MH,
So I just caught up on this thread and let me say a few things. First, Chumper's schtick is usually annoying with his questions, but not answering. Even though I usually agree with the stance he has taken, I don't prefer his way of defending his stance. Just my preference. However I have to say that outside of the obvious trolling (how many people? what kind of porch?), it seems that he abandoned his regular schtick and actually got into the conversation with some good points. I am sorry that you can't see that.
I will also concede that MiG does sometimes come off as arrogant (no manny, this has nothing to do with the poker thread - lol), as well as educated. Here is the thing though, at least he has the education to back up his arrogance. I know it is possible to not be arrogant, yet still educated, but at least it is better than some moron spouting off his arrogance.
The biggest reason for this post, though is that it seems like you made an arguement early in the thread which you perhaps didn't think all of the way through. When its glaring weaknesses were so ravenously pounced upon by the loyal opposition revealing the hole you had dug yourself into, it seems that you started swinging blindly, making arguements that even you didn't believe all in order to avoid the embarassment of having to fess up that your original arguement was way off base. I couldn't believe what I was reading when you suggested that we essentially shred the bill of rights (or parts of it) in order to neuter movements which may or may not incite violence (most of them incite nothing more than ridicule). If you really think about it, organizing as such ALWAYS incites violence to varying degrees. The peaceful marches which were organized during the civil rights movements led to dogs, fire hoses, and beatings. Violence was incited, but like I said, I don't believe (or don't want to believe) that you actually agree with your own arguement here. You also can't explain this disparity in your arguement away with something as weak as "well the civil rights protesters were ok because they were doing something that was good" because although I agree with you on that, the KKK thought/thinks that they are doing something good. It is impossible to this is moral/this is not without turning into the example that you yourself gave (Die Nazi Staaten Amerikas). The only way to do this is to allow choices to be made. If you see two ideas presented and one is abhorrent you make your choice. Will there be missteps? Absolutely, but in general human knowledge and experience has evolved through the missteps. Could we learn more from our missteps? Sure. The important thing, however is to continue to move forward.
I have actually begun to ramble now, and thought there was one more point I wanted to make, I will go ahead and stop the post now, because I can't for the life of me remember what it was. DOH!
BTW, hate cake was classic, here is my best attempt with the emoticons given.
I could careless if s get married but like it or not most people think it is wrong and they voted it down time and time again. We heard all the arguements, people are well informed on the subject and continue to keep saying "no".
Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the s getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching in school, not having s in the military is what I am against but I say yes letting the s marrying each other.
I think more and more people are getting better informed as time goes on and comig up with fewer and fewer reasons to keep saying "no".
Off the top of my head, some of the reasons I've seen are: "there's no proof of a gay gene", "It's a sin", "it's icky" and "they are sick in the head".......all pretty lame reasons that most cannot reasonably argue when they try.
So you are all for letting them live together in matrimony, but still want to keep them from having all the marriage rights that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the s getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching in school, not having s in the military is what I am against but I say yes letting the s marrying each other.
How bigot of you.
Watch out for your corn hole, sweet cheeks, they're coming for you next.
Let us know why people voted it down so mnay times bait?
If you don't understand it, then don't go off on ty "your post was poorly constructed" allegations.
I'll break my comments down for you - step by step :
1) Sexual orientation is a choice.
2) The choice is based on physical desire and lust.
3) Why do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections. Love, aka emotional connections, are independent of physical attributes. You can be "emotionally connected" to a woman.......THEREFORE sexuals don't have to be in love with a man. They could easily find that "emotional connection with a woman. So why the gender preference? Easy. sexuality, the lifestyle to only enjoy your own gender, is not based on love. It's based on physical attributes --> physical desire and lust.
Your preconceived notions and viewpoints are muddying your understanding here.
It is a perversion of sex. A man is supposed to lie with a woman. The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.
sexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. Same thing as having sex with an octopus, ing a tree, having sex with frogs (lolmonkey), or other distorted ways of pleasuring yourself. Look up beastiality. We exploit the pleasure center of our brain in any way our creative and imaginative brains can think of.
Aside from sexuality, the other practices are easily dismissed and laughed off in our society because they aren't with "humans"
However, in the case of sexuality, it is. And somehow, some people think it's OK because it's a human.
It is a practice that distorts male and female roles.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 08-09-2010 at 04:24 PM.
They think a man and women only should be married. Duh! You must really hate yourself, stupid.
Are you MannyIsGod's friend?MH,
So I just caught up on this thread and let me say a few things. First, Chumper's schtick is usually annoying with his questions, but not answering. Even though I usually agree with the stance he has taken, I don't prefer his way of defending his stance. Just my preference. However I have to say that outside of the obvious trolling (how many people? what kind of porch?), it seems that he abandoned his regular schtick and actually got into the conversation with some good points. I am sorry that you can't see that.
I will also concede that MiG does sometimes come off as arrogant (no manny, this has nothing to do with the poker thread - lol), as well as educated. Here is the thing though, at least he has the education to back up his arrogance. I know it is possible to not be arrogant, yet still educated, but at least it is better than some moron spouting off his arrogance.
The biggest reason for this post, though is that it seems like you made an arguement early in the thread which you perhaps didn't think all of the way through. When its glaring weaknesses were so ravenously pounced upon by the loyal opposition revealing the hole you had dug yourself into, it seems that you started swinging blindly, making arguements that even you didn't believe all in order to avoid the embarassment of having to fess up that your original arguement was way off base. I couldn't believe what I was reading when you suggested that we essentially shred the bill of rights (or parts of it) in order to neuter movements which may or may not incite violence (most of them incite nothing more than ridicule). If you really think about it, organizing as such ALWAYS incites violence to varying degrees. It is impossible to this is moral/this is not without turning into the example that you yourself gave (Die Nazi Staaten Amerikas). The only way to do this is to allow choices to be made. If you see two ideas presented and one is abhorrent you make your choice. Will there be missteps? Absolutely, but in general human knowledge and experience has evolved through the missteps. Could we learn more from our missteps? Sure. The important thing, however is to continue to move forward.
I have actually begun to ramble now, and thought there was one more point I wanted to make, I will go ahead and stop the post now, because I can't for the life of me remember what it was. DOH!
BTW, hate cake was classic, here is my best attempt with the emoticons given.
While you answer, I'll respond to something in that post :
It's always comforting to just dismiss another persons opinion as "made up" or crazy or false when it shakes your belief system.
To respond :
You said it would be weak to reply with "but the civil rights movement was good"
I don't believe that.
here's why - you are confusing the observer. The judges. Who are they? They are bystanders, they are not involved in the movement. Their opinion is the one who counts here when you talk about the civil rights movement, but then in the VERY NEXT idea, you change the perspective of the observer and use the "Nazi's thought they were doing good"
That's flawed. Be consistent.
Bystanders/Judges : Civil rights movement is good.
Bystanders/Judges : Nazi's movement is bad.
Civil rights movement people : Our movement is good
Nazi movement people : Our movement is good
See the difference?
My idea for stopping the hateful ty ideas is run by the bystanders/judges. Not by the participants.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 08-09-2010 at 04:31 PM.
If it's a choice, then why not take up my "Be gay for a week" challenge?
So everyone who's gay and say they're in love are just lying? Forgive me if I think that gay people might better understand their own emotions than you understand them.
And if emotional attachments were so easy to make amongst the opposite sex, surely they should be as easy to make for the same sex? Have you ever felt emotionally connected to a man the same way you do for a woman?
link?
Why do you think nature intended for natural childbirth to be intensely painful for women?The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.
Ironic how you, being a blow hard atheist, are making a determination as to what was and what wasn't meant to exist.sexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. Same thing as having sex with an octopus, ing a tree, having sex with frogs (lolmonkey), or other distorted ways of pleasuring yourself. Look up beastiality. We exploit the pleasure center of our brain in any way our creative and imaginative brains can think of.
right, because animals can't say "I do" at the altar.Aside from sexuality, the other practices are easily dismissed and laughed off in our society because they aren't with "humans"
it is ok because it's a human.However, in the case of sexuality, it is. And somehow, some people think it's OK because it's a human.
It is a practice that distorts male and female roles.
If two humans consent to the way they pleasure each other, who are you to determine in what ways they should or shouldn't and what roles they should portray in their private and/or public lives?
What are you afraid of specifically?
lol you're trolling, good one.
Exactly the point. I chose to spend my time and pursue women. sexuals are choosing to pursue their same gender.
I want tes and pussy, so I go after that.
A wants , so he goes after that and then "falls in love" later.
but the decision is based on gender, and the differences between gender are primarily physical.
again, you contradict yourself. if the second premise is correct then it contradicts the first premise and this is even elucidated more so by this third premise:
since you have made a clear distinction here that love is an emotion and lust is not you have stated that sexuals are essentially instinctual and base humans acting on primitive instincts, which certainly falls under the definitions of deterministic behavior and not at all under the more conscious decision making that you have relegated to people in love.3) Why do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections. Love, aka emotional connections, are independent of physical attributes. You can be "emotionally connected" to a woman.......THEREFORE sexuals don't have to be in love with a man. They could easily find that "emotional connection with a woman. So why the gender preference? Easy. sexuality, the lifestyle to only enjoy your own gender, is not based on love. It's based on physical attributes --> physical desire and lust.
even more so, you have added to this set all people who have sex outside the boundaries of love.
i have not defined anything at all in my previous post. all i worked with was your definitions.Your preconceived notions and viewpoints are muddying your understanding here.
It is a perversion of sex. A man is supposed to lie with a woman. The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.
sexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. A practice that distorts male and female roles.
now, if you have argued that evolution can operate under a manner that suggests it is purely mechanistic and would even create 'side effects' then you open up your definition to a myriad of other possibilities. so you have traveled from the static old testament version of sex in your previous post to a dynamic definition of sexual behavior that includes an evolutionary impetus. working with these new parameters, one could even argue that sexuality, like disease, is a necessary part of the species in order to prevent the overpopulation of the planet.
But if it's a choice, surely you could be gay for a week? I'm not saying you have to have sex, just that you desire for a week, then switch back to heterosexuality. If the choice is as easy as you say, it shouldn't be a problem.
lol incest
should be allowed to marry
lmao bestiality
LOL what a hilarious way to misinterpret my post.
and the twisting in it. oh boy. Now lust is not an emotion, according to rjv.
No, not new parameters. I've had the same ones, you just can't seem to comprehend it before you type your posts.
Firstly, I met MiG at a GTG about 5 or 6 years ago at Bennigans on 1604 and 281. That would be the extent of my contact outside of here on the site. I hope that clarifies whatever you were looking for (I am not quite sure what you are looking for so sorry if I couldn't provide more poignant information).
As to your point, the Nazis didn't come into power and on that same day win the hearts and minds of every German. They slowly integrated themselves into the existing power structure before having enough support and power to dissolve that power structure and implement one that was more politically stable (for them).
I only bring this up to say that once you make a decision on a subject your impartiality is gone, and you are either actively or passively supporting a cause, or the dissenting cause. So your Nazis=approval from within and Civil Rights=approval from the outside doesn't really hold much water because once those "outsiders" approved of the Civil Rights movement they were a part of that cause whether passively or actively. The same can be said for the Germans in Nazi Germany. They were impartial until they made a decision for the Nazi cause (or against it) at which point they were part of their chosen cause.
However, back to my initial post, I really was believing that your responses were just "blind swinging" to justify an embarrasingly shallow first stance. If this is not the case, and you truely believe that we need to rip up the bill of rights (or parts of it) and start over, then I may need a little time to regroup, because I would be debating under the impression that we both believed in the ground rules, but had differing opinions on the implementation thereof.
I currently don't have the time available to sit down and debate the merits of starting over, what a new country of your making should look like, and the good merits and bad merits of each part of your new cons ution with regards to the American (would they still be called American?) people.
I do apologize, but I am not your Huckleberry.
Not allowing racist, etc organizations to spread poison within a community is shredding up the cons ution.
OH wait, don't we already do that?
Do we allow Al-Qaeda to come to American soil and recruit more terrorists? No, we don't.
But I guess it's OK to stop "big bad scary official terrorist" organizations because they make bombs and crash planes into buildings in a big dramatic made for TV news report,
but community driven rallies like the KKK, that lynched blacks, burned churches and homes, killed children and women, are OK because, damn it, we need to be able to speak our mind. Those were smaller cases, not so big and scary incidents
Not allowing free speech is shredding the bill of rights (or part of it). Re: Al-Qaeda coming to American soil; The bill of rights guarantees certain rights to American citizens, we are unable to currently guarantee any rights to all citizens of the planet earth. This is a very basic point in the formation of a nation state.
I have to go to class, however, so I, unfortunately will be unavailable. Its doubtful that I will check this again until tomorrow because I had a very active weekend and could use the sleep after school.
Mannnnnn, ! Let the gays marry. Who cares if religious beliefs make it hard for "Christians" to tolerate? you fake "Christian" s. The Muslim leaders use religion to discriminate and legalize hatred against women, the fake "Christians" are no different. In fact, most of them do worse things than anal sex...gay marriage is not in a Church, it's a civil status - people need to recognize the difference.
Anyone that disagrees is a phobic child molestesting atheist.
First you say the Christians who are opposed to it, then claim the people who are opposed are atheists?
Why does it have to be two consenting human adults?
You question MY parameters of marriage (man and woman), but forget yours are up for questioning
Why yes, yes I did. Let that marinate a bit more.
no, according to the poster who wrote the following:
andWhy do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections
and then juxtapose these two statements;It's based on physical attributes
"The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious)...The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter." and " The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else"
the first statement is metaphyics and the second is a conjencture about the nature of sex and evolution. those are some pretty diverse and even paradoxical statements.
You do realize that they aren't fake?Why yes, yes I did. Let that marinate a bit more.
Their Bible specifically denounces gots.
"You shall not lie with man as you do with woman, it is an abomination" or whatever
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
