Unlike you, I don't get my panties in a twist over people marrying each other. If you seriously can't see the difference between marriage equality and issues that have real-world impact like ISIS or nuclear proliferation, then you're right that I was wrong to play the special needs card. You are clearly not in their league.

(August 25, 2015 at 1:08 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Unlike you, I don't get my panties in a twist over people marrying each other.  If you seriously can't see the difference between marriage equality and issues that have real-world impact like ISIS or nuclear proliferation, then you're right that I was wrong to play the special needs card.  You are clearly not in their league.

So how did you determine what issues have a "real world impact"? What criterion?

It cannot be imminence, as it is unlikely Iran, ISIS, or Global Warming will have an impact in the next few moments or years. I cannot be severity, as Iran and ISIS are a regional problem not effecting the world, and global warming will make habitable zones in inhospitable areas while making habitable areas inhospitable (this is of course ignoring the evolution of species to their environment. Who knows the next dominant species of the planet may be one Global Warming environmental change away.)

I understood this to be what we were waiting to see; which issues would have a real world impact and which are just bigoted fears of possibilities. I have been told by many here that to act otherwise is to act upon a slippery slope of what MAY be.

If we are to condone conduct until it has a "real-world impact" than, as said earlier, we are not justified in endeavoring to stop Armageddon any more than Gaymageddon. Otherwise we should act in order to stop a negative potentiality rather than risk it becoming a reality.

So again I ask are we to act upon the MAY, or wait?

Handing guys like you a megaphone would have made marriage equality happen so much faster than actually arguing against yall did.  Keep up the good work comrade. Perhaps, you should make another thread, about some other thing that works you up....and we can get that sorted as well? Encourage like minded individuals to do the same, a real blitz of opinion under the light.

ISIS has already had an impact, so you're right in that case: recent history is not imminent. Brilliant point! And of course a "regional problem" in which (a) a radical, militant Sunni sect gains power over areas of the Middle East or (b) the relative balance of power in the Middle East is radically altered by a nuclear-armed Shia state would, in neither case, have worldwide effects in terms of national alliances, international security, trade, and control of resources. Of course not. Brilliant point #2. And human-induced climate change is nothing to worry about since some areas may become more productive (while ignoring the billions -- possibly trillions -- it would take in the long run to shore up those coastal areas that will be negatively affected, not to mention the millions of people likely to be displaced by such change). A trifecta!

Yeah, I'd say those are MAYS that should be acted on, as opposed to "bigoted fears of possibilities" that may ensue because more people are now allowed to legally marry. But please do let me know when the sky falls just because my cousin was finally able to marry the man he's been with for the past fifteen years.

(August 25, 2015 at 1:08 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Unlike you, I don't get my panties in a twist over people marrying each other.  If you seriously can't see the difference between marriage equality and issues that have real-world impact like ISIS or nuclear proliferation, then you're right that I was wrong to play the special needs card.  You are clearly not in their league.

Haha you may not get you panties twisted when gays marry ( like my self) but you sure do get very twisted, bent out of shap, and bitchy as hell when any opposition to the issue is mentioned.

Now if we are to argue the "world impact" issue. Then let us take a look ISIS. It is only present in the Middle East, and even that can be argued further down that they are only in a particular region of the Middle East. Now will the world be impacted because of its existences? Well first such a position can not be really taken into account, because that my friend ends up being you hated slippery slop argument that you never want to make, because we truly do not know the future. If I was to look at history as an example of past tyrants, most tyrants tend to stay in there own area and not effect other people around them per say. This can be seen in China, Vietnam,Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Indonesia, the Sha of Iran, the I'O Tola, USSR, with some exemptions. So it might be more likely to be see As another "evil state" that we will sanction and refuse to talk to and boo in the media and the world stage. Like we do with the ones now. So no real world impact occurred per say.

Nuclear issue, agin the slippery slop argument that the world will be bad if another country has nuclear capability. This has be historically argued when Russia, China, India, and Pakistan go there nuk's, not so much Isreal because they obtained it in secrecy. ( haha hey a little simalarty there, Iran secrecy for nuk's, Israel secrecy for nuk's) hmmm?
Yet, no nuclear war has erupted. Now the only country in history to ever use to big boom was the United States. So again if we use history as an example, no American nations that achieve nuclear capability has ever use it, Only the American country of the U.S. Of A.
Thus it is far more logical to to fear and have concern at the nation that has a history of using it then nations that have it but have never used it.
So the nuclear deal will more then like just be another nation with nuk's and nothing more. No real world effecting event.

(August 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: ISIS has already had an impact, so you're right in that case: recent history is not imminent. Brilliant point! And of course a "regional problem" in which (a) a radical, militant Sunni sect gains power over areas of the Middle East or (b) the relative balance of power in the Middle East is radically altered by a nuclear-armed Shia state would, in neither case, have worldwide effects in terms of national alliances, international security, trade, and control of resources. Of course not.  Brilliant point #2. And human-induced climate change is nothing to worry about since some areas may become more productive (while ignoring the billions -- possibly trillions -- it would take in the long run to shore up those coastal areas that will be negatively affected).  A trifecta!

Yeah, I'd say those are MAYS that should be acted on, as opposed to "bigoted fears of possibilities" that may ensue because more people are now allowed to legally marry.  But please do let me know when the sky falls just because my cousin was finally able to marry the man he's been with for the past fifteen years.

Please, let me know when you learn the difference between a potentiality and reality.

(a) They have not done that, this would be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
(b) This has not happened, this would also be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
© Global warming has not lead to the moving of a single person much less billions or trillions, another potentiality and not a reality of the world.

I would agree with you in regards to what you have listed being potentialities which we should endeavor to keep from becoming realities. But it has been expressed to me that we should not prohibit the conduct of others based on the potentiality of that conduct.

Or am I to take your post as accepting we may act to prohibit negative potentialities from becoming realities? In which case we may act to prohibit the possibility of Armageddon and Gaymageddon from becoming realities?

(August 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Anima Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: ISIS has already had an impact, so you're right in that case: recent history is not imminent. Brilliant point! And of course a "regional problem" in which (a) a radical, militant Sunni sect gains power over areas of the Middle East or (b) the relative balance of power in the Middle East is radically altered by a nuclear-armed Shia state would, in neither case, have worldwide effects in terms of national alliances, international security, trade, and control of resources. Of course not.  Brilliant point #2. And human-induced climate change is nothing to worry about since some areas may become more productive (while ignoring the billions -- possibly trillions -- it would take in the long run to shore up those coastal areas that will be negatively affected).  A trifecta!

Yeah, I'd say those are MAYS that should be acted on, as opposed to "bigoted fears of possibilities" that may ensue because more people are now allowed to legally marry.  But please do let me know when the sky falls just because my cousin was finally able to marry the man he's been with for the past fifteen years.

Please, let me know when you learn the difference between a potentiality and reality.

(a) They have not done that, this would be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
(b) This has not happened, this would also be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.  
© Global warming has not lead to the moving of a single person much less billions or trillions, another potentiality and not a reality of the world.

I would agree with you in regards to what you have listed being potentialities which we should endeavor to keep from becoming realities.  But it has been expressed to me that we should not prohibit the conduct of others based on the potentiality of that conduct.  

Or am I to take your post as accepting we may act to prohibit negative potentialities from becoming realities?  In which case we may act to prohibit the possibility of Armageddon and Gaymageddon from becoming realities?

Why don't we start with you listing the downside of marriage equality -- by which I mean something other than 'my imaginary friend is as disgusted by homosexuality as I am'.

And I didn't write anything about "billions or trillions" of people being displaced.

(August 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Yeah, I'd say those are MAYS that should be acted on, as opposed to "bigoted fears of possibilities"

HAHAHAH is that how it should be stated now. May's are acceptable but possibilitys are not because they are bigoted!
HAHAHAHAHA now that was a good one.

(August 25, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Handing guys like you a megaphone would have made marriage equality happen so much faster than actually arguing against yall did.  Keep up the good work comrade.  Perhaps, you should make another thread, about some other thing that works you up....and we can get that sorted as well?  Encourage like minded individuals to do the same, a real blitz of opinion under the light.

To what purpose? From what I have observed on this site there was little ability to defend either the atheist position or pro-same sex position that creating another thread would serve no other purpose than to provide many with another opportunity to exhibit their inability to discuss/argue the topic without making personal ad hominem attacks.

"My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown.
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,.."
(Shakespeare - Taming of the Shrew)

(August 25, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Anima Wrote: Please, let me know when you learn the difference between a potentiality and reality.

(a) They have not done that, this would be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.
(b) This has not happened, this would also be a potentiality and is not a reality of the world.  
© Global warming has not lead to the moving of a single person much less billions or trillions, another potentiality and not a reality of the world.

I would agree with you in regards to what you have listed being potentialities which we should endeavor to keep from becoming realities.  But it has been expressed to me that we should not prohibit the conduct of others based on the potentiality of that conduct.  

Or am I to take your post as accepting we may act to prohibit negative potentialities from becoming realities?  In which case we may act to prohibit the possibility of Armageddon and Gaymageddon from becoming realities?

Why don't we start with you listing the downside of marriage equality -- by which I mean something other than 'my imaginary friend is as disgusted by homosexuality as I am'.

And I didn't write anything about "billions or trillions" of people being displaced.

Damn again,
Dude he has argued and presented an opposing view on the issue. Hell this thread is of that. Well mostly the end part. It might be faster to just read the old post them for him to retype the whole damn thing. But hey he might be up for it, who knows.