Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 181 of 192 (490938)
12-10-2008 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Artemis Entreri
12-09-2008 5:32 PM


quote:
Sounds to me as if you dont really even want me to respond.
I'd be absolutely delighted if you responded in a meaningful way. I've made this argument so many times that about all I have to do any more is cut and paste from prior posts, and so far nobody has anything substantive to say in response. Sadly, you haven't either.
quote:
there was alot of stuff you were saying about the loving case (post #141), and interracial marriage, almost as if that's what we were talking about. All I said was that the Loving case was not related to prop 8. then you go on to explain the loving case and the 14th amendment, which is fine but you never really answered or refuted what i said. I am not argueing what you said, but it was a red herring. It was a particlarly long and well written red herring with much detail, but it did nothing to stay on topic (a classic well written red herring technique, i must say it was impressive though).
This demonstrates one of the following:
1. You don't understand the concept of arguing from established principles by analogy.
2. You understand the concept but refuse to accept it.
3. You understand it and accept it and, thus, know that you have nothing to say in response and so simply say "Nuh uh!"
In any event, it's not a substantive rebuttal to what I said.
To summarize briefly, the Loving decision established the following principles:
1. The Fourteenth Amendment provides restrictions on how the States can regulate marriage; and
2. Marriage is a fundamental right that the States cannot infringe upon without a compelling purpose, and any infringement must be the least restrictive manner to achieve that purpose.
Both of these principles apply to the issue of gay marriage, even though the factual situations are somewhat different. If you wish to give a substantive response, you could explain how the Loving case did not in fact establish these principles, or you could explain why those principles don't apply to the issue of gay marriage. Here's a hint, simply saying "That doesn't apply" isn't explaining anything, it's simply saying "Nuh uh!"
quote:
I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government. it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.
In other words, your response is again, "Nuh uh!"
quote:
BTW what did Coleman v. Miller have to do with what I was saying? thanks for the link and the information, but the BS is in the set up, not the time required for ratification.
The part of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that you are complaining about is the appointment of the new legislatures and their subsequent ratification. The quote from the Coleman opinion that I provided specifically discusses this part of the process and notes that the Secretary of State reviewed that process and determined that it resulted in an effective ratification, a determination that the Court accepts. I didn't cite Coleman for the holding in that case, but for the discussion of the ratification process that I quoted.
Unless you have something more to say in response to this besides "Nuh uh!," I shall assume that you cannot or will not engage this topic in further meaningful discussion.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-09-2008 5:32 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 182 of 192 (491016)
12-10-2008 8:45 PM


kuresu writes:
See, in academia, you have to actually reference your arguments.
sorry to break it too you but this aint academia.
kuresu writes:
Argument from authority is when you bring in an authoritative source, invalidate criticism. That is, the source is infallible, it is right because it is an expert.
Seems similar to your next paragragh
kuresu writes:
That you think this cite is extremely casual is perhaps part of the problem. I daresay there is much that is extremely casual. Then again, one need only look toward razd, anglagard, brian, cavediver, son goku, coyote, bluejay, roxrkool, and numerous others who are either experts in their field, working towards becoming an expert, or have filed impressive arguments reliant upon a large amount of coherent information, to see that this site also has some very non-casual threads and messages. And from the creationist side of the debate, some very hard to counter threads and posts.
Sources? How about credentials? If we have real experts, are they experts because you say so, or is there some evidence?
Furthermore this is not a scientific debate, this is not a creationist debate, this is a political debate. Even if all that is true, it’s just more crap.
But hey I don’t need evidence and sources I can just agree with the experts here, listed above, and piggyback/puppydog my way around this site [sarcasm]. Are you seriously being serious?
kuresu writes:
Turn the other cheek? Could have sworn Jesus said that one as well. And I'm pretty sure you launched some jabs (not necessarily ad hominems, because I'm not certain you meant them like that) towards me that were unprovoked. There is a written record for all to see and judge us by.
There you are again brining up jesus and the bible again. This is off topic, (I guess this answers my thread jacking question), completely irrelevant, and BS from a supposed atheist.
Quit drawing straws and interjecting irrelevant off topic stuff. You don’t need a straw to drink that kool-aid.
kuresu writes:
So my final guess is that the 15th isn't a bogus amendment either. Just the 14th. So why? Forced ratification can't be it. Is it the submission of state government to the federal?
Well I answered this question and already and you refused to listen to my answer. If you want to play that game there is not much more for me to tell you.
subbie writes:
Unless you have something more to say in response to this besides "Nuh uh!," I shall assume that you cannot or will not engage this topic in further meaningful discussion.
Roflmfao!!!!
I love this site, you guys are the best comedy on the internet.
Well subbie all I have to say to you is Ditto. You don’t like what I have to say, and are pissed I called you on your red herring, so you are going to pretend, I said something else. You can be that way if you want to. Meaningful discussion? LOL, as if you provided any yourself.
PWND!

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by bluescat48, posted 12-10-2008 10:40 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 184 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2008 4:51 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4271 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 183 of 192 (491026)
12-10-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Artemis Entreri
12-10-2008 8:45 PM


Fine, you don't like the 14th ammendment, then get 34 state legislatures to repeal it. Until such time as that can be accomplished it is still part of the Constitution, and therefore relevant to prop 8
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-10-2008 8:45 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 184 of 192 (491045)
12-11-2008 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Artemis Entreri
12-10-2008 8:45 PM


sorry to break it too you but this aint academia
No, it's not. But given that we are debating on a science board (in general), it's not a bad thing to observe some of academia's rules. Even if this wasn't a science board, it would still be good to cite sources for evidence that proves or disproves a claim. It's just good debating.
Sources? How about credentials? If we have real experts, are they experts because you say so, or is there some evidence?
Furthermore this is not a scientific debate, this is not a creationist debate, this is a political debate. Even if all that is true, it’s just more crap.
But hey I don’t need evidence and sources I can just agree with the experts here, listed above, and piggyback/puppydog my way around this site [sarcasm]. Are you seriously being serious?
I figured you would miss the point. The paragraph you quote is not an argument by authority. Rather, it was to let you know that this site is casual and not casual. As to credentials, I would ask them myself. But that's my understanding from what they've previously said. Now then, that does not mean what they say is right (and I never claimed that), but that they are great sources in those topics. When you are debating the validity of radiometric dating (or specifically carbon-14, as that's what coyote does), he does have a better understanding of why it is valid and how creationist arguments against it are bunk. They still have to provide evidence to back up their argument, and I have yet to see any of them claim "I'm right because I'm an expert".
I also never suggested piggybacking off of the experts. You have a gift for putting words in my mouth.
There you are again brining up jesus and the bible again. This is off topic, (I guess this answers my thread jacking question), completely irrelevant, and BS from a supposed atheist.
Well, just trying to remind you of a certain code of conduct suggested in the bible that you seem intent on breaking. The only relevance it has is to your post to FO accusing him of things he hasn't done (and some of which you had!).
Well I answered this question and already and you refused to listen to my answer. If you want to play that game there is not much more for me to tell you.
Well, I read your argument. And your argument, to me, would make three amendments bogus. You think two are, because the 13th merely reflected the new situation on the ground. The rest of my post regarding that is largely just working out some of the potential consequences of thinking the 15th is bogus. One is that you think that an amendment protecting the rights of all men to vote, regardless of race, is bogus. Continuing down that line, the 19th amendment could be bogus because it protects the right of everyone over 21 to vote, regardless of sex, and that the 26th amendment, which protects the rights of anyone over 18 to vote, is bogus.
Which naturally does not make sense. How could an amendment that protects rights be bogus? Which means we're back to your original argument, that the southern states wree forced to ratify and therefore the amendment is bogus. Which then means that the 13th is bogus. Because it's ratification was forced on the southern states. Regardless of confirming the situation on the ground.
Introducing your explanation why the 13th is not bogus but the 15th still is leads to a disturbing point of view. So perhaps you have a reason why the 15th is not bogus? Because surely you wouldn't say that an amendment protecting the fundamental rights of a people is bogus? If you do, what would stop someone from suggesting the 2nd is bogus? What about the 5th? The 8th? Do you see the problem with claiming that the 15th (and indeed, the 14th) is bogus?
There is plenty more for you to tell me. I've read your arguments. These are the conclusions I've drawn.
Roflmfao!!!!
I love this site, you guys are the best comedy on the internet.
Well subbie all I have to say to you is Ditto. You don’t like what I have to say, and are pissed I called you on your red herring, so you are going to pretend, I said something else. You can be that way if you want to. Meaningful discussion? LOL, as if you provided any yourself.
PWND!
Yes, you are making quite the fool of yourself. I highly doubt subbie is pissed off over your post (there are very few of us who are that emotionally invested in this board). As to meaningful discussion, you haven't exactly been bringing your "a-game" to the board, which may be connected with your thought that a five minute google is all you need do. Still, you never really challenged subbie's points, effectively stating "nu-uh!". You have yet to show how Loving v. VA does not apply to prop 8 in a manner that stands up to scrutiny. Subbie showed how it does. By showing how Loving v. VA states that marriage is a fundamental right. Since marriage is a fundamental right, how can you take it away from homosexuals? So far, your counter is that Loving v. VA has to deal with inter-racial, not same-sex, and therefore does not apply. This evades the issue of the fundamental right to marry. Perhaps you could argue how Loving v. VA does not guarantee the fundamental right to marry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-10-2008 8:45 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 185 of 192 (491134)
12-11-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Artemis Entreri
12-09-2008 5:32 PM


Artemis Entreri writes:
quote:
All I said was that the Loving case was not related to prop 8.
Considering that the IN RE decision (which Prop 8 reversed) using Loving v. Virginia as a justification for why gay people have the right to marry, it will be interesting to hear you explain why it is not connected.
It is in Loving v. Virginia that we find the SCOTUS declaring that marriage is a fundamental right. Since Prop 8 denies the right to marry to gay people, how can it not be relevant? Gay people aren't citizens and therefore are not entitled to the fundamental right of marriage?
quote:
I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government.
Exactly how can you have the right to free speech if the state is capable of taking it away? Your rights have to be able to go all the way down or they don't mean anything.
quote:
it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.
Then you clearly don't accept Article IV, Section 2 because it says the same thing:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
So how do you reconcile your claim? We should overturn Article IV, too?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-09-2008 5:32 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 186 of 192 (491143)
12-12-2008 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
12-09-2008 6:35 PM


PaulK writes:
quote:
I simply find it bizarre to suggest that the Federal government is being tyrannical in taking a stand against tyranny at the level of the State governments.
It's the natural extension of the idea that refusing to accept intolerance is intolerance.
Of course, the Constitution already stated that the states couldn't override federal guarantees in Article IV, Section 2, but the Fourteenth Amendment makes it more explicit. If AE is truly upset over the Fourteenth, then he must think the unamended Constitution itself is out of bounds.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2008 6:35 PM PaulK has not replied

Baldrick Cunningplan
Junior Member (Idle past 5486 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 01-07-2009


Message 187 of 192 (493193)
01-07-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-22-2008 3:28 AM


The question isn't how I sleep at night. The question is how you don't choke to death, what with all the bullshit spewing from your mouth. The idea that "homophobia" (a fictitious word fabricated by liberals) is comparable to ethnic discrimination is utterly comical (although not in any way that makes me laugh), as is the idea that there's something wrong with the latter. I have the right to take away the happiness of homosexuals, just as I have the right to take away the happiness of any pedophile or any other breed of subhuman. The happiness of sick freaks must never come at the expense of the basic human sense of right and wrong. It certainly must not come at the expense of what is best for children. Anyone who supports abortion must hang from the neck till dead (it's genuinely nothing but baby-murdering...but I guess women don't have a problem with killing millions of babies as long as women get all the rights they want and don't have to experience any physical discomfort), but I can safely tell you that, were I not yet born, and I had sentience and the option of either being raised by homosexuals or being aborted, I would choose abortion without a second thought. If it's not wrong to discriminate against homosexuals then it can't possibly be wrong to elect the Grand Dragon of the KKK for president. How do I sleep at night? No. The question is how do YOU sleep at night?
And yes, I know that I supposedly supported abortion just now after saying anyone who does must die, but I already know that, so don't be a smartass. And I would be aborting myself, not anyone else.
Edited by Baldrick Cunningplan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-22-2008 3:28 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-07-2009 4:36 AM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied
 Message 189 by onifre, posted 01-08-2009 6:26 PM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied
 Message 190 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2009 7:45 PM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 188 of 192 (493196)
01-07-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan
01-07-2009 4:18 AM


How about more than a little less rabid?
We really do prefer a calmer variety of discussion, rather than foaming at the mouth ranting.
We also really prefer "no replies to admin messages" - such in itself can get you a suspension (suspensions in general can range from an hour to perminent).
Let's work on "be nice". Especially to me.
I suggest the other members not reply to this rant.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan, posted 01-07-2009 4:18 AM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-08-2009 10:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 189 of 192 (493417)
01-08-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan
01-07-2009 4:18 AM


The question isn't how I sleep at night. The question is how you don't choke to death, what with all the bullshit spewing from your mouth. The idea that "homophobia" (a fictitious word fabricated by liberals) is comparable to ethnic discrimination is utterly comical (although not in any way that makes me laugh), as is the idea that there's something wrong with the latter. I have the right to take away the happiness of homosexuals, just as I have the right to take away the happiness of any pedophile or any other breed of subhuman. The happiness of sick freaks must never come at the expense of the basic human sense of right and wrong. It certainly must not come at the expense of what is best for children. Anyone who supports abortion must hang from the neck till dead (it's genuinely nothing but baby-murdering...but I guess women don't have a problem with killing millions of babies as long as women get all the rights they want and don't have to experience any physical discomfort), but I can safely tell you that, were I not yet born, and I had sentience and the option of either being raised by homosexuals or being aborted, I would choose abortion without a second thought. If it's not wrong to discriminate against homosexuals then it can't possibly be wrong to elect the Grand Dragon of the KKK for president. How do I sleep at night? No. The question is how do YOU sleep at night?
And yes, I know that I supposedly supported abortion just now after saying anyone who does must die, but I already know that, so don't be a smartass. And I would be aborting myself, not anyone else.
I did a gig where the enitre audience thought this exact same way.
"Hootmon is that you out there heckling me...?"
Funny though, he refered to homo-sexuals as sub-humans, however, when I looked out into that audience the word sub-human seemed like a compliment.
I guess fucking your sister is ok as long as you don't abort that fetus!
Edited by onifre, : ABE

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan, posted 01-07-2009 4:18 AM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 190 of 192 (493429)
01-08-2009 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan
01-07-2009 4:18 AM


I have the right to take away the happiness of homosexuals... ...The happiness of sick freaks must never come at the expense of the basic human sense of right and wrong.
Anyone who supports abortion must hang from the neck till dead
Surely hell cannot be worse than a heaven full of this shit? Check here for more insanity - do you think Baldrick gets a hi-five?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Baldrick Cunningplan, posted 01-07-2009 4:18 AM Baldrick Cunningplan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by onifre, posted 01-08-2009 7:56 PM cavediver has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 191 of 192 (493438)
01-08-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by cavediver
01-08-2009 7:45 PM


The video was hilarious!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2009 7:45 PM cavediver has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 192 of 192 (493452)
01-08-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Adminnemooseus
01-07-2009 4:36 AM


Topic closed because of runnings with the troll
Adminnemooseus writes:
I suggest the other members not reply to this rant.
The end.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-07-2009 4:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024