Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in Connecticut

[kahljorn]

I'm not scrolling up and reading anything for fear that I may shit my brains out through my eyeballs from your typing.

U DONT TYPE GUD. What's with dipshits on the internet talking about spelling and typing? I notice it's always people of mediocre intelligence who attack spelling and typing -- probably because they have no other route of attack. Also I'm on a brand new laptop so I haven't adjusted to this keyboard.

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?

Cause I put LOLs in the middle of them? What are you, retarded? And you know, one of the most important philosophical principles is the principle of CHARITY. You could try exercising it. Otherwise you look like a jackoff. I mean jesus I said that whenever racist people see an interracial couple they BEAT THEIR WIVES. Oh yea and I put exclaimation points out of place.
The principle of charity and really of arguing in general is to attack the most crucial and strongest element of a person's argument.

also when you asked me if i was saying that interracial marriages should not be allowed my response was, "...yes."

Originally Posted by kahljorn

...yes

and man why do you pick on such stupid arguments when i posted several actual thoughtful things.

HOW CAN YOU TELL JEANETTE HOW CAN YOU TELL I DUNNO JEANETTE I DUNNO.

I don't know either. That's why I asked you.

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of. I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.
You can't say it devalued the institution of education or military when the purpose of those insutitutions has nothing to do with race or gender.

No, but you certainly have to be consistent, and you aren't.

I've been consistent in this thread. Consistency doesn't mean sticking by one broad argument with no exceptions.

How was I supposed to realize what your real views were next to all that bullshit about race?

Um cause I said it before everything else: before I started playing devil's advocate and making hypothetical arguments of people who are against gay marriage? And also I asked you like two or three times and even tried to draw your attention back to it? hmmMMMMmmmMMMmmmMMM'
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT JEANETTE HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT.

ok this is seriously the last time im justifying myself. it's so tiring. Now we are arguing about ME. That's what always happens when jackasses can't defend their views.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

U DONT TYPE GUD. What's with dipshits on the internet talking about spelling and typing? I notice it's always people of mediocre intelligence who attack spelling and typing -- probably because they have no other route of attack. Also I'm on a brand new laptop so I haven't adjusted to this keyboard.

How hard is it to type properly? Jeez, I asked for proper spelling, not a kidney.

I mean jesus I said that whenever racist people see an interracial couple they BEAT THEIR WIVES. Oh yea and I put exclaimation points out of place.
The principle of charity and really of arguing in general is to attack the most crucial and strongest element of a person's argument.

also when you asked me if i was saying that interracial marriages should not be allowed my response was, "...yes."

HOW CAN YOU TELL JEANETTE HOW CAN YOU TELL I DUNNO JEANETTE I DUNNO.

Well given the fact that your other arguements were pretty stupid, the fact that I barely know you, and the fact that people have said far stranger things on this forum in all seriousness, I think my confusion was justified.

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of.

You made the statement, I asked you to back it up with solid arguements, and then you inform me that I have to figure out your arguements for you? No darling, it doesn't work that way.

I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.

Now why didn't you just make this arguement before instead of telling me to figure it out for myself?

I've been consistent in this thread.

You could have fooled me.

Um cause I said it before everything else: before I started playing devil's advocate and making hypothetical arguments of people who are against gay marriage?

Oh, I'm supposed to intuitively understand that those aren't your real views and are merely hypothetical because you said them first! Silly me.

ok this is seriously the last time im justifying myself. it's so tiring. Now we are arguing about ME. That's what always happens when jackasses can't defend their views.

I merely expressed my confusion and asked for clarification, you freaked out and became extremely defensive. Sure, I broke your balls a bit, but I haven't been nearly as vitriolic as you have.

Does you need a diaper change?

[kahljorn]

Oh, I'm supposed to intuitively understand that those aren't your real views and are merely hypothetical because you said them first! Silly me.

I already answered this question. this is i-mockery, you should at least be able to tell when something's a joke. And again, you should practice the principle of charity.
And i said things like, "...yes." It should've been obvious. But i guess you're oblivious.

How hard is it to type properly? Jeez, I asked for proper spelling, not a kidney.

My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.

Well given the fact that your other arguements were pretty stupid, the fact that I barely know you, and the fact that people have said far stranger things on this forum in all seriousness, I think my confusion was justified.

They weren't stupid. your arguments were stupid. You can't even apply stock arguments properly: THAT'S PRETTY STUPID.

You made the statement, I asked you to back it up with solid arguements, and then you inform me that I have to figure out your arguements for you? No darling, it doesn't work that way.

I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.
Then I clarify my arguments and you have nothing to say. I did clarify, almost immediately after you asked me to do so. You're so dumb you can't even think of an effective criticism for things you haven't heard before.

Now why didn't you just make this arguement before instead of telling me to figure it out for myself?

I did, kind of (remember I gave you like five examples of arguments that could've been made against it). I also told you that race was irrelevant to the whole thing. I didn't make this argument because really it wasn't essential to anything I was saying and it was an unnecessary side-tracking (see red herring) of all the other arguments which you lost. You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.
The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

And for fucks sake:

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of. I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.
You can't say it devalued the institution of education or military when the purpose of those insutitutions has nothing to do with race or gender.

I ToLD YOU TO USE YOUR BRAIN TO THINK UP IDEAS THE SAME TIME I TOLD YOU WHAT YOU QUOTED AND YOU SAID, "WHY DIDNT YOU JUST TELL ME THIS FIRST INSTEAD OF TELLING ME TO THINK IT UP ON My OWN. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS." I TOLD YOU THOSE TWO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU"RE FUCKING RETARDED. SHuT THE FUCK UP.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man you're a classy fucking arguer.

You could have fooled me.

Obviously, it's pretty easy to fool you. I don't even have to TRY to fool you and you get all confused and fall apart.

Sure, I broke your balls a bit, but I haven't been nearly as vitriolic as you have.

I was pretty polite to you the first 3/4s of this thread, considering how stupid you were being.
but then i realized it was IMOCKERY so I should call you stupid every chance I get.
stupid.

I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!

[Grislygus]

whoah, deja vu


I am now on THE EDGE OF MY SEAT
Are you gonna roll over now Jeannette

Are you

[kahljorn]

i edited my post :O
so she couldn't get all semantical on me.

still i laughed so hard at her telling me I should've told her that argument first instead of telling her to figure it out for herself, and I had actually told her that argument at the same time that I told her she should use her brain to figure things out.
I guess she's right though technically it was CHRONOLOGICALLY first. I so lost this thread.

this thread should be renamed straw grasping

[Grislygus]

I seem to remember The Great Grislygus v. Kahljorn Inter-Thread Argument ended with straw grasping and milhouse telling us to shut up

[kahljorn]

I don't remember that what did we argue about?

arguments always end in straw grasping ;o

[Grislygus]

I can't find it now We were arguing about Geggy in one thread and journalistic ethics in the other, and it quickly ended up as one big, pointless argument about how the other guy was wrong about everything

[Grislygus]

It had good quoting and citation, though

[ZeldaQueen]

Mm. Not meaning to knock on anyone, but Jeanette kind of has a point on people saying stupid stuff in all seriousness. Case in point - There was a fine moron on IMDB who believed that "the only place there'd be a sequel for [the Golden Compass] was in hell". This sparked a bunch of religious debates with him, where he basically made stuff up. When I pointed out that since after Adam and Eve were banished from Eden there was a limited number of people, there'd be genetic inbreeding. I also pointed out the same problem with the Ark (inbreeding with animals). He then said that God made more people after Adam and Even and that there was genetic inbreeding but God fixed it (and he claimed it was all in the Bible). He also claimed that Jesus was now in control of the movie industry because Fireproof did better than Religulous did.

Point is, silly stuff does come up. I've been fooled meself.

[kahljorn]

yea ok

anyway the sad fact is she couldn't even defeat the arguments i was making. Then a whole page later she brings it back up like I didn't defeat them properly when she totally abandoned them. They weren't really THAT crazy.


and grislygus i totally remember that now.

[ZeldaQueen]

I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.

I at least make an effort.

I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.

If you didn't want me to argue the weaker arguements, why did you present them in first place? Besides, I see nothing wrong with attacking the weak points first. If you're in a fist fight with a guy, where do you punch first, his chest, or his testicles?

You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.

I've slogged through prose in sociology books that would make your head explode. The difference between you and someone like Roland Barthes (attempting to read his work is like trying to inhale a Buick) is that he presented a point in what he wrote. You presented me with no central thesis, no point, no core values, deliberately made arguments to that clashed with previous ones, and then you expect me to sift through this mountain of rhetoric and find the hidden meanings like a Kabbalist studying Torah.

The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.

Don't project your vindictive tendencies onto me. I'm doing this because its a lot of fun, not because I'm petty the way you are.

I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!

I certainly is. I'm quite amused.

Originally Posted by ZeldaQueen

I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once.

I think this sums it up:

[Tadao]

So... you are saying that having an intellectual conversation with an Asian is the same as having one with a donkey. Very nice.

[Grislygus]

[kahljorn]

Whatever, jeanette.

My arguments didn't really "Clash" and I'd like you to point it out where they did. Go ahead, jeanette.
the only thing you really brought up was the divorce thing which I qualified when I made the statement. So you really have no ground to stand on there, and obviously you haven't been standing on it because you abandon every argument that you make. You know, sometimes when people argue they will argue the same point for a while but each time their points will change gradually...
I've been way more consistent than you've been.

In an argument, if somebody is attacking your testicles and you block the chest attack unfortunately that doesn't mean you've won or even made a good point. Analogously, you would be on the ground in the fetal position crying and pretending you have won.

and you know what's the most annoying about this? I posted that shit about interracial marriage a whole two pages or something ago and there was only one or two responses to it, which I responded to. Then you didn't say anything about it until a whole page later and tried to act like you won on that subject. I made a whole two posts about it after that and you acted like t he argument dragged on forever. I clarified myself when you asked me to. You have no further arguments to make on those clarifications because you're mentally retarded or something.

It's really sad that you asked me to make those points and i did and now you have nothing further to say except this bullshit.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Whatever, jeanette.

My arguments didn't really "Clash" and I'd like you to point it out where they did. Go ahead, jeanette.

Aside from the issue of race? Lets see, referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other. Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.

In an argument, if somebody is attacking your testicles and you block the chest attack unfortunately that doesn't mean you've won or even made a good point.

You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?

You have no further arguments to make on those clarifications because you're mentally retarded or something.

I asked what your real stances were and told you I was tired of your constantly shifting position. You refused to tell me what your real stances on the issue were, insisted that I should intuitively understand when you were making a joke and when you weren't, and told me that I should be able to glean your real beliefs from your ramblings rather than outline them for me clearly. That isn't clarification, that's obfuscation.

[Tadao]

Asian hater

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Tadao

Asian hater

The kid's race has jack shit to do with the joke.

(See Kahl, when someone misunderstands you, you explain yourself. This is how its done. :didactic)

[Tadao]

Donkey hater

[kahljorn]

referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other.

Dimnos said that people should be able to do whatever they want and they only have to answer to god. I said that god expects people to punish sinners. It was a simple counter-argument. I explained this. I also gave a secular example for his secular portion of that argument.

You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?

Obviously I turned it around used you in the example since there was plenty of times I punched you in t he testicles.

Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.

You said that divorce should be outlawed because I said that keeping family cohesion for the well-being of the children in the family is important. I said I agree, but you can ask what is worse for the family. Implying that it might be worse for families to not get divorced, and therefore they should. I explained this. There's nothing inconsistent about it. My argument was always that family structures exist for the well-being of the family, and that gay marriage weakens this. If divorce doesn't weaken the family structures, then there's no reason for it to be outlawed.
Then I pointed out that there is largely different effect on a child who never had a family / stable family structure and somebody who had one that only lasted ten years.

all of this was explained. You never argued that I was still inconsistent, despite this. You need to move on.

[Dimnos]

I didnt say people could do whatever they wanted and only answer to god. I said IF two gay people being together is wrong in the eyes of good and they are only hurting themselves and have nothing to do with anyone else... then they only have god to answer to. This debate started out talking about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, somehow it got taken off on a tangent on whether or not it is morally acceptable to god and the bible. We have a separation of church and state, the moral issues of one religion (even if it is the religion of majority) shouldnt be taken into account when making policy and/or law. Oh and congratulations on your engagement. I wish you two the best and I really hope gay or interracial couples cant influence your marriage as much as you seam to think.

[Grislygus]

Originally Posted by Dimnos

I wish you two the best and I really hope gay or interracial couples cant influence your marriage as much as you seam to think.

Theoretical argument versus low flying airplanes

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

You need to move on.

Eh, I believe I will. I'm bored with this thread.

[Tadao]

asian donkey lover