Wow! . . . I Told You. .
Wow I was hoping I misread the ruling.
It is starting to look like if they get a right then others seem to lose there's.

Dose the EEOC not know that they did this ?

Wow is all I can say! Everyone is making up law's to support their own agenda not f-Inge looking at the other's they have placed in harm,  
For the few, all will suffer.

Well good I never could understand how women were consider a protected class and could not be discriminated against. Shit, world wise there are more women them men.

Haha "Down With the Femm-bot Bitches"

Oh Yea. . . I do wonder is the women know about this and how they well reacted to it. Hopefully they should say " hey bull-shit buddy" you need to rethink your shit"

To the homosexual community some advice - - - Don't bite the hand that feeds you

Man, Anima are you fucking serious?!!

We are not misreading their ruling. Cause you know sometimes your reading and it is not what was actually said but your own misinterpretation??


PLEASE let someone review this ruling and see the undoing of women's protection in the work force!!!


HELL NO, THAT RULING IS FULL OF BULL SHIT!!!

But it was always said that " we are not hurting anyone." But you are.

(July 20, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Ace Wrote: Man, Anima are you fucking serious?!!

We are not misreading their ruling. Cause you know sometimes your reading and it is not what was actually said but your own misinterpretation??


PLEASE let someone review this ruling and see the undoing of women's protection in the work force!!!


HELL NO, THAT RULING IS FULL OF BULL SHIT!!!

But it was always said that " we are not hurting anyone." But you are.

Ace;

It is real! The only thing is the EEOC ruling has no force in law. But it looks like they intend to change that too.

“If you look at our movement’s success, we are a lot better at litigating than we are at lobbying,” Mr. Almeida said. “We should take the E.E.O.C. decision and run with it by turning to the federal courts to win workplace protections in all 50 states.”

I am sure someone will argue they are giving protection to everyone one. It is amazing how people do not see that equality between things which are not equal harms the inferior by denying it needed aid. Fair is not equal; but fair is the goal!!

(July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 17, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: You are still missing the point.  When you use one example of extinction to justify your position, all I need to do is use another example of extinction to justify mine.  This is very basic.  Your original point was based on the principle of the matter, and not on the utility of it.  If you want to change your argument that is fine.  But we need to drop this ridiculous notion that potential extinction is a viable reason to undermine the social utility of an entire group of people, and recognize instead that a number of factors are at work.

The IVF argument and the under population argument are in fact different.  I am not accusing you solely of committing a fallacy of composition, I am accusing you of presenting a false narrative.  The IVF argument is also not a fallacy of composition argument.

I see.  You are endeavoring to argue I made a causal fallacy.  So I will respond to your specific fallacy and two other ones which I think comprise your single:

1.  The fallacy you identify appears to state an argument in one of two ways (please correct this if it is wrong) first it seem to say if there is more than one cause which may lead to a given outcome than we may not "undermine" a particular cause in regards to its tendency to a negative outcome do to the myriad of alternative causes.  By this argument we may not undermine guns in regards to them being used to kill people because people are also choked, stabbed, beaten, burned, starved, skinned, infected, drowned, electrocuted, and so forth.  Nor may we undermine any of the listed (or not listed) means by which people are killed because there is always another means.  Naturally I do not think this argument is tenable since it serves no other purpose than to say we may not identify any particular cause as negative in regards to its objective consequence.  Such ignores both the objective consequence of the cause as well as the subjective intention of the agent engaging in the action as a cause.  This would subsequently limit determination of the cause to a purely subjective valuation, whereby the particular is not discussed as a cause but as an act in itself to be determined as good or bad by the actor regardless of the impact it has or the intent the actor had.  (I would strongly caution going down this route of argument.  If you want to I would direct you to read https://atheistforums.org/thread-33523.html where we have already discussed it at length).  
No.  My conclusion was that if homosexuality is socially undesirable because it is a plausible cause of extinction, then heterosexuality is also socially undesirable because it too is a plausible cause of extinction.  This has nothing to do with saying that because an outcome has a set of causes, that you cannot make a judgement of said causes.  It only says that causes with the same, perceivable, likelihood of the same outcome, weigh such an outcome equally when making normative valuations. 
Second, if I am to take your argument as not meaning a myriad of causes, but rather as an issue of a sequence of actual or proximate cause than it would appear your argument is saying one may not undermine any particular cause unless that cause is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of the negative outcome.  By this argument we may not undermine any initial cause resulting in the negative outcome of death because the initiating cause is not the direct actual or immediate proximate cause.  Once again such an argument is untenable as it would limit discourse to say the cause of death is dying, the cause of cancer is cancerous cells, the cause of rape is being raped, and so forth.  In short the argument becomes a continuum fallacy by which we must determine the exact moment the sequence of causes becomes the final consequence; the action just before the final consequence is then the only direct actual or immediate proximate cause which may be referenced as any other cause is only a initiate of another cause in a sequence of causes.
This is exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting.  You even recognized that my case against the heterosexual requires looking at the indirect causes.  This is why I am inclined to think you are being disingenuous.
2.  Fallacy of a Single Cause:  Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction.  Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed.  It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them.  Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence.  It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence.  Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person.  Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause.  We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.
Largely irrelevant to my point.  Your lack of attention to detail is not a defense of your position.  Saying, "I never said other things couldn't cause extinction" is not a defense.  It was very obvious you were making a point about homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality, and it was very obvious I was making a point about heterosexuality in relation to it's plausibility as a catalyst of extinction.  See my first line of red text to understand why this matters.
3.  Third Cause Fallacy:  Similar to the second interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said death is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of extinction if and only if the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation (I think we may agree on this).  From here the focus of my argument was upon the procreative side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of death remains constant) if we were to go along with Pyrrho and say homosexual intimacy is superior to heterosexual intimacy, such that the former is permitted and the latter prohibited, will we have a situation where the rate of procreation will exceed the rate of death?  The answer is no; in which case we may say homosexual intimacy (while not being the only cause) is a cause of extinction.  
This is a different one from the scenario I asked you about before breaking down why your argument is incoherent.  This is also an even more implausible scenario.  See my first line of red text.
Argument to over-consumption serves to take the death side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of procreation remains constant) if we say over-consumption is superior to under-consumption, such that we permit the former and prohibit the latter, do we have situation where the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation?  The answer becomes not necessarily; simply because it depends on what we over-consume.  Over-consumption of a competitor will decrease the death rate, of a luxury will not increase nor decrease the death rate, while over-consumption of a necessity will increase the death rate.  As such we may say we should over-consume our competition for resources, it does not matter if we over-consume luxury resources, and we should not over-consume necessary resources as such will end in extinction.  Should we not wish to make distinction between competition, luxury, and necessity than we may say over-consumption as a whole leads to extinction based on the assumption we would over-consume all resources including necessary.
This is barely a coherent paragraph.  It is also largely irrelevant.  All that matters is you accept the plausibility that it leads to extinction.  Similarly, your argument rests on my ability to accept the plausibility that a catastrophic event that somehow disproportionately affects heterosexuals destroys all our medical devices, or destroys all of our energy production capabilities, and that furthermore, no homosexual is willing to procreate to keep the species going, and that no technicians and scientists exist capable of restoring IVF treatment.  The other scenario you provide assumes that if we make it okay to be gay in society, everyone is going to become gay, and not be willing to procreate. 

Can you imagine this in court?

"You are charged with willful discrimination. Do you have anything to say in your defence? Why did you refuse to marry this gentleman and his partner?"

"If we suddenly needed to repopulate quickly, it would be harder to do so with homosexuals than with heterosexuals. So it's very important that in such a situation, none of the homosexual couples are legally recognized as married."

"How is their marital status relevant to the first point?"

"I'm not gay."

"I didn't say you were gay. Although I'm starting to think you probably are."

(July 17, 2015 at 11:55 am)Anima Wrote: I really wish it was special pleading.  Alas it is reality and more to the point what precedential jurisprudence is and was designed to be.  Like I said we already see it in regards to polygamous lawsuits in Montana, Utah, and Colorado.  You are fine with polygamy so you do not care, but are you so short sighted to believe that no one will sue for something you are not fine with?

But by your own statement will you be fucking off?  I have already shown the pro position is contingent upon one of three fallacies of false equivalency, argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to novelty), or argumentum ad misericordiem (appeal to pity).  Since your position is based on fallacies (I have not heard a single argument otherwise) than according to you, you should fuck off.  And when you are done fucking off you should fuck off from there.  And when you get back from fucking off from there you should fuck off again ad infinitum.

Aw. Look at that. He took my comment and tried to turn it into a joke by repeating it a bunch of different ways, indicating that he doesn't understand the most basic rules of humor (starting with the Rule of 3). Furthermore, that whole second paragraph simply displays that you didn't comprehend or didn't read what I (or anyone else) said, and that you don't know what many of the words in your own vocabulary actually mean.

 Good job.

"Well, if that slippery slope doesn't bother you, then what about a slippery slope with an ill-defined Appeal to Fear of the unknown? You've got to be not fine with something, right? What if they legalize that? Isn't that scary?! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!"

Seriously...are you stupid?

Quote:Where?  The polygamous communities in northern Arizona and southern Utah.  You cannot honestly believe the next time they do a raid on those compounds these people are not going to try to argue in accordance with the law that the age restriction on marriage is a violation of their fundamental rights.  That they had the consent of the parents and the relationship was meant to convey dignity and security to the parties involved.  For being so empathetic you guys seem to be exceptionally bad at empathizing with those who think or would do what you would not.

Furthermore, you are basing your comments on how you understood the law to be.  But under that law same sex marriage was prohibited.  They has changed the law to make it legal.  You need to look at the situation in accordance to how the law has been changed and not how it was.  It seem each of you think you could just make this small change and not effect anything else.  You would each be right had this been done through the states themselves.  Since the change was made at the federal level it will not be nuanced as you wish to believe and will have more unintended consequences than each of your are considering.

Listen to me very carefully...you inbred idiot.

Child marriage will never be legal in a civilized, modern, Western country because of the concept of informed consent. Pedophiles of various persuasions may try to use the new ruling to argue for their "right" to multiple child marriages with dogs involved or whatever, but they will never win because of informed consent. We know this because America is only, like, the 21st developed country to legalize this kind of union, and in NO other gay-marriage-legal countries do we see any of the shit you're talking about. Prove me wrong. Show me one example of somebody winning a pro-child-marriage case in a modern, gay-legal country. I'll wait.

Your arguments are nothing but appeals to emotion and ignorance, you stupid little shit. Big words will not save you from an argument built on a sandy foundation, but a house built on the rock of logic can stand the storm of your religious bigotry and ignorant bullshit.

(July 23, 2015 at 12:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: [quote='Anima' pid='999379' dateline='1437408375']

I see.  You are endeavoring to argue I made a causal fallacy.  So I will respond to your specific fallacy and two other ones which I think comprise your single:

1.  The fallacy you identify appears to state an argument in one of two ways (please correct this if it is wrong) first it seem to say if there is more than one cause which may lead to a given outcome than we may not "undermine" a particular cause in regards to its tendency to a negative outcome do to the myriad of alternative causes.  By this argument we may not undermine guns in regards to them being used to kill people because people are also choked, stabbed, beaten, burned, starved, skinned, infected, drowned, electrocuted, and so forth.  Nor may we undermine any of the listed (or not listed) means by which people are killed because there is always another means.  Naturally I do not think this argument is tenable since it serves no other purpose than to say we may not identify any particular cause as negative in regards to its objective consequence.  Such ignores both the objective consequence of the cause as well as the subjective intention of the agent engaging in the action as a cause.  This would subsequently limit determination of the cause to a purely subjective valuation, whereby the particular is not discussed as a cause but as an act in itself to be determined as good or bad by the actor regardless of the impact it has or the intent the actor had.  (I would strongly caution going down this route of argument.  If you want to I would direct you to read
https://atheistforums.org/thread-33523.html where we have already discussed it at length).

[quote='Aristocatt' pid='1002744' dateline='1437626172']
No.  My conclusion was that if homosexuality is socially undesirable because it is a plausible cause of extinction, then heterosexuality is also socially undesirable because it too is a plausible cause of extinction.  This has nothing to do with saying that because an outcome has a set of causes, that you cannot make a judgement of said causes.  It only says that causes with the same, perceivable, likelihood of the same outcome, weigh such an outcome equally when making normative valuations.

Okay. Let's see if I can get this right. Since I seem to continue to miss your point. Each time I read the point you seem to be making it is stating heterosexuality is an equally plausible cause of extinction (if we factor in the externality of over-consumption, which renders the plausibility no longer equal) and thus hetero and homo are undesirable based under an argument to extinction. Is this correct?

Based on this understanding I have responded by saying your argument against extinction argument requires you to look at an independent causes (over-consumption is not dependent on over-population as exhibited between the consumption of the US vs. China, where 0.3B consume more than 1.5B) that I contend it is an externality and not an inherent resultant of the hetero or homo orientation; while procreation (or the lack of) is a direct consequence of the orientation. Thus our arguments are as follows:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

So in my argument (#1) it may be seen how the orientation leads to an act which has a direct particular result that is negative as a universally result. In your arguments (#2 and #3) your conclusions require the introduction of externalities which are not simply the universalization (or normalization) of the particular results of the act the orientation leads to or in keeping with an act which follows from the orientation itself. Do you see how Over-consumption and IVF do not follow as a direct sequence of orientation to its teleological end and how they are not of equal plausibility of extinction?

Bringing up the IVF argument to increase the rate of procreation of same sex couples above zero so as to refute #1 not only breaks the direct sequence of orientation to its teleological end, but serves to state homosexuals may avoid extinction only be means of a hetero act which is not in keeping with homosexuality. Thus the argument to IVF only serves to exhibit the value of the hetero while pointing out the inherent flaw or inferiority of the homo. (Even ignoring the expense, resources, and viability of IVF as a whole).

I further answered this in terms of applying the same methodology of coming up with an externality which negates your externaility in terms of physical and financial barriers to entry and the impact of lack of resources on fertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality rates. While over-consumption may be said to be a result of over-population it may not be said to have no factors which will decrease the rate of population without resulting in extinction. Such may not be said of homosexual conduct which if adhered to without deviation shall not result in offspring resulting in extinction of a greater and far from equal plausibility as over-consumption.

I like the effort though. Since you are trying to argue the creation of things (procreation) is as inclined to nothingness (extinction) as the lack of creation of things (non-procreation).

(July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote: Second, if I am to take your argument as not meaning a myriad of causes, but rather as an issue of a sequence of actual or proximate cause than it would appear your argument is saying one may not undermine any particular cause unless that cause is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of the negative outcome.  By this argument we may not undermine any initial cause resulting in the negative outcome of death because the initiating cause is not the direct actual or immediate proximate cause.  Once again such an argument is untenable as it would limit discourse to say the cause of death is dying, the cause of cancer is cancerous cells, the cause of rape is being raped, and so forth.  In short the argument becomes a continuum fallacy by which we must determine the exact moment the sequence of causes becomes the final consequence; the action just before the final consequence is then the only direct actual or immediate proximate cause which may be referenced as any other cause is only a initiate of another cause in a sequence of causes.

(July 23, 2015 at 12:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: This is exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting.  You even recognized that my case against the heterosexual requires looking at the indirect causes.  This is why I am inclined to think you are being disingenuous.

Very well. I discussed this in case I was missing your point again and you did mean it. It seems to me you are endeavoring to do a combination of alternative causes and sequence of causes, but your saying you are not. In either case if this is not what you meant we may ignore it.

(July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote: 2.  Fallacy of a Single Cause:  Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction.  Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed.  It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them.  Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence.  It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence.  Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person.  Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause.  We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.

(July 23, 2015 at 12:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Largely irrelevant to my point.  Your lack of attention to detail is not a defense of your position.  Saying, "I never said other things couldn't cause extinction" is not a defense.  It was very obvious you were making a point about homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality, and it was very obvious I was making a point about heterosexuality in relation to it's plausibility as a catalyst of extinction.  See my first line of red text to understand why this matters.

As I understood your argument above to be in regards to equally plausibility I have responded above to show heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally plausible causes of extinction. The latter being natural inclined to extinction and the former being naturally inclined to the avoidance of extinction.

(July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote: 3.  Third Cause Fallacy:  Similar to the second interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said death is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of extinction if and only if the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation (I think we may agree on this).  From here the focus of my argument was upon the procreative side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of death remains constant) if we were to go along with Pyrrho and say homosexual intimacy is superior to heterosexual intimacy, such that the former is permitted and the latter prohibited, will we have a situation where the rate of procreation will exceed the rate of death?  The answer is no; in which case we may say homosexual intimacy (while not being the only cause) is a cause of extinction.  

(July 23, 2015 at 12:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: This is a different one from the scenario I asked you about before breaking down why your argument is incoherent.  This is also an even more implausible scenario.  See my first line of red text.

This is no different. It is characterizing my initial argument to give explanation of why it is not a third cause fallacy. As you said above your were not discussing this so it may be ignored.

(July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote: Argument to over-consumption serves to take the death side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of procreation remains constant) if we say over-consumption is superior to under-consumption, such that we permit the former and prohibit the latter, do we have situation where the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation?  The answer becomes not necessarily; simply because it depends on what we over-consume.  Over-consumption of a competitor will decrease the death rate, of a luxury will not increase nor decrease the death rate, while over-consumption of a necessity will increase the death rate.  As such we may say we should over-consume our competition for resources, it does not matter if we over-consume luxury resources, and we should not over-consume necessary resources as such will end in extinction.  Should we not wish to make distinction between competition, luxury, and necessity than we may say over-consumption as a whole leads to extinction based on the assumption we would over-consume all resources including necessary.

(July 23, 2015 at 12:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote: This is barely a coherent paragraph.  It is also largely irrelevant.  All that matters is you accept the plausibility that it leads to extinction.  Similarly, your argument rests on my ability to accept the plausibility that a catastrophic event that somehow disproportionately affects heterosexuals destroys all our medical devices, or destroys all of our energy production capabilities, and that furthermore, no homosexual is willing to procreate to keep the species going, and that no technicians and scientists exist capable of restoring IVF treatment.  The other scenario you provide assumes that if we make it okay to be gay in society, everyone is going to become gay, and not be willing to procreate. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to explain how the introduction of over-consumption is an externality causing you to commit a third cause fallacy. Over-consumption does not follow directly from over-population (under that under populated societies may not over-consume. Something we know is not true) nor does it lead directly to extinction (as over-consumption of competiton and luxuries does not lead to extinction). But we may agree it is irrelevant (though you are the one who brought it up). It also a false equivalency to say if

Furthermore my argument requires you consider the facts of history which have already occurred. I am sure you are abreast of what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire. You know when technology advancements made by the Romans over 2000 years were lost to humanity (even to this very day) and the black death (plagued) wiped out much of the world population:

First Pandemic:
- It went on to destroy up to a quarter of the human population of the eastern Mediterranean. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)
- It caused Europe's population to drop by around 50% between 541 and 700. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)

Second Pandemic:
- China lost around half of its population, from around 123 million to around 65 million; Europe around 1/3 of its population, from about 75 million to about 50 million; and Africa approximately 1/8 of its population, from around 80 million to 70 million (mortality rates tended to be correlated with population density so Africa, being less dense overall, had the lowest death rate). This makes the Black Death the largest death toll from any known non-viral epidemic. Although accurate statistical data does not exist, it is thought that 1.4 million died in England (1/3 of England's 4.2 million people), while an even higher percentage of Italy's population was likely wiped out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)

Your first block of post is worthless in relation to #2 of you previous response.

To the second block, I am endeavoring to show you that valuations based on plausibility are a bad idea. When you need to invoke the boogeyman to make a point, your point is probably not a good one to begin with. If it is a good one, it is not because you invoked the boogeyman.

To the third block. It was a different scenario. Following my recognition that it was a different scenario, I included it in your argument and pointed out that it is still a point that is wildly speculative. Basically, my response to the response you gave me was already found in my previous post.

Your final block of text is also largely irrelevant. A pandemic would be a terrible way to justify your case. Your case rests on a disproportionate amount of heterosexuals dying. If a pandemic occurred, and mainly heterosexuals were dying, then we would be truly lucky to have a population of homosexuals that are not dying off. One because it may mean we could depend on them to continue our existence, and two because we could learn about possible variations in their lifestyle that allow them to avoid contact with the disease.

Historical cases like disease all support having a diverse arrangement of lifestyles.

The thing is, there are dozens of ways of pointing out why your argument sucks. You just forced me to provide a different line of reasoning as to why it sucks. It's really not interesting to go through the laundry list of specific examples that show why it is a bad argument though.

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: [quote='Anima' pid='995563' dateline='1437148539']

I really wish it was special pleading.  Alas it is reality and more to the point what precedential jurisprudence is and was designed to be.  Like I said we already see it in regards to polygamous lawsuits in Montana, Utah, and Colorado.  You are fine with polygamy so you do not care, but are you so short sighted to believe that no one will sue for something you are not fine with?

But by your own statement will you be fucking off?  I have already shown the pro position is contingent upon one of three fallacies of false equivalency, argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to novelty), or argumentum ad misericordiem (appeal to pity).  Since your position is based on fallacies (I have not heard a single argument otherwise) than according to you, you should fuck off.  And when you are done fucking off you should fuck off from there.  And when you get back from fucking off from there you should fuck off again ad infinitum.

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Aw. Look at that. He took my comment and tried to turn it into a joke by repeating it a bunch of different ways, indicating that he doesn't understand the most basic rules of humor (starting with the Rule of 3). Furthermore, that whole second paragraph simply displays that you didn't comprehend or didn't read what I (or anyone else) said, and that you don't know what many of the words in your own vocabulary actually mean.

 Good job.

"Well, if that slippery slope doesn't bother you, then what about a slippery slope with an ill-defined Appeal to Fear of the unknown? You've got to be not fine with something, right? What if they legalize that? Isn't that scary?! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!"

Rule 3? I was focusing on Rules 1 (timing is everything) and 2 (turn about is fair play). Maybe we have different rule books...

Perhaps you are right. What was the non-fallacious argument in their favor. Keep it simple for this idiot. Was it all are or should be treated equally regardless of their qualities or conduct (false equivalency). The idea that one does not want to be on the wrong side of history (appeal to novelty). The bullying claims of where is my empathy (appeal to pity). Or was it the whole everyone else agrees so you should too (appeal to popularity)? Was there another one which was not a fallacy?

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: "Well, if that slippery slope doesn't bother you, then what about a slippery slope with an ill-defined Appeal to Fear of the unknown? You've got to be not fine with something, right? What if they legalize that? Isn't that scary?! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!"

Ha ha. Appeal to fear? Not at all. Explanation of precedential jurisprudence. I am not saying what if someone sues for these so be afraid!!. I am saying people will and have already filed suits using the reasoning of obergefell. You stated you had no moral qualms with X so you were okay with it. I am stating a la Lawrence V. Texas your moral qualms are not sufficient justification for permission or prohibition and you would be wise to consider the unintended impacts of what you permit and prohibit prior to doing so, rather than solely focusing on the impacts desired.

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Seriously...are you stupid?

Very much so. And I find it highly offensive to my fundamental right to dignity and security for you to comment on it. Stupid people have as much right to expression without ridicule as everyone else. Just because I do not conform to your beliefs of intelligence does not mean I am not intelligent in my own way. (he tries to make another funny. ho ho....ooooohhhhh )

Quote:Where?  The polygamous communities in northern Arizona and southern Utah.  You cannot honestly believe the next time they do a raid on those compounds these people are not going to try to argue in accordance with the law that the age restriction on marriage is a violation of their fundamental rights.  That they had the consent of the parents and the relationship was meant to convey dignity and security to the parties involved.  For being so empathetic you guys seem to be exceptionally bad at empathizing with those who think or would do what you would not.

Furthermore, you are basing your comments on how you understood the law to be.  But under that law same sex marriage was prohibited.  They has changed the law to make it legal.  You need to look at the situation in accordance to how the law has been changed and not how it was.  It seem each of you think you could just make this small change and not effect anything else.  You would each be right had this been done through the states themselves.  Since the change was made at the federal level it will not be nuanced as you wish to believe and will have more unintended consequences than each of your are considering.

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Listen to me very carefully...you inbred idiot.

Inbred? My parents are from entirely different countries and races. How does that work?

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Child marriage will never be legal in a civilized, modern, Western country because of the concept of informed consent. Pedophiles of various persuasions may try to use the new ruling to argue for their "right" to multiple child marriages with dogs involved or whatever, but they will never win because of informed consent. We know this because America is only, like, the 21st developed country to legalize this kind of union, and in NO other gay-marriage-legal countries do we see any of the shit you're talking about. Prove me wrong. Show me one example of somebody winning a pro-child-marriage case in a modern, gay-legal country. I'll wait.

Ha ha. As has been discussed before in this thread. A child is deemed at law to have informed consent to a fundamental right at the age of 5 years or greater. Furthermore a parent may act on behalf of the child to ensure their dignity and security by contraction into a relationship which conveys as much. This is in the law now.

I like your argument to ignorance to prove you wrong. Tell you what; show me proof of one country with legalized same sex marriage prior to 1990. I'll wait. Nothing? But it is legal in 21 developed countries now. How can this be? When 1990 was the present it did not exist anywhere so according to your logic it should have never happened. Oh wait. Equality won and bigotry lost, so gays may now get married.

So what of a child's right to equality? Why do you discriminate against that? Are you some sort of bigot? Surely children have a right to dignity and security and historical precedence does show this has been met through child marriages. Hmm? I wonder if we will finally stop being bigots and recognize a child's right to equality. Where can I find some mature looking 15 year old to marry a young looking 18 year old to put in front of the news to get sympathy for the cause of child equality!! Preferably one whose evil oppressive parents refuse to grant parental consent to the marriage.

(July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Your arguments are nothing but appeals to emotion and ignorance, you stupid little shit. Big words will not save you from an argument built on a sandy foundation, but a house built on the rock of logic can stand the storm of your religious bigotry and ignorant bullshit.

Ha ha. You need to let Equilax know that as he said I was an unfeeling monster who has less emotion than a wasp that lays eggs in a spiders brain. Did you think the arguments to atheism and recognition of same sex were founded on logic? The former is based upon an argument to ignorance (because I have not experienced it directly, it must not be) the latter is based on the aforementioned fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, appeal to pity, and (more recently) appeal to numbers/popularity.

A house built on logic?!

HA HA!! You are definitely a better comedian than I am!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8