Same-Sex Marriage Unanimously Included In DNC Platform USA!

[Juan_Bottom]

you people

[john9blue]

i'm not here to put people into categories, but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them? how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

[GreecePwns]

Immediate dismissal? Have you read my conversations with Phatscotty or BBS? I always make sure that my opinion is stated, we have a civil discussion, and I concede where I'm clearly in the wrong. I expect the same from the person I'm talking to. With BBS, I almost always get that. With Phatscoty, I'll sometimes initially get that before he devolves into his usual form.

I don't attack him for his worldview, but for the way he responds to criticism of it when he presents it (or when he presents a worldview and pages later tells you its not really his worldview)

[Symmetry]

i'm not here to put people into categories, but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them? how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

Who do you think considers gay people to be "disgusting freaks of nature"? And why don't you think that's wrong?

[john9blue]

Immediate dismissal? Have you read my conversations with Phatscotty or BBS? I always make sure that my opinion is stated, we have a civil discussion, and I concede where I'm clearly in the wrong. I expect the same from the person I'm talking to. With BBS, I almost always get that. With Phatscoty, I'll sometimes initially get that before he devolves into his usual form.

I don't attack him for his worldview, but for the way he responds to criticism of it when he presents it (or when he presents a worldview and pages later tells you its not really his worldview)

you're a good poster for the most part... dunno why you think i'm targeting you right now

Who do you think considers gay people to be "disgusting freaks of nature"? And why don't you think that's wrong?

i DO think it's wrong. but an explanation of why i think it's wrong involves biological and psychological explanations for homosexuality, and not juan-bottom-style accusations of bigotry.

[Symmetry]

Immediate dismissal? Have you read my conversations with Phatscotty or BBS? I always make sure that my opinion is stated, we have a civil discussion, and I concede where I'm clearly in the wrong. I expect the same from the person I'm talking to. With BBS, I almost always get that. With Phatscoty, I'll sometimes initially get that before he devolves into his usual form.

I don't attack him for his worldview, but for the way he responds to criticism of it when he presents it (or when he presents a worldview and pages later tells you its not really his worldview)

you're a good poster for the most part... dunno why you think i'm targeting you right now

Who do you think considers gay people to be "disgusting freaks of nature"? And why don't you think that's wrong?

i DO think it's wrong. but an explanation of why i think it's wrong involves biological and psychological explanations for homosexuality, and not juan-bottom-style accusations of bigotry.

A "disgusting freak of nature" is pretty clearly pushing things, though no?

That ain't a biological description, or a psychological explanation.

[Lootifer]

i'm not here to put people into categories, but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them? how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

Good post, would read again.

Only thing I disagree with is the fact that Nightstrike gives anyone the time of day; while he may be level-headed and consistent in his debate very seldom does he try to see it from the other side or budge on any issue.

[saxitoxin]

A McClatchey newspapers investigation has revealed that the first U.S. Army officer in 40 years to be eligible for the Medal of Honor while still alive had the decoration nixed by the Obama regime after he criticized the organization of the U.S. warfighting machine that resulted in the bloody, savage ambush that ended in the brutal deaths of half-a-dozen other US-Americans and many Afghans.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... nor07.html

The glassy eyed, corpulent estadounidense keep cheering in their mindless, convulsive fits ... they want entire villages wiped off the face of the map so they can get goodies and treats from the regime, but don't want to chip their own nails and are even willing to cheer manically as their countrymen are hanged to dry if it keeps the gravy train running into their fat mouth. Like the Judeans before Pontius Pilate.

The machine consumes all. The selfishness is sickening.

But balance is about to be returned to the universe. A day of reckoning is coming. Correspondence Committees should compile lists containing the names both of war criminals of act and war criminals of word and thought within their precincts. Two copies should be made of the list. One copy should be kept in a drawer at home, the other should be placed in a stamped envelope and kept in the refrigerator.

[saxitoxin]

All across the world, in the face of this horrible, horrible Monster, people are uniting together in hatred of the Monster Obama. What the neocon Juan dismisses as a bunch of stone age countries - the cries of whose people don't matter. You'll find out, too late, how much your fellow humans matter.

You see countries of 4 million people, like - for instance - El Salvador where the FMLN fill stadiums as large as Obama can pack in his 330 million sheepocracy - filled up with radicals who despise Obama. Places where john9blue could safely go but are No-Go areas for Juan due to his ideology because they hate Obama. US weapons are growing more useless, because the people united can never be defeated.

[Army of GOD]

@john, there are legitimate reasons to, well, ok, not DISS young earthers or anti-gay-marriage-ers (I don't want to call them homophobes because that's definitely a misnomer) but to, I don't know...make fun of them. Ok, not make fun of them, but I'm not entirely sure how to phrase what I mean.

There are very few issues I am absolutely sure about where I stand. Take abortion for example....I have no idea about how I feel about it and yes, I've thought about it a lot. Something like affirmative action also kind of screws with my head as I don't know if it's needed/helps society in any way.

But gay marriage, as long as there are legal benefits to being married, is one of those things I know I fully support. It's absolutely ludicrous to oppose it. Logically, that is. Like, some Christians oppose gay marriage because it says gay marriage is an abomination in the Bible. What about ALL THE OTHER SHIT IN THE BIBLE THATS OBSOLETE BY HUNDREDS OF YEARS? Like Nola posted in some other thread, if non-gay-marriage-ers so strongly support everything the Bible says, why don't they kill non-married non-virgins? Why do they work on Sundays? Why do they do a lot of shit?

It's physical discrimination and it has no place in modern society. I could care less about the KKK believing whites are the superior race. But when they go around terrorizing other races, then I have a problem with it.

[Army of GOD]

Also, I probably contradicted myself in that unintelligible ramble, so I implore you to point it out.

[rdsrds2120]

Also, I probably contradicted myself in that unintelligible ramble, so I implore you to point it out.

Yeah, I think this is the one:

It's physical discrimination and it has no place in modern society. I couldn't* care less about the KKK believing whites are the superior race. But when they go around terrorizing other races, then I have a problem with it.

[Army of GOD]

Also, I probably contradicted myself in that unintelligible ramble, so I implore you to point it out.

Yeah, I think this is the one:

It's physical discrimination and it has no place in modern society. I couldn't* care less about the KKK believing whites are the superior race. But when they go around terrorizing other races, then I have a problem with it.

I swear to the god I don't believe in that I always have to correct myself with the "couldn't/could care less" line. I was too tired to catch that one, I guess.

[MamieMount]

Same sex relation and marriage is very common today. In other country, people do support this matter.

[Army of GOD]

Same sex relation and marriage is very common today. In other country, people do support this matter.

hm.


0 games, from the Phillipines, my first guess would be that you're a spambot.

They have been getting smarter lately, but this post is too on-topic for a spambot.


Are you a wizard?

[Haggis_McMutton]

A are bad therefore B are good.

Congratulations, I see you have graduated the scotty school of logic magna cum laude.

keep up the personal attacks, morons. you're proving my point.

believe me, i'd insult the conservative posters here if they acted like most of the liberal ones (i.e. intellectually dishonest children)

bwahaha.

remeber when a week ago I called you out on thinking you're intellectually superior to everyone on here and you denied it?

Oh man, it really cracks me up when you get all aggressive over stuff like this. Remember when you straight up challenged someone to an IQ test? heh, brilliant.

Too bad you can't seem to apply this vast intelligence and philosophical/political knowledge to anything other than jerking yourself off on a risk forum, but such is life I guess. :p

[Haggis_McMutton]

i'm not here to put people into categories,

Well, that's interesting since all you've been doing is putting people in categories.
"This is why I criticize liberals"
"You people" etc etc.

but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

NS and Scotty don't debate. They preach, monologue, hold sermons, whatever you want to call it, but they don't debate. Debating implies a honest attempt to understand the other's point of view and reach a consensus. They do not do that.
Show me one debate where scotty actually changed his mind after being persuaded by his adversary. Please.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them?

YES. Of course it does. That's the fucking point.
A long time ago, when I was a kid, I had a thing for conspiracy theories. I went to some forum and posted about how the moon landing was faked. They absolutely OBLITERATED me. Guess what happened? I tried doing more research to support my position in there, but instead my research showed me that my position was bullshit. I fuckin' learned.

That was a much more valuable experience than if they had said "Well, we respectfully disagree with your worldview, but don't want to make you feel inadequate. Would you like a cookie?"

Even though the likes of NS and jay are likely lost causes, destroying their arguments is still valuable. Someone may read that someday. Plus it's good practice for when we're going to debate someone who may be willing to change his worldview.

how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

Again, you're out of touch.
You think if I published a paper about how evolution is wrong and the world was created 6000 years ago using arguments taken from jay, Lionz, et. al. what would ensue would be a civil discussion in the scientific community?
It would be ignored by 99% of the scientific community who has more important shit to do and the other 1% would rip it to shreds with a violence that would make this forum look absolutely civil.

Not all oppinions are equal, not all deserve respect. It is not reasonable to have a nice civil discussion with a holocaust deniar, or a racist because that debate legitimizes their ridiculous position. Such people need their bullshit arguments destroyed and their position mocked. Because that's what it is, a joke.

We can argue about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism and so on, that's a reasonable debate.
There is no argument about wether god made the earth 6000 years ago, created us sick and commanded us to be sound, sent himself as his son to perform random miracles in an illiterate corner of the middle east 2000 years ago and is now taking notes about who and how and in what position I have sex with. That position can only be mocked. The argument about that position ended a couple centuries ago.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

So, basically, "civility" is more important than honest truth searching, gotcha.
I don't give a shit about civility. Call me whatever the hell you wanna call me as long as you address my fuckin' arguments honestly and the discussion goes somewhere. Scotty and NS do not do this. They simply preach their position.

[BigBallinStalin]

i'm not here to put people into categories, but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them? how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

Having a mutually acceptable standard of evidence for one's claims helps. Adhering to certain informal rules during a debate are nice too (e.g. intentional logical fallacies aren't cool, acknowledging mistakes, conceding points, clarifying are cool, etc.). You know, being logical and rational are good traits. Swerving away from them will unsurprisingly result in ridicule.


Also, what Haggis said. It's top-notch, especially the part about handing people cookies for holding ridiculous views.

science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

Where were you during the minimum wage debate between me v. InkL0sed and Woodruff? InkL0sed went ballistic in that one, so he fits the above description. Maybe that lends some evidence about your position against "libtards"? They tend to believe in the tenets of Social Justice, and whenever a policy creates negative unintended consequences, they'll simply deny it? Honestly, I'm not really sure what your recent thread-bombing campaign is about.

[BigBallinStalin]

A McClatchey newspapers investigation has revealed that the first U.S. Army officer in 40 years to be eligible for the Medal of Honor while still alive had the decoration nixed by the Obama regime after he criticized the organization of the U.S. warfighting machine that resulted in the bloody, savage ambush that ended in the brutal deaths of half-a-dozen other US-Americans and many Afghans.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... nor07.html

The glassy eyed, corpulent estadounidense keep cheering in their mindless, convulsive fits ... they want entire villages wiped off the face of the map so they can get goodies and treats from the regime, but don't want to chip their own nails and are even willing to cheer manically as their countrymen are hanged to dry if it keeps the gravy train running into their fat mouth. Like the Judeans before Pontius Pilate.

The machine consumes all. The selfishness is sickening.



But balance is about to be returned to the universe. A day of reckoning is coming. Correspondence Committees should compile lists containing the names both of war criminals of act and war criminals of word and thought within their precincts. Two copies should be made of the list. One copy should be kept in a drawer at home, the other should be placed in a stamped envelope and kept in the refrigerator.

Easy, Senor Propaganda. Easy.


From your link:

"The whole awards system is just totally jacked up," said Doug Sterner, a military historian who's made a career of verifying the authenticity of commendations.

The Pentagon and the military services deny the system is flawed, and the U.S. command in Afghanistan denied there was any attempt to downgrade Swenson's Medal of Honor nomination.

Yet despite the possibility of malfeasance or worse, no further effort was made to determine what happened. The "discrepancies" posed by the evidence of a downgrade to a Distinguished Service Cross "could not be resolved," the investigators said.

The Pentagon makes Phatism look like child's play.

How can such an organization build up so much trust and faith, while repeatedly being shown to lie to us?

Whenever a crisis emerges, there is the state, our best friend and its buddies, the military bureaucracies. And they're always willing to hear our pleas. What is with it with people? I recall seeing Gallup polls that said that faith/trust in government is at an all-time low, but do faith/trust in government even matter?

Because the outcome of this lack of trust/faith is some marginal shift toward libertarian and quasi-libertarian politicians, while constituents become overwhelmingly hardened to Obama while a very few become disillusioned, recover, and vote independent. Repub. politicians and Demos pretty much screamed louder. That's about it. Not much of a change from the business-as-usual.

[GreecePwns]

Of course, the popular mentality is "well, why vote for another party? They have no chance of winning." People simply want maximize the utility of their vote.

[PLAYER57832]

i'm not here to put people into categories, but i will say that NS is pretty much always more level-headed than the person that he's conversing with. you can chalk it up to his "hard-headedness" or "stupidity" bringing out the worst in others, or whatever, but that fails to explain why people keep debating him. clearly he has something interesting to say.

i just don't understand why people think being "wrong" is some kind of terrible sin. if some guy on the internet thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, or that gay people are disgusting freaks of nature... so what?? you think that justifies dissing them? how "correct" does a person's worldview have to be before you take them seriously? by "correct" here, of course, i mean "agreeing with your own preconceived worldview", which is already a completely fucked-up way of approaching online debate. in fact, people who refuse to respect those with opinions different than theirs are anti-science. you read that correctly. science works by taking another person's thoughts and comparing them to your own. this never happens with you guys; it's just immediate dismissal followed by insults. imagine if the whole world always worked that way. welcome back to the stone age.

and no, i'm not being a hypocrite here, because i agree with most of you more than i agree with night strike (or player, for that matter), yet i treat both of them better than most of you because they at least give other people the time of day.

First, thank you..a nd even though I often disagree with Nightstrike (am not sure I would agree that he actually does always consider other opinions, though he likely would say the same of me), I do not in any way consider him a troll. Different opinions keep us thinking.

That said, the problem here is not people's thoughts. I will NEVER say someone has no right to think the Earth is 6000 years old or that homosexuality is "just wrong" for whatever reason. I will, though absolutly debate the issue if they make their feelings known publically. More importantly, neither group, today is just "thinking their thoughts". They are actively pushing their agendas (while claiming they are fighting the oppressive antir-religious agenda, which makes their claims among other things pretty hypocritical) and their agenda is not to just be left in peace, it is to make sure that other people conform.

Its rather ironic that Phattscotty's idea of "religious freedom" is to deny a particular group of people the ability to live how they want with the same recognition he enjoys.. and uses a combination of history and religion to justify that demand. As I have said before, I don't know that I think homosexuality is
"OK" in the religious sense, but I do know for a fact it does not cause people direct harm. It factually causes far less harm than many activities we very much protect, particularly some religious views. (just heard a discussion of the Old Order Amish broaching this, for example.... and they are not considered harmful. Get to something like the old school southern Baptitsts, not to be confused with the modern convention.. and you see real harm).

When it comes to the young earth issue, there is a bit of a conflict there. We have as a fundamental right that people may teach their kids essentially whatever values they want, but the limit is flat out lying. That is touchy and difficult, but there is a big difference between telling kids "we believe x.. even though it disagrees with the majority" and teaching kids that the entire scientific community is party to a conspiracy basically intent on fighting Christianity. Worse, these things are intentionally not being said in real public, but are being taught behind school walls and home-schools under the guise of religion. It is very difficult to counter what needs about 10 years of instruction to teach. And, as I have said before, there is no real way that someone can be an honest scientist and still truly believe the young earth claims.. so that means a good many are outright lying or just doing very, very, very poor science. Neither is a religious view that deserves protection.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, the popular mentality is "well, why vote for another party? They have no chance of winning." People simply want maximize the utility of their vote.

Unfortunately, that person with that kind of perceived utility never updates.

[Army of GOD]

or, better yet is my mentality which is "why vote at all? whoever the president is is going to f*ck us in the ass anyway."

[Juan_Bottom]

[Woodruff]

A are bad therefore B are good.

Congratulations, I see you have graduated the scotty school of logic magna cum laude.

We don't wonder, Mr. Moderate. We know why.

keep up the personal attacks, morons. you're proving my point.

I thought you claimed to be a moderate. No it's a personal attack to call you one?

believe me, i'd insult the conservative posters here if they acted like most of the liberal ones (i.e. intellectually dishonest children)

The delusion is strong in this one.