Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#477 Mar 20 2015 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Pfft. Like there's even one person on this board that hasn't eaten a pair of schoolgirl panties.
#478 Mar 20 2015 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Ew.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#479 Mar 20 2015 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Pfft. Like there's even one person on this board that hasn't eaten a pair of schoolgirl panties.


I think Usagi stopped posting here, actually.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#480 Mar 20 2015 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm still on board with getting rid of Japan.
Can we get rid of Texas first? At least Japan kind of sort of produces stuff.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#481 Mar 20 2015 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I know you're part of the military, so the mere mention of a desert oilfield probably raises your hackles, but uh, we already invaded and occupied this one. Sure, the populace is highly religious and hates Washington, but let's pick our battles, ok?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#482 Mar 20 2015 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I know you're part of the military, so the mere mention of a desert oilfield probably raises your hackles,
As part of the military, I'd like to abandon any places that could be described as a desert oilfield and let them fend for themselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#483 Mar 20 2015 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
How about a salt-flat lithium field? That's kind of next gen, a real change of pace you know.

Let's all invade Bolivia, is what I'm saying.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#484 Mar 20 2015 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
This is cool
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#485 Mar 20 2015 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
How about a salt-flat lithium field? That's kind of next gen, a real change of pace you know.

Let's all invade Bolivia, is what I'm saying.

Geez, all Bolivia can't look like this...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#486 Mar 20 2015 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Debalic wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
How about a salt-flat lithium field? That's kind of next gen, a real change of pace you know.

Let's all invade Bolivia, is what I'm saying.

Geez, all Bolivia can't look like this...


Oh Bolivian.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#487 Mar 20 2015 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, when people ramble on about "It's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" or "Those guys are illegals just like axe murderers and rapists" or "How much birth control does one slut need?" or "Well, those ghetto people have refrigerators so they're not REALLY poor" or "How dare those Muslims want to build a mosque on the land they own" it's probably not because of their deeply held and intellectually honed beliefs on liberty. Probably more about the stuff I listed. Then when people want their votes, they develop platforms to appeal to these people. Then other people who affiliate with the party modify their beliefs to still reflect the party because it's easier than saying "This guy from my group is wrong" and instead come up with tortured reasons why opposing two people getting married is really about "liberty" and not about homophobic idiot voters.


And in the dictionary, next to the phrase "Straw Man Argument" sits this paragraph.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#488 Mar 20 2015 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suppose that's easier than admitting it. No, Gbaji... you're right. They're only saying it because of their study of Locke and shit Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#489 Mar 20 2015 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Right. So if you're a *** Republican, you don't care about rights for gays. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.


No. You believe that the marriage status is a benefit, not a right. And you don't believe that extending that benefit to gay couples is more important than dozens of other political issues. It's no more hypocritical than a beer drinker not fighting for the right to have the government provide him free beer. Would he benefit from having free beer? Sure. Would a group that he identifies with benefit as well? Absolutely. Does his identity as a beer drinker define him above all things and require that he fight for that benefit, or choose a party solely based on whether it includes "free beer" on its platform? No.

Quote:
So he's Republican before he's ***. Which means that the good of the party is more important than the good of the people. Got it.


He believes that the agenda of the party is better for "the people" than fighting for a benefit for his own identity group. He's looking at the good of all the people, not just his own group. That's called not being selfish.

Quote:
Liberals believe in allowing people to live the lives they want and helping out when things go bad.


Interesting. So forcing people to buy health care even if they don't want to is "allowing people to live the lives they want"? Taxing person A to pay for benefits for person B is "allowing people to live the lives they want"? Subsidizing product A while placing taxes on product B is "allowing people to live the lives they want"? You're kidding. The Left's policies almost entirely consist of using the power of government to force people to live the lives they (the liberals) want them to live, whether they (the people) want to or not. Don't like people choosing to smoke? Create smoking bans. Don't like people eating junk food or drinking soda? Regulate/tax that. Don't like people living in homes that could generate more tax revenue if they were a shopping center? Take that property from them and hand it to a developer. Do I really need to go on?

Also, while I'm sure they are motivated by the desire to help others. They believe in having the government do it for them. Also, they believe in using qualifications for that help as a means to (again) control people's behavior.

Quote:
Not unexplainable malice. It's quite easily explained - when not malicious, just disinterested.


When "interested" takes the form of "use government to coerce people to do what we want them to do", then "disinterested" is the means by which liberty is maximized. Remember that liberty is the absence of influence on your choices and actions. A government that is disinterested is a government that is actually "allowing people to live the lives they want". I really do think the difference is that liberals tend to be ends focused, while conservatives focus on the means. It's why liberals obsess over social stats and try to manipulate the rules to make them come out the way they think is fair, while conservatives care most about whether the rules we use to determine peoples outcomes are fair.

These are completely different approaches.

Edited, Mar 20th 2015 6:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#490 Mar 20 2015 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose that's easier than admitting it. No, Gbaji... you're right. They're only saying it because of their study of Locke and shit Smiley: laugh


If someone says "murder should be illegal because Joph is a devil worshiper", does that mean you will fight to make murder legal? No amount of really poor arguments invalidate the good ones.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#491 Mar 20 2015 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Yes gbaji, I know you believe those things, and there isn't really anything to be done about it. So, carry on, I guess.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#492 Mar 20 2015 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No. You believe that the marriage status is a benefit, not a right. And you don't believe that extending that benefit to *** couples is more important than dozens of other political issues. It's no more hypocritical than a beer drinker not fighting for the right to have the government provide him free beer.

Possibly the worst metaphor that's ever been constructed in the English language. I guess "That's like when Stalin saved Judaism from itself" is probably worse when applied to My Little Pony, but ONLY BARELY.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#493 Mar 20 2015 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Yeah, that kinda thing is why I can't even respond to gbaji. It not only doesn't make any sense, but is intentionally irrelevant. Something like, "a beer drinker not fighting for the right to legally buy beer" would actually make sense. Well, logically, at least, if not politically.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#494 Mar 20 2015 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. You believe that the marriage status is a benefit, not a right. And you don't believe that extending that benefit to *** couples is more important than dozens of other political issues. It's no more hypocritical than a beer drinker not fighting for the right to have the government provide him free beer.

Possibly the worst metaphor that's ever been constructed in the English language. I guess "That's like when Stalin saved Judaism from itself" is probably worse when applied to My Little Pony, but ONLY BARELY.


It's an analogy, not an equivalence (seems like I keep having to explain this). The core question is whether it's hypocritical to support a political agenda that does not benefit you personally. And the answer is "if you don't think that politics should be about benefiting groups of people then it's not hypocritical". Conservatives tend to believe that government's job is not to divide people into identity groups and then divvy up benefits among them. A liberal places the gay man into the "gay" group and thus concludes that everyone in that group should naturally support any agenda that provides that group more benefits. A conservative rejects this notion entirely. So his homosexuality does not require him to identify primarily as "gay", and certainly does not require him to support an agenda because it's "good for gays".

Same can be said for conservative women, conservative blacks, conservative latinos, etc. They all get washed with the same "hypocrite" brush. But it's because liberals believe that group identity is what mattes. Conservatives believe in equality under the law. Our laws should not look at who you are, but what you do and how those actions affect others in the society around you. Period. We legislate actions, not people. Liberals seem to think otherwise and thus interpret conservative positions within that context. But that's their inability to see things from a different perspective.

Edited, Mar 20th 2015 8:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#495 Mar 20 2015 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, that kinda thing is why I can't even respond to gbaji. It not only doesn't make any sense, but is intentionally irrelevant. Something like, "a beer drinker not fighting for the right to legally buy beer" would actually make sense. Well, logically, at least, if not politically.


Except that's not the analogy. The better analogy is whether it's fair that we create a food subsidy, but exclude beer (like our food stamps program). We exclude beer from the subsidy, not because we dislike beer, but because not drinking beer isn't a problem that we need to solve (well, that the government needs to spend money solving anyway), while not eating food is. Only a really silly person would argue that not allowing people to buy beer with their food stamps is somehow a violation of their right to drink beer.

As I have explained repeatedly, the justification for providing a benefit status to couples consisting of one adult male and one adult female who enter into a legally binding marriage contract is because couples of that makeup not entering into a marriage contract creates a problem that needs to be solved (increased children with only one legally recognized parent). We exclude couples consisting of two people of the same sex, not because we dislike them, but because they don't create the problem.

Neither of these scenarios mean that there are no people who do actually dislike beer, or gay people. But their existence does not disprove the argument. We would be foolish to argue that beer should qualify for inclusion in food stamps programs because people who think "alcohol is sinful!" are wrong. Similarly, we should not argue that same sex couples should qualify for inclusion in marriage benefit programs because people who think "homosexuality is sinful!" are wrong. That's just an incredibly backwards way of looking at things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#496 Mar 20 2015 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
And in the dictionary, next to the phrase "Straw Man Argument" sits this paragraph.


Neither of these things go in dictionaries.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#497 Mar 20 2015 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, that kinda thing is why I can't even respond to gbaji. It not only doesn't make any sense, but is intentionally irrelevant. Something like, "a beer drinker not fighting for the right to legally buy beer" would actually make sense. Well, logically, at least, if not politically.


Whenever he posts more than a paragraph, he is spinning his wheels hiding something retarded in pile of ********* I assume he know's he's wrong, but thinks that if he puts enough words down he will bamboozle idiots. Occasionally he'll have a relevant short post.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#498 Mar 20 2015 at 11:22 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Actually, they provide a solution to your problem: gay couples adopt all the babies that unmarried women give up!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#499 Mar 21 2015 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose that's easier than admitting it. No, Gbaji... you're right. They're only saying it because of their study of Locke and shit Smiley: laugh

If someone says "murder should be illegal because Joph is a devil worshiper", does that mean you will fight to make murder legal? No amount of really poor arguments invalidate the good ones.

No, it means that if your entire tribe or group is saying "We believe that murder should be legal", you're much more likely to agree with them and to try and justify to yourself why they're right. "Well, sure SOME people say it's because Jophiel is a devil worshiper but REALLY it's about liberty..."

People go to the group that welcomes them most on their core beliefs and then mold the rest of their beliefs to help fit. Racist black Democrats didn't flip to join the Republican party in droves during the 60s & 70s because they suddenly agreed with their fiscal or foreign policy stances or deep understanding of "liberty", they joined because the GOP was now more welcoming of their racism than the Democrats were. The other stuff comes later: "Well, these guys I vote for says we need to privatize Social Security so I guess that's the right answer 'cause otherwise I voted for the wrong guys..." Likewise, you have some core belief that attracts you to the GOP (apparently some nationalistic fetishization of the Founding Fathers as quasi-divine beings) and then try to shoehorn every other stance the party stands for into that one box. "Removing voting protections is about liberty!", "Discriminating against homosexuals in hiring is about liberty!", "Polluting the atmosphere is about liberty!", "Blocking abortion access is about liberty!", etc etc which usually boils down to "This might make a negligible increase in my taxes so keeping those two pennies is more important to me than the welfare of others".

I'm being polite when I assume your core interest is the fetishization of long dead men. The other possibility would be that you're primarily attracted to a group that rewards people so tightly concerned with their own self-interest that they'd rather deny a group basic rights than lose a couple pennies in taxes.

Edited, Mar 21st 2015 8:42am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#500 Mar 21 2015 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Debalic wrote:
Actually, they provide a solution to your problem: *** couples adopt all the babies that unmarried women give up!

Not in Michigan. The House here is passing a bill to allow "Faith Based" adoption agencies to deny adoptions to LGBT couples. I believe it has passed the House, but am not sure if it went through the Senate. I don't think the Governor has anything against the bill so I doubt he'd try to Veto it.

I think the Dems in the House tried to add language about exceptions for "the best interest of the child" but they got shot down. I didn't really have a dog in the race so I only caught what ever I heard on the local radio.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#501 Mar 23 2015 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
How good could Faith Based Adoption Agencies be anyway? If it were any good, there wouldn't be any kids to adopt in the first place.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 412 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (412)