have said is new or novel. You are adopting a view just as much as I am.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Oct 21st, 2008, 07:55 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
No. I didn't argue anything ;/ Actually what I said was smething like, "I a gree, but then you could ask w hat would be worse for the family" and then I went on to mention that there is a difference between divorced families and families without two parents. All in the same paragraph. It's on this page, scroll up and read.
Quote:
smething like, "I a gree, but then you could ask w hat would be worse for the family"
I'm not scrolling up and reading anything for fear that I may shit my brains out through my eyeballs from your typing.

Quote:
I said about racial marriages was an obvious joke that idiots like yo u and dimnos couldn't pick up on and continued to argue over because you knew you couldn't counter any of the other arguments.
Now you tell me it was a joke and not some crazy attempt at an argument. How am I supposed to tell when you're serious or not?

Quote:
and I'm sure if I thought about it a while I could figure out why they are different. I could probably just point out that they are different institutions which serve different purposes, and that education isn't as much of an umbrella institution as marriage.. Or I could point out that there wasn't any long-term effect on school attendance (even though I'm sure there was one at some point). Or that there was still a lot of segregation. Or that black people aren't fucking white people with books. I don't know.
I don't know either. That's why I asked you.

Quote:
At least I have the gumption and intelligence to argue something I've never argued before or even read arguments about.
I certainly agree with the last part of that sentence.

Quote:
Nobody here would argue against gay marriage.
Then what were you trying to do during this entire thread?

Quote:
I don't have to believe in my counter-arguments for them to be relevant criticisms.
No, but you certainly have to be consistent, and you aren't.

Quote:
and actually I did state my views (or a view anyway) on this issue a couple of times and you ignored them like a jackass because it wasn't something you could throw your stock arguments out at.
How was I supposed to realize what your real views were next to all that bullshit about race?

Quote:
You are adopting a view just as much as I am.
It is my view, my dear. So sue me if it sounds cliched.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.