I’m assuming that he’ll be banned soon enough. I will admit, I was interested in the original point of this thread and I wouldn’t mind seeing the discussion swing back thataways.
For what? being the *only *person who does not resort to ad hominem arguments, vulgar name-calling, and insults?
For what?
Probably for being a lying piece of shit who refuses to argue honestly, dismisses every rational point made against him, bastardizes the English language to meet his fucked-in-the-head notions, and claims he’s right with no other proof than “because I say so”.
But other than that you’re a great guy, I mean, apart from the being a complete douche-bag thing.
But so far I have not seen a single good argument.
It’s still a “real dollar” if it is being treated as such, just as in the same way as “marriage” is. I don’t understand why you would analogize something as specific as a “1921 silver peace dollar” with “marriage” when “dollar” is the obvious analog.
Furthermore, you are begging the question, if your intent is to analogize “counterfeit 1921 silver peace dollar” with “same sex-marriage.” You are presupposing that same-sex marriage is “counterfeit” or “fake.”
So where does that 1943 nickel fit into your vocabulary? A nickel, by the very word itself, should contain nickel, shouldn’t it? Would you say the 1943 nickels are not real nickels? Sure they are, unless you are some uber-pedantic hyperliteralist who views language and words as an immutable construct. They were used as such, valued at five cents, and referred to as such in the language. The fact that they were not actually made of nickel is irrelevant. They were still nickels.
Funny enough, I believe we’d all say the same about your posts.
Stat over, at the beginning. You’ll find what you seek.
Well, then; there’s your problem. Threads generally make more sense if you read all the posts, not just your own.
He means he hasn’t seen an argument that supports his view. He doesn’t want any arguments that contradict his beliefs.
No one has resorted to ad hominems. An ad hominem is when you attempt to discredit an argument by discrediting its arguer. Your. . . arguments do a perfectly competent job of discrediting themselves. The insults to your person are merely for the fun of it and not for purposes of debate. But then, one would have to be at least as smart as a professor to recognize that.
Bet you weren’t expecting it this soon!
I guess you never will. I’d say good luck, but…
Will you have a cargo cult marriage with me Marley? I think I love you.
It proves that dictionary makers believe that the usage of the word has changed. It certainly proves more than the definition you quoted from a 1961 edition does.
Oh. He’s banned. What a shame.
Thing is…There is no group of people actively or even passively lobbying, AFAIK, for marriages between siblings or between people and dogs; and no one I can think of wants murder to be legal.
He won’t recognize your definition of “banned.”
To be fair, it’s only a cargo cult banning.
Damn, this thread has been amusing me while I’m stuck in meetings at work.
He can’t be BANNED because he never had a relationship with the board to begin with.
You can call him BANNED, you can even revoke his posting privileges, he’s still not BANNED because that’s not what the word BANNED means (at least to Mel-I’m-a-fucking-idiot-choir)
Oh, I’ve seen magellan’s claims to that effect. His last estimate, I think, was that the post-SSM-legalization disaster would take 40 years, but the form of this disaster and its early warning signs, he could not describe.
Anyway, Melchior never responded to my post #820, and now I guess he never will - at least not under that name.