Seriously, who gives a flying flip how many wives this guy has. What are we really that jealous, hell a lot of guys would like to be rid of their one wife.
However, the Texas Privacy ruling should not affect his case too much, the big charge against him is "sex with a minor". Pedophiles should be hanged.
"Trumptman counters with the classic 'I know you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant move!"
Look he deserved it. One of the most humorous things is how giant complains about no one reading or replying to my threads. He does this while reading and replying to them.
You of course complain that they were even created and complain that they and I are stupid and lying while hitting the reply button like a mouse looking for a feed pellet.
The thread veered silly so I tossed out some silliness.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
There are some baseline assumptions that I'm just going to have to ask you to deal with yourself. A discussion assumes some knowlege from the parties involved. I don't mind providing some information, but the fact that the hardest core feminists often hate men is pretty much a given. Do I have to prove that Democrats don't agree or believe differently than Republicans in order to start a political discussion with you? You do this in multiple posts. You start trying to turn it into a source and definition debate instead of an idea debate. So again, I don't have to convince someone who cares not to be convinced. I've given you sources from your own organizations and watched you dismiss them. So obviously it is just a tactic you use when you've run out of ideas. It also has about 0% effectiveness with regard to discrediting an idea.
For midwinter and others, sure I replied to it. I type at least 85 wpm and so his reply took all of about two seconds. This one about a minute. So enjoy.
For midwinter and others, sure I replied to it. I type at least 85 wpm and so his reply took all of about two seconds. This one about a minute. So enjoy.
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, advertised to groverat that he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
Sure, there is never alternative spellings due to handles being taken on the internet.
Hey giant, you don't have a capital letter at the front of your name. It is a proper noun and should have a capital letter. So now go around banging on everyone who doesn't know their grammar.
Then you can explain why you are a homophobe. So far you have described the natural, genetically caused love and sex between two men (in your view) to be creepy, and spooky. Are we to believe you feel the same way about heterosexual sex or are you just a homophobe?
As for what I was teasing with grove, it is a common television and movie writing device. Only they do it with a man and a woman of course. They antagonize each other for most of the movie or season of television and then the tension breaks, they kiss, sleep together, etc.
I suppose I could have done the two cops who don't want partners and hate each other but become good lifelong buddies within...oh... 90 minutes...but I'm pretty sure Grove mentioned he is taller than me. That means I'd be his little buddy, and there you are back to the gay thing again.
Sure, but how much time would it take for me to find the supposed sources that will make Shawn change his core beliefs.
That is the claim I was addressing.
Hey Scott, I don't want to believe left isn't right. Please take a few hours and find the sources to prove that. After you are done, I'll dismiss it with a one sentence glib remark, or I'll just call you a liar.
It is time to look at this realistically. There are already polygamous marriages in all of our communities and this likely has been the case for some time. I was told of one that existed in my own neighbourhood, and this was not the product of the freewheeling '60s, but something that started long before (all are dead now). Whether or not they were legally married, they lived as such (probably more so than some who are married in name only). Perhaps this shocks people, perhaps not, but if it does, people should feel free to express their shock privately.
Of course. But the issue du jour seems to be what social/legal recognition such alternative relationships should be given. In many states, infidelity is illegal, but perhaps 25% of people have been involved in infidelity at some point in their lives. If one were to legalize infidelity, then one could also make a case that if an employer is paying for health insurance for the wife of an employee, perhaps that employer should also be legally obligated to provide identical benefits to the employee's mistress. Similarly, if there are tax benefits to joint filing, perhaps the husband/wife/mistress should be allowed to jointly file. The economic implications are sweeping if you allow "unions" of more than two people to be recognized in a legal sense. It is not in society's interest to recognize relationships involving more than two people from a legalistic perspective, any more than it is in society's interest to recognize a legal union between a man and his dog, and allow the man to claim the dog as a dependent on his 1040A.
Polyamorous marriages will never be legally recognized because it opens too many cans of worms.
I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws which could be used to convict consenting adults (as in the Texas case), because I do not believe in victimless crimes. But my general opposition to laws which create victimless crimes does not extend to the argument of whether gay civil unions between two adults should be legally codified. The issue of gay civil unions opens too many cans of worms as well, and whether such legalese would create any positive social benefit is entirely unclear to me. What is clear to me is that gay civil unions would have no positive direct impact on me, but may well have unintended indirect AND negative consequences on me, so in a selfish cost-benefit analysis, there is no strong or weak reason for me to advocate this issue, and there are weak reasons to oppose it. Hence, I fall with the large majority of Americans who oppose gay civil unions. Those who wish to argue for them have to do so on abstract intellectual ground, and the problem with all the perspectives on abstract intellectual ground is there are multiple starting points. Do you argue as Plato, or as John Stuart Mill, or as Nietzsche, or as Buddha, or Jesus, or Muhammed, or Patricia Ireland, or Jerry Garcia, or Ronald McDonald? The structure of any abstract intellectual argument is largely dependent on your point of view and the "axioms" that you accept. I choose to avoid this problem by being selfish about it and asking a very simple question: how does this proposal affect me? You can break it into simpler specific questions, like: will my employer be more likely to drop my medical insurance coverage if gay civil unions are legally recognized and their costs increase? Etc.
A selfish and simple analysis leads to a great number of specific and simple cans of worms being opened--worms which I would prefer were not opened. One can argue abstractly all you want, but that's never going to win an election. My perspective (pure selfishness) might. Bush's Christian perspective might, because there are a great number of people who vote that way, and right now that group is winning. What is certain is that Dean's appeal to the abstract will be met by a great deal of prejudice. \
Hey Scott, I don't want to believe left isn't right. [/B]
Um, I know you're pretty firmly entrenched in your beliefs, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out to you that left, in fact, isn't right. Right is right.
Call me a liar if you want, or dismiss it with a glib remark. But that won't change anything.
Um, I know you're pretty firmly entrenched in your beliefs, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out to you that left, in fact, isn't right. Right is right.
Call me a liar if you want, or dismiss it with a glib remark. But that won't change anything.
Cheers
Scott
Now I'll do what Shawn does. No come on show left isn't right. It's your assertion so prove it or you are a liar. (Of course he could link or provide something himself, but that would require effort and it is just more fun to demand it of others)
Where's your proof? Come on, you've got to put the time in just because I make demands... on a thread...on an internet forum...because I'm a 20 year old kid who buses tables....
Perhaps now others will get the point. When one doesn't like a claim, they are free to present and prove a counter-claim. Sitting back and just demanding others prove their claim more and to his satisfaction is pretentious and lazy.
Now I'll do what Shawn does. No come on show left isn't right. It's your assertion so prove it or you are a liar. (Of course he could link or provide something himself, but that would require effort and it is just more fun to demand it of others)
Where's your proof? Come on, you've got to put the time in just because I make demands... on a thread...on an internet forum...because I'm a 20 year old kid who buses tables....
Perhaps now others will get the point. When one doesn't like a claim, they are free to present and prove a counter-claim. Sitting back and just demanding others prove their claim more and to his satisfaction is pretentious and lazy.
Nick
...Checks watch. Nope. I don't have time for you. Except to make this post. And maybe respond to another one or two down the road.
I don't mind providing some information, but the fact that the hardest core feminists often hate men is pretty much a given.
You can usually edit the substantive part of a trumptman post down to one sentence like that. I'll address it: It is *NOT* a given that radical feminists are "man-haters." In my *FIRST POST* on this subject I argued that it was a stereotype. So I ask again (how many times is it?): How are radical feminists "man-haters?" Maybe you can finally explain it this time. I'm less than hopeful.
...Checks watch. Nope. I don't have time for you. Except to make this post. And maybe respond to another one or two down the road.
Cheers
Scott
Oh geeze, you still didn't prove left isn't right. What a generalization. I've boiled your whole post and every idea presented in this forum down to this one point that you have to prove to my satisfaction... with sources I approve of... while I do nothing by that sit back and whine.
If you don't prove that left isn't right this time... I'll quote it again and repeat it again until you do!
I might even hold my breath while kicking and screaming on the floor. Oh and if you don't think I can hold my breath while screaming... you better bring some sources I approve of for that too or else you're a liar.
You can usually edit the substantive part of a trumptman post down to one sentence like that. I'll address it: It is *NOT* a given that radical feminists are "man-haters." In my *FIRST POST* on this subject I argued that it was a stereotype. So I ask again (how many times is it?): How are radical feminists "man-haters?" Maybe you can finally explain it this time. I'm less than hopeful.
Oh geeze, you still didn't prove left isn't right. What a generalization. I've boiled your whole post and every idea presented in this forum down to this one point that you have to prove to my satisfaction... with sources I approve of... while I do nothing by that sit back and whine.
If you don't prove that left isn't right this time... I'll quote it again and repeat it again until you do!
I might even hold my breath while kicking and screaming on the floor. Oh and if you don't think I can hold my breath while screaming... you better bring some sources I approve of for that too or else you're a liar.
Nick
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
This indisputably proves my point, and if you can't see how, you're intellectually dishonest, partisan, and otherwise not good.
Cheers
Scott
Geesh your source was actually at a meeting once with Brit Hume who works for Fox News. So obviously it is echo chamber, sound bite, talking point garbage that can't be given any credence.
I'm still waiting.... and holding my breath too...
Quote:
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
Tuesdays!! Using mainstream constructs against my alternative views! How dare you, you lying liar. Why you can't prove Tuesday is really Tuesday more than you can prove left is not right. All our time constructs are just fabrications. You are going to have to find a linkable source that doesn't rely on assumptions like Tuesday.
Geesh your source was actually at a meeting once with Brit Hume who works for Fox News. So obviously it is echo chamber, sound bite, talking point garbage that can't be given any credence.
...
Tuesdays!! Using mainstream constructs against my alternative views! How dare you, you lying liar. Why you can't prove Tuesday is really Tuesday more than you can prove left is not right. All our time constructs are just fabrications. You are going to have to find a linkable source that doesn't rely on assumptions like Tuesday.
What a liar you are....
Nick [/B]
Oh my god.
You're right.
I've been wrong all along.
Thanks for pointing out the poverty of my news sources, the weakness of my reasoning, and the arbitrariness of the "truths" to which I've been clinging for so long!
We need to have a bizarro-world thread where everyone switches sides.
Comments
Sexual habits are private, and people are free to make gang band if they want, wether they are married and not. But marriage is a public thing.
However, the Texas Privacy ruling should not affect his case too much, the big charge against him is "sex with a minor". Pedophiles should be hanged.
Originally posted by trumptman
If marriage is defined by government, then they can also choose to define it as exclusively between a man and a woman.
Nick
Well holy crap they already have. Now people are trying to change it. AMAZING!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
This is like one of those chess matches on ESPN.
(hushed voice)
"Trumptman counters with the classic 'I know you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant move!"
Look he deserved it. One of the most humorous things is how giant complains about no one reading or replying to my threads. He does this while reading and replying to them.
You of course complain that they were even created and complain that they and I are stupid and lying while hitting the reply button like a mouse looking for a feed pellet.
The thread veered silly so I tossed out some silliness.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
There are some baseline assumptions that I'm just going to have to ask you to deal with yourself. A discussion assumes some knowlege from the parties involved. I don't mind providing some information, but the fact that the hardest core feminists often hate men is pretty much a given. Do I have to prove that Democrats don't agree or believe differently than Republicans in order to start a political discussion with you? You do this in multiple posts. You start trying to turn it into a source and definition debate instead of an idea debate. So again, I don't have to convince someone who cares not to be convinced. I've given you sources from your own organizations and watched you dismiss them. So obviously it is just a tactic you use when you've run out of ideas. It also has about 0% effectiveness with regard to discrediting an idea.
For midwinter and others, sure I replied to it. I type at least 85 wpm and so his reply took all of about two seconds. This one about a minute. So enjoy.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
For midwinter and others, sure I replied to it. I type at least 85 wpm and so his reply took all of about two seconds. This one about a minute. So enjoy.
Nick [/B]
Then I guess you did have the time.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
Hey, all I have to do is point out that in this thread he's devoted a whole lot of time to goverat, advertised to groverat that he doesn't like have sex with women and then gone full-fledged creepy as he details (in stages even!) his fantasy of gay sex with groverat. Really, he's done all the work for me.
Thanks trumpetman! Oh, sorry. I forgot you can't spell your own name. Thanks, trumptman!
Sure, there is never alternative spellings due to handles being taken on the internet.
Hey giant, you don't have a capital letter at the front of your name. It is a proper noun and should have a capital letter. So now go around banging on everyone who doesn't know their grammar.
Then you can explain why you are a homophobe. So far you have described the natural, genetically caused love and sex between two men (in your view) to be creepy, and spooky. Are we to believe you feel the same way about heterosexual sex or are you just a homophobe?
As for what I was teasing with grove, it is a common television and movie writing device. Only they do it with a man and a woman of course. They antagonize each other for most of the movie or season of television and then the tension breaks, they kiss, sleep together, etc.
I suppose I could have done the two cops who don't want partners and hate each other but become good lifelong buddies within...oh... 90 minutes...but I'm pretty sure Grove mentioned he is taller than me. That means I'd be his little buddy, and there you are back to the gay thing again.
Keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay.....
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
Then I guess you did have the time.
Cheers
Scott
Sure, but how much time would it take for me to find the supposed sources that will make Shawn change his core beliefs.
That is the claim I was addressing.
Hey Scott, I don't want to believe left isn't right. Please take a few hours and find the sources to prove that. After you are done, I'll dismiss it with a one sentence glib remark, or I'll just call you a liar.
Enjoy.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Marriage is a public act. It's the official recocnizition from the society of the union of two people. There is nothing private here.
Sexual habits are private, and people are free to make gang band if they want, wether they are married and not. But marriage is a public thing.
Uh and we don't have any laws against adultery nor does it determine how the state handles divorce proceedings.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
It is time to look at this realistically. There are already polygamous marriages in all of our communities and this likely has been the case for some time. I was told of one that existed in my own neighbourhood, and this was not the product of the freewheeling '60s, but something that started long before (all are dead now). Whether or not they were legally married, they lived as such (probably more so than some who are married in name only). Perhaps this shocks people, perhaps not, but if it does, people should feel free to express their shock privately.
Of course. But the issue du jour seems to be what social/legal recognition such alternative relationships should be given. In many states, infidelity is illegal, but perhaps 25% of people have been involved in infidelity at some point in their lives. If one were to legalize infidelity, then one could also make a case that if an employer is paying for health insurance for the wife of an employee, perhaps that employer should also be legally obligated to provide identical benefits to the employee's mistress. Similarly, if there are tax benefits to joint filing, perhaps the husband/wife/mistress should be allowed to jointly file. The economic implications are sweeping if you allow "unions" of more than two people to be recognized in a legal sense. It is not in society's interest to recognize relationships involving more than two people from a legalistic perspective, any more than it is in society's interest to recognize a legal union between a man and his dog, and allow the man to claim the dog as a dependent on his 1040A.
Polyamorous marriages will never be legally recognized because it opens too many cans of worms.
I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws which could be used to convict consenting adults (as in the Texas case), because I do not believe in victimless crimes. But my general opposition to laws which create victimless crimes does not extend to the argument of whether gay civil unions between two adults should be legally codified. The issue of gay civil unions opens too many cans of worms as well, and whether such legalese would create any positive social benefit is entirely unclear to me. What is clear to me is that gay civil unions would have no positive direct impact on me, but may well have unintended indirect AND negative consequences on me, so in a selfish cost-benefit analysis, there is no strong or weak reason for me to advocate this issue, and there are weak reasons to oppose it. Hence, I fall with the large majority of Americans who oppose gay civil unions. Those who wish to argue for them have to do so on abstract intellectual ground, and the problem with all the perspectives on abstract intellectual ground is there are multiple starting points. Do you argue as Plato, or as John Stuart Mill, or as Nietzsche, or as Buddha, or Jesus, or Muhammed, or Patricia Ireland, or Jerry Garcia, or Ronald McDonald? The structure of any abstract intellectual argument is largely dependent on your point of view and the "axioms" that you accept. I choose to avoid this problem by being selfish about it and asking a very simple question: how does this proposal affect me? You can break it into simpler specific questions, like: will my employer be more likely to drop my medical insurance coverage if gay civil unions are legally recognized and their costs increase? Etc.
A selfish and simple analysis leads to a great number of specific and simple cans of worms being opened--worms which I would prefer were not opened. One can argue abstractly all you want, but that's never going to win an election. My perspective (pure selfishness) might. Bush's Christian perspective might, because there are a great number of people who vote that way, and right now that group is winning. What is certain is that Dean's appeal to the abstract will be met by a great deal of prejudice.
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey Scott, I don't want to believe left isn't right. [/B]
Um, I know you're pretty firmly entrenched in your beliefs, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out to you that left, in fact, isn't right. Right is right.
Call me a liar if you want, or dismiss it with a glib remark. But that won't change anything.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Um, I know you're pretty firmly entrenched in your beliefs, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out to you that left, in fact, isn't right. Right is right.
Call me a liar if you want, or dismiss it with a glib remark. But that won't change anything.
Cheers
Scott
Now I'll do what Shawn does. No come on show left isn't right. It's your assertion so prove it or you are a liar. (Of course he could link or provide something himself, but that would require effort and it is just more fun to demand it of others)
Where's your proof? Come on,
Perhaps now others will get the point. When one doesn't like a claim, they are free to present and prove a counter-claim. Sitting back and just demanding others prove their claim more and to his satisfaction is pretentious and lazy.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Now I'll do what Shawn does. No come on show left isn't right. It's your assertion so prove it or you are a liar. (Of course he could link or provide something himself, but that would require effort and it is just more fun to demand it of others)
Where's your proof? Come on,
Perhaps now others will get the point. When one doesn't like a claim, they are free to present and prove a counter-claim. Sitting back and just demanding others prove their claim more and to his satisfaction is pretentious and lazy.
Nick
...Checks watch. Nope. I don't have time for you. Except to make this post. And maybe respond to another one or two down the road.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't mind providing some information, but the fact that the hardest core feminists often hate men is pretty much a given.
You can usually edit the substantive part of a trumptman post down to one sentence like that. I'll address it: It is *NOT* a given that radical feminists are "man-haters." In my *FIRST POST* on this subject I argued that it was a stereotype. So I ask again (how many times is it?): How are radical feminists "man-haters?" Maybe you can finally explain it this time. I'm less than hopeful.
Originally posted by midwinter
...Checks watch. Nope. I don't have time for you. Except to make this post. And maybe respond to another one or two down the road.
Cheers
Scott
Oh geeze, you still didn't prove left isn't right. What a generalization. I've boiled your whole post and every idea presented in this forum down to this one point that you have to prove to my satisfaction... with sources I approve of... while I do nothing by that sit back and whine.
If you don't prove that left isn't right this time... I'll quote it again and repeat it again until you do!
I might even hold my breath while kicking and screaming on the floor. Oh and if you don't think I can hold my breath while screaming... you better bring some sources I approve of for that too or else you're a liar.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You can usually edit the substantive part of a trumptman post down to one sentence like that. I'll address it: It is *NOT* a given that radical feminists are "man-haters." In my *FIRST POST* on this subject I argued that it was a stereotype. So I ask again (how many times is it?): How are radical feminists "man-haters?" Maybe you can finally explain it this time. I'm less than hopeful.
Wow... I'm an area of study....
This week.. the trumptman post...
Next week.. the trumptman reply....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh geeze, you still didn't prove left isn't right. What a generalization. I've boiled your whole post and every idea presented in this forum down to this one point that you have to prove to my satisfaction... with sources I approve of... while I do nothing by that sit back and whine.
If you don't prove that left isn't right this time... I'll quote it again and repeat it again until you do!
I might even hold my breath while kicking and screaming on the floor. Oh and if you don't think I can hold my breath while screaming... you better bring some sources I approve of for that too or else you're a liar.
Nick
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
Cheers
Scott
Forgot to include the link you've demanded.
Sinister Implications: Scientists Prove Left is Left and Right Is Right
This indisputably proves my point, and if you can't see how, you're intellectually dishonest, partisan, and otherwise not good.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Forgot to include the link you've demanded.
Sinister Implications: Scientists Prove Left is Left and Right Is Right
This indisputably proves my point, and if you can't see how, you're intellectually dishonest, partisan, and otherwise not good.
Cheers
Scott
Geesh your source was actually at a meeting once with Brit Hume who works for Fox News. So obviously it is echo chamber, sound bite, talking point garbage that can't be given any credence.
I'm still waiting.... and holding my breath too...
I really don't have the time. But if I did, I would point out that most people with hair and brown eyes agree on this issue on Tuesdays. That's a widely accepted fact.
Tuesdays!! Using mainstream constructs against my alternative views! How dare you, you lying liar. Why you can't prove Tuesday is really Tuesday more than you can prove left is not right. All our time constructs are just fabrications. You are going to have to find a linkable source that doesn't rely on assumptions like Tuesday.
What a liar you are....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Geesh your source was actually at a meeting once with Brit Hume who works for Fox News. So obviously it is echo chamber, sound bite, talking point garbage that can't be given any credence.
...
Tuesdays!! Using mainstream constructs against my alternative views! How dare you, you lying liar. Why you can't prove Tuesday is really Tuesday more than you can prove left is not right. All our time constructs are just fabrications. You are going to have to find a linkable source that doesn't rely on assumptions like Tuesday.
What a liar you are....
Nick [/B]
Oh my god.
You're right.
I've been wrong all along.
Thanks for pointing out the poverty of my news sources, the weakness of my reasoning, and the arbitrariness of the "truths" to which I've been clinging for so long!
We need to have a bizarro-world thread where everyone switches sides.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So how are radical feminists "man-haters" again? Maybe you can finally explain it this time.
"Because I said so."