I don't even know what point you're trying to make. You are distressingly stupid, Ace.

(August 4, 2015 at 9:10 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 9:00 am)Ace Wrote:   WOO HOOOO  . . .YES, YES THANK YOU. FINALLY THE TRUTH.    

Umm hahah how is that civilised???!!!

The people do know what it is like because you are taking away their rights. And like anyone, even you, want their rights, (in their case back).

The homosexual community has done a Coup d'état of the western world.

Oh so you can and are are taking the rights from one group to give to another! So You can treat one group of Americans lower or different from each other by giving one rights to one group and taking away rights of another!  Thus, you are not at all for not for a democratic nation of the rule of the people, equality or equal rights but, for elitism and oligarchy.

Also you do know that if you conspire against the government ,Under the law you are considered a traitor and a seditionest.

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that punish conduct which undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason

    HAHAHAHAHA YEEEESSSS!!!!!    

Ace, you are a level of stupid I can barely begin to describe. The extent to which you have missed the point is embarrassing to me as a human.

Nobody has a right to oppress others. You can't take away a right that does not exist. If a person thinks they DO have the right to oppress someone, then that person is a bigot. Being a bigot does not give someone special rights to oppress the rights of others.

Also it looks like you got the wrong post I did put up a new one because I did miss up the post you have quoted.
Also I thought a bigot was any one who opposes homosexuality? Now you are saying a person who oppress another is a bigot also? Hmm don't we call one who oppresses an oppressor?

(August 4, 2015 at 9:31 am)Iroscato Wrote: I don't even know what point you're trying to make. You are distressingly stupid, Ace.

Yes, well you see, that is what happen when there is more than one conversation going on at the same time. Your post’s are not always in chronological order. With me so far? Also when other chime in, (that is interject their statement of ideas) that adds more to the confusion and really dishevels the order of the post’s.

Now the discussion I was having with Aristocatt was about the issue of population (he/she state the population is high and I say it is low)

To which robvalue Wrote:
“What the fuck has population got to do with marriage?”

And I replyed to robvalue
“Population is an issue because of the debate both Aristocatt and Anima are having. Aristocatt's argument is based on the world being overpopulated and consuming to much. Therefore, there is a need to low the current population. Anima is saying that one need to keep in mind of the possibility of population declining in the future. To which I am saying the population IS ALREADY declining.

Now Aristocatt is saying Anima's argument is not only worng but has no ground base of his argument because it can never or not be. Thus any argument to show that the population is decline would not only make Anima's argument no longer wrong but has standing.
This is what I understand to be the just of the issue.”

(Now here is were I do agree with you on not understand the post, because I got lost my self)
But I rember  robvalue Wrote:
“The newest fad seems to be "You're taking away my right to oppress others".

Yes, I fucking am. It's called being civilised. If these people could step out of their own bubble for one second and imagine what it's like to be in a persecuted minority, they would understand. Instead they pretend to be a persecuted majority.”

To which I said,

WOO HOOOO  . . .YES, YES THANK YOU. FINALLY THE TRUTH, AND IT SHELL SET YOU FREE  
Umm hahah how is that civilised???!!!
The people do know what it is like to be persecuted because you are taking away their rights. And like anyone, even you, want their rights, (in their case their rights back).
Oh so you can and are are taking the rights from one group ! So You can treat one group of Americans lower or different from each other!  Thus, you are not at all for a democratic nation of the rule by the people, equality or equal rights but, for elitism and oligarchy.
Clap  Clap  Clap HAHAHAHAHA YEEEESSSS!!!!! Clap  Clap  Clap”

Then  Redbeard The Pink Wrote:
“Ace, you are a level of stupid I can barely begin to describe. The extent to which you have missed the point is embarrassing to me as a human.

Nobody has a right to oppress others. You can't take away a right that does not exist. If a person thinks they DO have the right to oppress someone, then that person is a bigot. Being a bigot does not give someone special rights to oppress the rights of others.”

Then I said.
“Huh Umm you need to send this to robvalue  because that is what he/she wrote.  Hahah . . Don't get mad at me, . .  I am just acknowledging the statement. Great
That you are embarrassed to be human. . . .well  . . .hmmm. . . I am not sure if professional help will work but I have seen them do wonders, so you might give them a try. Dunno Maybe? Hmm?”
And that he might have the wrong post.
“Also it looks like you got the wrong post I did put up a new one because I did miss up the post you have quoted.”

And that is were we are right now, I think. Hopefully this information will help you in your misunderstanding of the discussion thus far. Like I said, even I got a little lost my self.  
Please, If you have any more questions let me know.  

(August 4, 2015 at 1:31 am)robvalue Wrote: What the fuck has population got to do with marriage?

This all seems to be, "Homosexuals are a drain on society. Since we can't just go around killing them like in the good old days, we should fuck with them as much as possible in irritating ways. That's better than nothing."

Of course the premise is wrong, but the conclusion makes no sense either.

You seem to have missed this documentary that was posted in another thread, so I am reposting it here.  It explains the problem with gay marriage.  It is short, and you should carefully watch it to the very end, to see the full extent of the problem:

The homosexual community has done a coup?

What version of reality are you living in? What on earth are you talking about?

By "coup" do you mean people can no longer throw them in jail or smash their heads in with rocks? What the fuck...

Edit: oh no I missed that documentary. Shit, I didn't realise all that stuff... How could I have been so blind?

Mein gott. I have been following the conversations, painfully moronic on your part as they were.

What I'm asking is, what actual arguments do you have? You made the claim the world's population is declining. It patently is not. It may be in some countries, but it will be a long time before it starts to even resemble a problem. Projected world population for 2050 is expected to be 9.6 billion. It might not even start levelling off until 2100, some major catastrophe aside. Homosexuality does not cause population shrinkage. At most, it's acted as a slight mitigating factor in population growth. But it has always existed for as long as the human race has been around. It is not going away any time soon either. And at least 10% of the population swings that way. That's at bare minimum 720 million people worldwide. Yet the world population continues to grow and grow.

You claim gay marriage is somehow discriminating against straight married couples. Again, patently false. If you have a cookie and then somebody gives me a cookie, that doesn't make your cookie any less pleasant to eat. The only scenario in which it would is if you were a frothing bigoted control freak shitstain, in which case your bile-filled opinion ceases to be relevant. Simplistic analogy? You bet, but I'm apparently interacting with a complete and total moron. It doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, and your persistence in railing against it speaks volumes about your mental stability. It's really not healthy to obsess over something this much, take it from someone who's been there before many years back.

In conclusion, you got nothing, you will always have nothing, and childishly squabbling over it will not change the fact that you got nothing.

And also, you spelt "personal" wrong in your religious views.

(August 4, 2015 at 10:16 am)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 1:31 am)robvalue Wrote: What the fuck has population got to do with marriage?

This all seems to be, "Homosexuals are a drain on society. Since we can't just go around killing them like in the good old days, we should fuck with them as much as possible in irritating ways. That's better than nothing."

Of course the premise is wrong, but the conclusion makes no sense either.

You seem to have missed this documentary that was posted in another thread, so I am reposting it here.  It explains the problem with gay marriage.  It is short, and you should carefully watch it to the very end, to see the full extent of the problem:

---

---

HAHAHAHA, good one.
Do you know what show that was from?

(August 4, 2015 at 8:30 am)Ace Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 1:21 am)Aristocatt Wrote: The only issue with your hypothesis is that the planets population is not actuall declining, it is increasing.

You are misunderstanding population growth with the rate of population growth.  The latter is declining.  It was exponential, now it is not.

Haha ok, I is not my hypothesis it is a fact. Sorry.

Again, here are my sources.  If you wish for more let me know.
(hopefully I did the link adding correctly)

CNN’s own Fareed Zakaria show, I think it is called GPS, did a segment on this issue about two or three weeks ago. You can look it up and find it. I was able to only find the transcripts. It is about mid, to a little over, page
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1506/14/fzgps.01.html


Yale Daily News
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2008/02/27...d-species/

http://us.wow.com/searchs_pt=source2&s_i...%20decline

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazi...d=all&_r=0#


Time Magazine: On American women Low birth rate.
http://time.com/3617927/pregnancy-birthrates/

New York Times: American women Low birth
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/us/us-....html?_r=0

New York Times: German Population
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/...-drop.html

United Nations: World Population Prospects
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/po...ndex.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/po...014/en.pdf

The Economist: Japan Decline
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/20...demography

BBC: Japan Decline
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30653825

World Watch Institute
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/561

The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...08/377735/

Not one of these articles is disagreeing with what I have been saying.  
Most of them are agreeing with what I am saying.  Population will continue to climb until the second half of the century at least.

"The United Nations currently projects that world population will rise from its current level of 6.4 billion to somewhere between 7.4 and 12.8 billion by 2050, attaining between 5.5 and 43.6 billion by the end of the century. " -World Watch Institute

"The experts believed that birth and death rates would be more or less equal in the future, as they had been in the past, keeping total population stable after a level of 10-12 billion people was reached during the transition." - The Atlantic

^Still requires a population increase of at least 3 Billion over the next 40 years.  They also are claiming that in the second half of the century birth rates will actually stabilize.


The problem is, the UN has decided that by 2050 something needs to be done about consumption. Population is invariably tied to consumption. Some reports on global warming are apocalyptic. Since it is possible that having babies is going to help lead to our extinction, being heterosexual is bad.

The issue that you are having is you see that the argument I am making is ridiculous, but you want to be able to still have an argument against homosexuality by arguing that it could cause extinction. Anima already admitted his argument was not based on likelihood, it was based on the very minute possibility that it could happen. I am using a similar tactic to show that this "minute possibility of extinction" is not an acceptable reason for considering homosexuality socially undesirable relative to heterosexuality.

Not only does the argument suck, but it also is not a real argument in favor of heterosexuality.
All of this talk about population dynamics is pretty much irrelevant to the points that were being made earlier.
This entire conversation has occurred, because instead of admitting to being wrong about one thing, you guys just have to find a way to show that you were right in another.

The only question I have left is whether Ace and Anima would sanction the extermination of homosexuals if it was within their power. I'm scared to say that I can't be sure of their answer.

(August 4, 2015 at 10:27 am)Iroscato Wrote: Mein gott. I have been following the conversations, painfully moronic on your part as they were.

What I'm asking is, what actual arguments do you have? You made the claim the world's population is declining. It patently is not. It may be in some countries, but it will be a long time before it starts to even resemble a problem. Projected world population for 2050 is expected to be 9.6 billion. It might not even start levelling off until 2100, some major catastrophe aside. Homosexuality does not cause population shrinkage. At most, it's acted as a slight mitigating factor in population growth. But it has always existed for as long as the human race has been around. It is not going away any time soon either. And at least 10% of the population swings that way. That's at bare minimum 720 million people worldwide. Yet the world population continues to grow and grow.

You claim gay marriage is somehow discriminating against straight married couples. Again, patently false. If you have a cookie and then somebody gives me a cookie, that doesn't make your cookie any less pleasant to eat. The only scenario in which it would is if you were a frothing bigoted control freak shitstain, in which case your bile-filled opinion ceases to be relevant. Simplistic analogy? You bet, but I'm apparently interacting with a complete and total moron. It doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, and your persistence in railing against it speaks volumes about your mental stability. It's really not healthy to obsess over something this much, take it from someone who's been there before many years back.

In conclusion, you got nothing, you will always have nothing, and childishly squabbling over it will not change the fact that you got nothing.

And also, you spelt "personal" wrong in your religious views.

Oh no I did not say gay marriage was hurting strange marriage. I said gay marriage is segregation because you only want to marry your own and the hole thing about free marriage is so that everyone can marry each other.

Truly I say fuck marriage and all you elite fucks! Marriage should be done away with so everyone can be truly treated the same. Not this assumed equal treatment bull shit. Just burn it to the ground!!! You are nothing speachal or doing any god damn good to the world or curing fucking death. So stop acting like you are some holy shit!!! Marriage don't mean shit!!!! And anyone who wants to keep it just want to keep their elitas title and fucking benefits. Benefits that we the people pay for!! So yes Marrige affects me because I don't see why I have to pay for your damn fucking. Be like everyone and just fuck.

I don't care that you whent to some KKK wearing persion and say a bunch of pussy as shit to each other. Like is said that don't mean shit because we all know it will end up in divoce court, which is another shit that we the people have to fucking pay for, Fuck that.

I never said I was not crazy. But then again you never asked.
Sad you feel that way. But I found you comments to be of the bully nature that are both attacking and mean. I have never called you names, question you i.q., or said your post are stupid. Hate, is never a good thing you know. It is best to free your self from that. But sadly you will be stubborn as and ass and "not give a shit" that there is really nothing I can do for you. Maybe you need atheism

But, You may want to relax and not get you blood press up to much, because that is not health either. Hey, I care about your health as well.

However, I have no harsh feeling for you and I truly do like you input. Granted there is not much one can reply to because you make statements more the open comments for discussion.
But , hey it's not right to be so picky. So let them fly.