or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage - Page 4

post #121 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

 

How about you address my point?

 

Not interested in "debating" with you because you have demonstrated yourself to be an insulting and unreasonable person.

 

Not merely with your opening name-calling but, also, with your fallacious thinking as expressed (at least) in your two recent posts.

 

Next time think twice before jumping to the standard "I disagree with you and think you're wrong so, you must be a fool and I'm going to say so."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #122 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Now you're begging the question. *sigh*

 

lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.

 

 

I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fair enough. I agree with that.

 

(waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)

 

 

Success! To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

lol.gif Good luck with that!

 

 

We need to strive for something, right? I think it has at least as much of a chance as upending the entire government construct - and not as far fetched, with all due respect.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're right, we disagree.

 

 

That will happen, lol. My wife works with a lot of at-risk and marginalized women and youth and I volunteer a lot. Everyday my eyes are opened a little bit more to what's happening out there and what we are allowing to happen to the most disenfranchised of us. Being from Canada, we also have a different structure here than you have down there. I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face. I won't presume your stance or level of activity in social causes, so don't think that is aimed at you. We are still friends.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government and the powers it has to even be able to do the things you object to.

 

Until you realize that, you'll be chasing the fantasy of accountable government. Good luck.

 

 

You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion". That's the day-to-day fight. Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #123 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

 

Hey kettle, thanks for calling the pot black! Or did you forget your earlier comment?

 

 

 

You are right and I am sorry. That was uncalled for and I shouldn't have stuck my nose in it. I also amended my post to apologize to libertyforall.

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #124 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?

 

Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for, also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government, and there is the additional fallacy of the non sequiturs (it does not follow) having to do with the "modern society" and its size.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.

 

But the point is it is not an "in between" step.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Success!

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.

 

The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

We need to strive for something, right?

 

Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face.

 

I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion".

 

This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.

 

Sorry, totally lost me on that analogy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 161

I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics.  This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable.  Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation.  People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply
post #126 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics.  This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable.  Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation.  People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.

Exodus International just folded and the founder apologized for the hurt they've caused. If many devout Christians honestly try (and they did) and fail to pray away the gay, my guess is its because that's the way god made them.
post #127 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for...

 

With you here...

 

 

 

Quote:
also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government

 

No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services. They are all nice to haves but that doesn't go away after some one spends a day at a soup kitchen. Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But the point is it is not an "in between" step.

 

Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

1rolleyes.gif

 

...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.

 

Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)

 

I don't understand "God-given". That's not real. I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society. That's where we differ, and that's fine as these are opinions.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.

 

No, it's plenty broad. 15 years with multiple overlapping organizations dealing with youth, new immigrants, lots with addictions and homelessness and many disfranchised aboriginals here in Manitoba. The people who volunteer are great - damn near "angels" - but there is no funding. every year something gets cut and you cannot wait for everyone to build up enough personal wealth to keep it covered. It will not happen. Especially not in the current economic climate. In the mean time people are literally dying in the streets and sleeping in crack houses just to have a roof on their heads for the night. Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?

 

No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it. I see it every single day. In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others. There shouldn't be a question. personal opinions are just that but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you and it would be great if you could see others are looking for a flavour of it too. They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life. That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sorry, totally lost me on that analogy.

 

lol, I don't know why but I am not surprised. 

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #128 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation.  People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.

 

Holy shit, are you for real? Want me to get a list of kids who attempted suicide because they can't help who they are? That wish to god they were "normal" so that life could be easier. That thought process is dangerous, asinine and borderline evil. Serious. You are willing to gamble with people's lives because you (who this doesn't effect an any way, shape or form) are "unsure" about something that has nothing to do with you. 

That's just... ****, wow... might as well call them not a whole person. Lets start a study to "prove" it's not true... 20/30 years should be long enough. I'm sure people are willing to put their lives on hold till you feel "sure".

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #129 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

And, sadly, you'll be viewed as an "enemy of human decency" amongst other things simply because you don't agree on a social issue - it's absurd...  Oh, and a bigot to be sure - your views are only allowed it they agree with the liberal agenda, if they don't then you're a hateful bigot with nothing but hate in your heart...

LOL "Liberal Agenda"? Have you ever tried to get liberals to agree on anything?

 

Here, have some fun, try to plan a meal for a Liberal meeting sometime. Or try to keep things on topic without delving into everyone's pet concerns. Can't be done!

 

There is no "liberal agenda" - you choose that phrase for two reasons. One, it sounds scary, like there's a sinister plot about. And Two, because your right-wing media masters (And those actually DO exist - Alles, Limbaugh, ect.) tell you it does. 

 

In reality, it's the difference between supporting people and not supporting people. Apple, as usual, comes down on the right side of history. 

post #130 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services. 

 

But they will (or perhaps family in the examples given) will pay for them when they are needed. People generally do pay for the things they want and need. What they often don't want to pay for are the things that others think they want or need.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.

 

We disagree. I would also suggest that, after generations of this, a vast majority of the public has simply taken on the assumption that the government will take care of that, and this affects their giving. It's not a static issue...it's highly dynamic.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.

 

1confused.gif

 

It's not a question of for me or not for me. It's not an "in between" step because in between suggests a step closer to to the goal. It's not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

 

...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.

 

There were rolling at your lame "success!" comment as if convincing me (or something) is your goal here. Like my agreeing with you is some sign of success. Whatever. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.

 

1confused.gif "Defeatest much?" What the hell does that even mean. I pointed out that you're being tautological on the "using tax dollars means using tax dollars" and I'm saying that what "using" means is not as simple as you claim. I guarantee I can find someone (usually of the leftist, but always of the statist persuasion) that will stretch the definition of "using" here to broadly that almost anything someone is doing is "using tax dollars." These are the same people for whom not paying as much taxes as they think some "should" pay is tantamount to "stealing" from the government.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I don't understand "God-given".

 

Sorry to hear that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

That's not real. 

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society.

 

You say that like a) it's a bad thing, and b) like you can define society objectively enough to make the things we must "do for society" definable and defendable.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

No, it's plenty broad.

 

And yet I have experiences that are in direct contradiction to your claims. So, as I said, I guess not broad enough.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.

 

hey, look...a straw man! Good for you! 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it.

 

And a non sequitur. Wow, you're flush with fallacies.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others.

 

Still speaking in generalities. Be specific please or I'll just have to assume you're hand-waving with weasel-words.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

...but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you...

 

I do and it should be for everyone. I agree 100%. And everyone's rights should be respected. Problem is, I suspect you don't actually agree with that once you boil your positions down to their essence.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life.

 

Still waiting for examples.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.

 

And another non sequitur. Good job!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

lol, I don't know why but I am not surprised. 

 

Whatever. 1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Holy shit, are you for real? Want me to get a list of kids who attempted suicide because they can't help who they are?

 

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

 

My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #132 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by saintstryfe View Post

...comes down on the right side of history. 

 

Ahh that classic liberal talking point that sounds so wise and as if it is some sort of indefensible trump card.

 

lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #133 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.

I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.

I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. You talk of "fallacious arguments" and then throw in "God-given rights." To borrow your words:

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

As a person who wants actual evidence, God is a pretty weak argument. Exactly what proof can you present for the existence of such a thing? And while we're at it, perhaps you could be more specific as to which deity you are referencing. Shiva, Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

If you're going to deride someone for insults, you should perhaps refrain from insults yourself.
Edited by caliminius - 6/27/13 at 2:36pm
post #134 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

 

My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.

 

That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real. Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass. They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs". Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles. I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care. I never expected you do a 180, just as I was confidant in my view but I am not so blind as to think I know all that's needed to know. Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you? But you know what? **** it. You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles. You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large. You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles. You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people. Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you. You americans don't need another like you in power.

I'm out. 

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #135 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real. Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass. They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs". Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles. I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care. I never expected you do a 180, just as I was confidant in my view but I am not so blind as to think I know all that's needed to know. Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you? But you know what? **** it. You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles. You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large. You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles. You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people. Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you. You americans don't need another like you in power.


I'm out. 

Well said.
post #136 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.

 

Delightful. When you have nothing, call name and declare the other person to be an idiot. How liberal of you.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. 

 

Actually it is fallacious to assume that it is not a choice for anyone (which is your implication.)

 

But I'm just a fool and an idiot, so nothing I have to say should concern you anyway.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real.

 

Well, it wasn't a very logical argument. Let me put it that way.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass.

 

And more naming calling. Lovely how you liberals work. If I was being an ass, it was merely in mimicking you being an ass to the other poster.

 

You guts are priceless.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.

I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.

I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. You talk of "fallacious arguments" and then throw in "God-given rights." To borrow your words:

Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?

As a person who wants actual evidence, God is a pretty weak argument. Exactly what proof can you present for the existence of such a thing? And while we're at it, perhaps you could be more specific as to which deity you are referencing. Shiva, Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

If you're going to deride someone for insults, you should perhaps refrain from insults yourself.

You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
post #139 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs".

 

Which is exactly what you did. Geez.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles.

 

I wasn't making fun of anyone's misfortunes. Sorry for your faulty inference there.

 

How ironic of you to accuse me of simply dismissing things while you do the exact same thing right here.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care.

 

And the irony from the guys who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?"

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

I never expected you do a 180

 

What the **** are you talking about?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you?

 

Says the guy who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?" ... called someone an idiot...like the post where another called me an idiot. Priceless.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles.

 

Another faulty inference on your part. I'm not rolling my eyes are anyone's personal struggles. I'm rolling my eyes at (some) of your responses. Get it right.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large.

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles.

 

Bullshit. Trying to address your comments point by point is perfectly valid.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people.

 

I have no interest in telling other people how they should live. Perhaps you are projecting. And here again you demonstrate that you know nothing about me except the caricature you've created in your head because we disagree. It simply makes you feel better to agree that I'm an idiot and believe that I don't care about anyone and that I'm even laughing at them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap View Post

Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you.

 

Then, I would think, you should want it to end also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #140 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.

 

Oh the irony of that statement coming from youlol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics.  This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable.  Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation.  People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.

You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!

And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.
post #142 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by galore2112 View Post

You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!

And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.

 

Yeah, and the mutability isn't really relevant anyway.

 

These issues are usually muddled up with a lot of distracting factors.

 

The fundamental question is who has any right to say who can live, sleep, do whatever together or not. No one except the individuals involved (again this presumes consenting adults.) No one has any right to deny anyone else this right. No one has a right to impose their values on anyone else or make them accept said values. The problem is that some people want it both ways. Some want to tell some group (like Christians or other people of faith) that they cannot impose their values or make someone else accept their values...but the reverse is not true. If I'm part of same-gender couple, I expect everyone else to accept, approve and support this choice, these values and if you decline, I'll sue you.

 

P.S. Technically Jesus was born a Jew. 1smile.gif


Edited by MJ1970 - 6/27/13 at 4:03pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

P.S. Technically Jesus was born a Jew.
Pretty sure he was born, lived & died a Jew...1wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
So when did you choose to be straight instead of gay?
Just asking...
post #144 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Pretty sure he was born, lived & died a Jew...1wink.gif

 

Indeed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

So when did you choose to be straight instead of gay?
Just asking...

 

 

You guys seriously need to come up with some new truthy bumper sticker slogans because this one is getting old.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Marriage predates religion. Get your facts right.

Citation?

Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.

Yeah, what's with the Judeo Christian religious concern with marriage? Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.

 

Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together is a middle ages sort of thing that has no place in a free modern society. If people want to be married as a declaration of their love for one another, that is fine. To do so for the financial benefits is an entirely different situation regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Traditionally the benefits being inherited by the spouse of the primary wage earner made sense because in a typical family the wife would forego a career in order to stay at home and care for children, but in today's society a family can't even make it unless both parents work full time so now days the wife should already have her own retirement benefits. Likewise with same sex couples. Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint, just like today's churches are mostly non-profit corporations.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #146 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.

 

Were they? Is it? 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together...

 

Who is doing that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint...

 

From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.

I agree with this in principle however like every law, it is complicated. Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them but for those whom the current law is an advantage, they are against changing it even though they may not have any predisposed prejudice against gay couples. It is really about finances at this point, not morality. You can't please everyone. That is just the way democracies work.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #148 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.

Oh the irony of that statement coming from youlol.gif

Except that on the occasions that I post there I actually engage the issues and arguments rather than hiding behind the silly rolling eyes and accusations of logical fallacies that you rely on when you have no argument. Which is most of the time. So where, exactly, is the irony?
post #149 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them...

 

In what way exactly?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them...

 

In what way exactly?

In several ways. You know what they are. For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner. Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #151 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

You know what they are.

 

No I don't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner.

 

That's a tax code issue. The tax code needs to be changed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...

 

Employers should be allowed to do that. The deeper problem here is employee-provided health insurance which, interestingly, is a consequence of the tax code too.

 

The better solution here is a dramatic simplification of the tax code and, probably, the elimination of the income tax.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
 

That's a tax code issue. The tax code needs to be changed.

 

Last time I checked the tax code was a law. Coincidently a law that is is a disadvantage for gay civil unions as I originally commented.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #153 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Last time I checked the tax code was a law. Coincidently a law that is is a disadvantage for gay civil unions as I originally commented.

 

Fair enough. But the real solution is to change the bad laws like that then. That's the battle to fight.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #154 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You guys seriously need to come up with some new truthy bumper sticker slogans because this one is getting old.

Who "guys"?

But please follow the conversation.

ExceptionHandler wrote, " People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who".

Since people make a choice to be gay, they could also choose to be not gay, right?

post #155 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Who "guys"?

 

Everyone who asks that ridiculous question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

But please follow the conversation.

 

I saw it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

ExceptionHandler wrote, " People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who".

Since people make a choice to be gay, they could also choose to be not gay, right?

 

See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #156 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."

Serious question.

So people make a choice to be gay but they don't make a choice to be straight?

post #157 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fair enough. But the real solution is to change the bad laws like that then. That's the battle to fight.

If that's the battle to fight then you should do that instead of implying that gays shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.
post #158 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


If that's the battle to fight then you should do that instead of implying that gays shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.

 

Someone should explain the difference between inferring and implying.

 

You have inferred that I'm saying gays (or anyone) shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.

 

I have not implied that in any way, shape or form.

 

To say that I have (or am) is a rather rude and unsupportable accusation.

 

I believe everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

 

The problems that people (apparently you included) so often overlook is that the government seems to be in the business of treating different groups differently, handing out special benefits to some and not to others (often at the expense of others in fact.) I am advocate of eliminating every single bit of that.

 

In my view the only role or responsibility the government has is to protect the basic rights of life, liberty and property (as well as the rights to personal defense, trade/exchange, and association/dis-association, etc.) of every single individual. Period. The issue is that some people want to infringe on some of these rights for the benefit of others who wish to claim certain other "rights" (e.g., the "right" to be provided specific forms of insurance contracts or the "right" to specific employment benefits or the "right" to use any business regardless of the wishes of the business owner.)

 

At this point I feel I've been as crystal clear as I possibly can be. Any further claim by you that I am implying anyone shouldn't get equal treatment under the law can only be explained by sheer dishonesty or willful ignorance.

 

P.S. I would only add that its not always as simple as saying "everyone should be equal under the law" because often the law create specific inequalities and those must be eliminated first. Otherwise you're not really saying anything useful.


Edited by MJ1970 - 6/28/13 at 7:21am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 161

Apple chooses LOVE over Hate.

post #160 of 161
Apple needs to stay out of politics and concentrate on products.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage