|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Grow a pair. You're an idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do you have trouble getting jokes sometimes?
People don't get jokes when they think they are defending their ego.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
People don't get jokes when they think they are defending their ego. Is that supposed to have something to do with me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
People don't get jokes when they think they are defending their ego.
Is that supposed to have something to do with me? Is there a joke that I am missing? Honestly, I still don't get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, I didn't think that you were actually joking.
That's why you doubled-down and tried to clarify the point you were making. It was only after it was explained how stupid your point was that you fell back on: "Oh, uh, no I was just joking". People do that all the time. And if you really were joking, then you could have just explained the joke. But you can't, 'cause you weren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Cat's Eye writes:
Yeah, I didn't think that you were actually joking. There are other ways of not being serious than by joking. I was not joking, just trying to illicit a chuckle. You are the one who has made a mountain out of a grain of sand. Back in Message 89 I was ready to drop this:
But never mind this. It's too small an issue, a skid mark on the road, if you will. All is forgiven. All is still forgiven. This is the Coffee House, man - an occasional stray bullet might hit the ceiling cat.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Its all good, xong
I'm not butt-hurt or anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I personally think the Church fell away from God when they made a man into a God and promoted the idea of 'Trinity'. It has been all down hill since then. For that matter, accepting a false messiah didn't do it any good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat's Eye writes:
There's a difference between having children and having children. So do you accept that it is actually relatively easy for gay couples to have unwanted children? You can have children that somebody else had. You don't have to want children to have children but you usually have to want children to have somebody else's. Although the original statement probably wasn't intended to examine the question that subtly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You don't have to want children to have children but you usually have to want children to have somebody else's. Let's apply this statement to a couple (you pick the sexes) who decides to have their children via a surrogate mother. Use the appropriate definition of 'have' children. What you will find is that your chosen definition of 'have' is not compatible with the statement that same sex children always 'have' wanted children.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Tell that to Cat Sci.
Use the appropriate definition of 'have' children.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Tom while Mark had had had had had had had had had had pleased the teacher more.
It's just punctuation eh? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Tell that to Cat Sci. I don't think Cat Sci needs any correction. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There's a difference between having children and having children. You can have children that somebody else had. You don't have to want children to have children but you usually have to want children to have somebody else's. I get that. Gay couples who have to adopt have to really want a kid to get one. I've not missed that point. (its also true for straight couples btw) And if someone is talking about how kids need to have dual-sex parents, then I also get that you could make a joke about how gay couples have to really want to have the kid when they have to adopt, so implicitly, having to be wanted by the parents would mean that it would actually be better for the kid in the gay couple situation. My point is that portraying gay couples as being in a position to have to adopt in order to have kids, in order to make that joke (which I'm not convinced was actually made), is ignorant of just how easy it is for gay couples to have custody of a child (which is where your "difference" falls apart), and also be in a position of not wanting them. And that practically, it is the same as it is for straight couples. They could even stop wanting the kid after they adopted it. My original reply was just a clarification, not some hug missing of the point, or even the "joke". Xong did end up clarifying, but that explanation only made the ignorance seem deeper (alas, that could have been a joke as well), rather than explain that my call for clarification was mislead. And if it was all just an elaboration of the ruse, then shame on him. But it actually reads like damage-control... Others jumped in as if I had really just been missing the whole point the whole time, but really they were just missing mine. Then Xong explained that he just wasn't being serious, even though it wasn't really an actual joke. You know: "I said something stupid but I didn't actually mean it." You've been there, right? I'm actually glad we got that cleared up. I think it exposed a lot about some of the posters here. I never did think that Xong was being super-serious, I just thought the clarification was worth being made. Seriously, go back and re-read my posts in this tone. I've been right the whole time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024