(July 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Ace, you barely know how to type the English language. You're really bringing up education right now?

---

We could go back and forth like this forever, Animal. Your argument is a slippery slope. I have thoroughly explained why. .

I agree, meow. It is hard to write, meow, when English is not meow's first language. Meow, a learning disability does not help either meow. Meow, unless meow are so demanding of perfect writing, meow.. . . .but, meow would think, that a meow such as a meow self, would not want meow to be perfect . . . . But writing correctly, meow, has nothing to do with knowledge, meow. Meow, that's like saying that cause  meow can speak, meow.  Means that meow are smart, meow.


Meow, meow's no to sure when meow's argued meow's idea is a slippy slop, meow. Meow's never debated meow.
Meow when did topics become of limits, meow?  Meow, Have, people forgotten how to has a simple discussion, meow?

You're making it because you're a pissed off bigot. Your side lost, both in court and in this thread. Get over it and move on. I know I will.
Umm Meow, how am meow the pissed off person here? Meow sound like the meow that is piss off, to meow. Meow is just chilling by the pool, meow

Like I said I am open for any debate, bull shit this totalitarian, (of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.) type of mind control ideology.

Anima, fellow P.I.C (Partner In Crime) .may we continue on with the debate . . and any other free minded people who do not wish to be sheep. Or if you are sheep that's cool to

I wish to debate my statement, so if you would allow me, I will take the pro gay side and you can have the anit side. Or which every side you chose is ok with me.


1. First issue

Would not heterosexual couples all so be considered a for of segregation in it of it's self? Given that one can not be with their own sex? True it includes both sex's but so would same sex, just not to each other.

2. Second
Also how would the heterosexual only, be ably to prevent other form's of sexual preferences that do incorporate both sex's, ( incest or polygamy)

(July 30, 2015 at 11:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Bible quote .

Oh and quoting the Bible don't mean shit to me so    . . . . ok.
It is always funny to me that atheist quote that damn thing. Like I say you atheist are just like the crazy religious. Exactly alike!!!!

(July 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Your side lost, both . . . and in this thread.

Wait who decided who won and who lost on this thread? You?
Also, your quitting, thus forfiting, this giving up on you side argument. So by default you lose.
Now if the hole thread is with you then again "we" win by forfite!!!!

Wow, Ace. Just wow.

Everything below the line was directed at Animal...not you. Seriously though, if you think the last word gives you the win, you're a child. Whatever helps you sleep, I guess.

Also, I quote the Bible because I grew up on it and know what's in it well enough to use it against those who believe it. It's a rhetorical method, dipshit.

(July 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: We could go back and forth like this forever, Animal. Your argument is a slippery slope. I have thoroughly explained why. You're making it because you're a pissed off bigot. Your side lost, both in court and in this thread. Get over it and move on. I know I will.

You have not explained why other than to state any argument which states something may follow is a slippery slope (which is to falsely argue every causal argument is slippery slope). In this manner you endeavor to state present condition is the only condition which has, does, or will ever exist (for consideration and evaluation). It is not much different than say Ron Paul saying if we legalize all drugs today everyone is not going to go out and get high right away. His statement is correct in that everyone will not do so right away (turns out it is not a first order system but rather a second order system which requires time to react). However, if you legalize every drug than the rate of usage will go up and the incidence caused by that usage will also go up. You would say this is a slippery slope and fear mongering because we do not know what will happen (which is an argument to ignorance). You remind me of a quote by Sun Tzu:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war. Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Saying we do not know what will happen (even when we have a pretty good idea of what will happen) you then seek to compel acceptance by stating anyone who considers any causal outcome of a change is a slippery sloped bigot of hatred. You seem to think the current conditions will remain (which would negate the point of change in the first place) because we have no definitive example of the impact of a given change occurring. Even if there are examples of impact of the changes (particularly negative ones which do not support your view) you will say none of them are definitive as to lead to the concluded outcome; such as the progression of cases from Lawrence to Windsor to Obergefell to Brown to... This is the continuum fallacy pure and simple. Afterwards you then argue support for your continuum fallacy by means of the argument to ignorance (which you already did by saying show me one litigated and victorious case of the logical outcomes as if their prior or present lack of existence is proof of their eminent nonexistence).

(July 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Wow, Ace. Just wow.

Everything below the line was directed at Animal...not you. Seriously though, if you think the last word gives you the win, you're a child. Whatever helps you sleep,  I guess.

Also, I quote the Bible because I grew up on it and know what's in it well enough to use it against those who believe it. It's a rhetorical method, dipshit.

I would have helped if you put it there when you were speaking to Anima.

Hmm, i did not ask you what you were doing, just that doing a rhetorical method with the bible don't do shit to me. .

Also, Anima has not argued any religious text or has even quoted that dame thing once. So for you to use biblical text with him/she seems like a wast of time.
But hey if that what makes you feel good and just helps you sleep at night, then more power to you.

(July 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: We could go back and forth like this forever, Animal. Your argument is a slippery slope. I have thoroughly explained why. You're making it because you're a pissed off bigot. Your side lost, both in court and in this thread. Get over it and move on. I know I will.

You have not explained why other than to state any argument which states something may follow is a slippery slope (which is to falsely argue every causal argument is slippery slope).  In this manner you endeavor to state present condition is the only condition which has, does, or will ever exist (for consideration and evaluation).  It is not much different than say Ron Paul saying if we legalize all drugs today everyone is not going to go out and get high right away.  His statement is correct in that everyone will not do so right away (turns out it is not a first order system but rather a second order system which requires time to react).  However, if you legalize every drug than the rate of usage will go up and the incidence caused by that usage will also go up.  You would say this is a slippery slope and fear mongering because we do not know what will happen (which is an argument to ignorance).  You remind me of a quote by Sun Tzu:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war.  Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."    

Saying we do not know what will happen (even when we have a pretty good idea of what will happen) you then seek to compel acceptance by stating anyone who considers any causal outcome of a change is a slippery sloped bigot of hatred.  You seem to think the current conditions will remain (which would negate the point of change in the first place) because we have no definitive example of the impact of a given change occurring.  Even if there are examples of impact of the changes (particularly negative ones which do not support your view) you will say none of them are definitive as to lead to the concluded outcome; such as the progression of cases from Lawrence to Windsor to Obergefell to Brown to...  This is the continuum fallacy pure and simple.  Afterwards you then argue support for your continuum fallacy by means of the argument to ignorance (which you already did by saying show me one litigated and victorious case of the logical outcomes as if their prior or present lack of existence is proof of their eminent nonexistence).

HAHAHAH

(July 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

Wow, Ace. Just wow.

  Yes, I know. I amaze my self sometimes. Please, please no photo's. Please  

Anima

fellow P.I.C (Partner In Crime) .may we continue on with the debate . . and any other free minded people who do not wish to be sheep. Or if you are sheep that's cool to

I wish to debate my statement, so if you would allow me, I will take the pro gay side and you can have the anit side. Or which every side you chose is ok with me.


1. First issue

Would not heterosexual couples all so be considered a for of segregation in it of it's self? Given that one can not be with their own sex? True it includes both sex's but so would same sex, just not to each other.

2. Second
Also how would the heterosexual only, be ably to prevent other form's of sexual preferences that do incorporate both sex's, ( incest or polygamy)