Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Iroscato]

Just when you thought the 'conversation' couldn't get any more fucking absurd...

[Losty]

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

Except the people on the bus you're driving!

Lol. I'm not legally required to be a bus driver.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I thought the conversation could use a touch of the (deliberately, as opposed to accidentally) absurd.

[Ace]

I thought the conversation could use a touch of the (deliberately, as opposed to accidentally) absurd.

Good one.

However, it is a little funny that those who deliberately add absurdity to the argument are not who you assume do. When in actuality it is the ones who are replying to both Anima and myself and give you kudos.  

Instead of addressing and keeping with the concept of the argument, tangents and distractions are constantly being thrown into the discussion. This is done usually when the replierinstead takes the example given in the argument, dismissing the actual concept of the argument altogether and leading the discussion (which I agree with you) on some absurd tangent debate . . .

For example, if you please:

 For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well.

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

However, if it could somehow be proved that a guy was really totally fine with being sacrificed, and he was in sound mind and there was no coercion, then I have no moral problem with it. The guy who did the killing handing over some scribbled note in the dead guy's handwriting afterwards would not be sufficient.

May I ask who took the example of the discussion and turn the topic of the discussion into something different?

Really? do we really have to discuss what is so obvious in regarding the damn law that "prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well" and  that, yea hopefully, most people should or do agree with it. Really?  

But because some wish to be fucking Neo (the one) who "hey I am different, because just maybe I may not accept what is the  obvious"

Or the more childish one that many always use, " no because I know or have a friend that . . . [oh lets say playing Russian roulette is very dangerous because it can kill you] . . . plays all the time and they never have died. So, no it is not dangerous."

Are you fucking joking?  . . . .Really, we have to now argue this stupid remark to the statement given now?

[Ace]

"For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well."

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

Many time when a person wishes to have a type of mutation to one's body, the argument is that their could be other issues.  Now if it is proven that they are in the right state of mind, keep in mind that the "assumed right" to self harm is not legal and in any governmental society the people are never their own  rulers of himself but is a citizen of the state.

Also the Hippocratic oath . .  .a doctor is charged to "do no harm"

Obviously, a doctor is different, but I never mentioned a doctor. You didn't even make an argument. Why shouldn't a person be able to amputate their own arm?

You didn't answer the question all you did was say it's illegal in every country. My question was, why should it be illegal? How is it morally wrong?

Under the same thought that others have in what they think they have a right to do what they want and have an extreme fault assuming that it does not affect others including myself.

Again, you didn't answer my question, but instead told me that others agree with you. I don't care. I want to know why you think people should get to decide for other people.

Hahaha I think it will scare you if you actually know how much society and the government can and does intervene in everyone's life. Like it or not.

Why do you assume I don't already know that? I am not discussing what laws exist. I know that a person cannot legally do whatever they want to their own body, even if it affects no one else, but what I was saying is that they should be allowed to.

From your response to my post, it appears that you believe that the mere existence of a law makes that law right and moral.

So one can self harm? Hmm? interesting? Keep in mind that some people actually like to hurt them self and see nothing wrong with it. i.e. the lady known as "cat women" because of all the f-up surgery she has had on her face. Which she still wish to have more done to her but, outrageously is denied the right to do so. Hmmm?

Where is your mind right now? I never said people are not, denied the right to self harm. I said people should not be denied the right to self harm. Also, your cat woman example is not a good example because that woman wants a doctor to perform surgeries on her. Doctors are held to different standards for obvious reasons. If she wanted to perform surgeries on her self then she should be allowed to.

Also what are you counting as affecting another person? right when the act occurred, a month from then, a couple of years, what? Because affects can and do take some times to reveal them self

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

Before I answer this, may I ask if you truly wish to have a discussion about this?

I was hoping by some of my not so thoughtful replies to your questions would show that it is a little reticulated to be arguing the "right for a person to amputate their arms because they are not hurtling anyone." And that was not my intention or port to be arguing such shit. But I could be very much wrong.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments.

All I was trying to say is that at time you, (and others too) seem to be so adamant in not agreeing with Anima's or another’s ideas that you start to impose arguments/ rebuttals that start to forgo any reason or logic. To even agree on what is the obvious or to have any correlation with your adversary in agreement (even when it is reasonable) can not ever be, thus rebuttals with irrational "agreements of reason" are used make the argument become absurd and way off topic.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments. (sorry rambling here)


And of course. . .I mean come on? honestly? really? . . . no, no one, no current society or in this country should never actually considered it acceptable for anyone to allow any person, even with their freely give consent, to be sacrificed. I mean really? This is not a pissing contest here to see who can consider the most objective position to what is so obvious. Hence my example of arms amputated. But then again I could be wrong or that it is could just be me.

But if you truly wish to discus the topic, ok with me, I will continue.
I am fine with talking about whatever.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I abandoned this thread a while ago. Did I miss anything? Have the gaylord child-raping polygamists started forcing anyone to gobble pootie-poles and doody-holes yet? Virginia still seems pretty safe from such treatment, but maybe other parts of the country are worse. Here it's mostly just dudes kissing in public and shit.

[Losty]

---

"For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well."

Why would you be sure of that? I certainly don't agree. If the sacrificee, is mentally competent adult with the capacity to understand and agree to being sacrificed...I am for it. I hope they do the sacrifice before the idiot has a chance to reproduce too.

Obviously, a doctor is different, but I never mentioned a doctor. You didn't even make an argument. Why shouldn't a person be able to amputate their own arm?

You didn't answer the question all you did was say it's illegal in every country. My question was, why should it be illegal? How is it morally wrong?


Again, you didn't answer my question, but instead told me that others agree with you. I don't care. I want to know why you think people should get to decide for other people.


Why do you assume I don't already know that? I am not discussing what laws exist. I know that a person cannot legally do whatever they want to their own body, even if it affects no one else, but what I was saying is that they should be allowed to.

From your response to my post, it appears that you believe that the mere existence of a law makes that law right and moral.


Where is your mind right now? I never said people are not, denied the right to self harm. I said people should not be denied the right to self harm. Also, your cat woman example is not a good example because that woman wants a doctor to perform surgeries on her. Doctors are held to different standards for obvious reasons. If she wanted to perform surgeries on her self then she should be allowed to.


In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

Before I answer this, may I ask if you truly wish to have a discussion about this?

I was hoping by some of my not so thoughtful replies to your questions would show that it is a little reticulated to be arguing the "right for a person to amputate their arms because they are not hurtling anyone." And that was not my intention or port to be arguing such shit. But I could be very much wrong.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments.

All I was trying to say is that at time you, (and others too) seem to be so adamant in not agreeing with Anima's or another’s ideas that you start to impose arguments/ rebuttals that start to forgo any reason or logic. To even agree on what is the obvious or to have any correlation with your adversary in agreement (even when it is reasonable) can not ever be, thus rebuttals with irrational "agreements of reason" are used make the argument become absurd and way off topic.

It is just that at times, there are no reasonable, logical or rational argument or contour arguments that are actually being given. Instead it just start to become some jerk-off contest to see who can rebut with the most outlandish, stupid statements or arguments. (sorry rambling here)


And of course. . .I mean come on? honestly? really? . . . no, no one, no current society or in this country should never actually considered it acceptable for anyone to allow any person, even with their freely give consent, to be sacrificed. I mean really? This is not a pissing contest here to see who can consider the most objective position to what is so obvious. Hence my example of arms amputated. But then again I could be wrong or that it is could just be me.

But if you truly wish to discus the topic, ok with me, I will continue.
I am fine with talking about whatever.

---

1) You seriously need to learn to use hide tags when quoting ginormous blocks of text.

2) I responded to your assumption because I don't like when people make false assumptions about me.

3) I don't care if we continue this discussion or not. I disagree with people complaining about absurdities forming in a thread that I find to be absurd about a subject that has been beaten to death. We can talk about cheese if you'd rather or I could PM snakeoilwarrior to see if he wants to join me in starting a thread orgy.

[robvalue]

I abandoned this thread a while ago. Did I miss anything? Have the gaylord child-raping polygamists started forcing anyone to gobble pootie-poles and doody-holes yet? Virginia still seems pretty safe from such treatment, but maybe other parts of the country are worse. Here it's mostly just dudes kissing in public and shit.

Yeah, everyone is married to 5 gays and a horse now. Didn't you notice?

[Iroscato]

In the UK, things are getting desperate. The First Gay Empire has just successfully stormed the Houses of Parliament and used their gayguns to make everyone have a thirst for The Sausage.
The Queen is now a rampant lesbian, which Prince Phillip has taken remarkably well. In fact, he's all for it, for some reason...

Now everyone's chasing down animals and kiddies to bone, it's bloody chaos. Dear God, what have we done?!

[Ace]

P

2) I responded to your assumption because I don't like when people make false assumptions about me.

Ummm? . . .Wow really?  you took offences to those miner assumptions? False assumptions that more people would considers to be what a good person?  . . . hmmm Ok

I do not think the assumption of you being anti- humanity to agree with Anima (about human sacrifice) or my own (amputation of arms). Not one of them implied or was stated in any way that was demeaning statement/ assumption to make. It was in no way a form of name-calling or degrading statements to you as a person or your character.

Unlike Anima and myself who have had the lovely experience of having degrading, disrespectful, and name-calling assumptions made to use and our person.

If our assumption of you being a common and decent person, that like most, are obviously do not wish any harm to occur to  others is actually reputable. But if this is a false assumption to be made, then I am sorry for assuming that you were a humanitarian and decant person.