# We get it magellan01, you're the bigottiest bigot who ever bigotted. Now shut up about your POV. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 17, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967 "2013-04-17T19:27:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/101 "2013-04-18T11:29:04Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > “Marriage is comprised of two adults.” > > Ta- da! Even simpler. Since 2005 that’s been the definition of marriage for Canada [ [QUOTE=Civil Marriage Act] the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. [/QUOTE] ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act) the only thing that changed the day after that ruling was the heightened smug satisfaction of us (small l) liberal Canadians. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/102 "2013-04-18T11:47:34Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Except that men are marrying men and women are marrying women. It’s happening more and more and that trend will continue. > > You are almost too stupid to insult. So, let’s say that SCOTUS comes back and through some bizarre legal contortions, a la Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare, SSM is deemed to not be allowed, and SS marriages are stopped completely. Because the trend would then be a zero increase in SS marriages, since you would be holding the position you do, you would immediately be rendered stupid. Your position, as you state it here,is argumentum ad populum on steroids. Nice job! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/103 "2013-04-18T11:56:55Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Whether it’s just me saying it or the teeming millions repeating it. Either way, your opinion is still bullshit. And rest assure, I give that opinion of yours all due consideration. > [@stpauler](#): > > I’ve got two friends, Rich and Jim, both are men. They live in Des Moines, IA. They got married and have a license to prove it. What kind of license do you think they have? Let’s use common sense to figure out this word problem. I think you think you’re making a point here. Can you share what you think that is? > [@stpauler](#): > > Hmm, maybe it’s just more the fact that I don’t cotton to your shit or the fact that you keep skipping over the homophobic comments like this one which you keep skipping over in your replies: I like that old phrase, so I’ll use it, too. I don’t cotton to people who try to shut other people up. Nor punks who slip on a mask of tough bullies when they have the crowd on their side. It’s the sign of a weak, sad pathetic little man. Or woman, whichever you may be. > [@stpauler](#): > > Yeah, if that doesn’t come from an obviously homophobic opinion leaving the rest of your argument suspect then I don’t know what does. Really? It appears that you now think that children being raised by gay couples _are_ the norm. I think that is not the norm. Hmmm, I wonder which of us is correct? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/104 "2013-04-18T12:04:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Almost. > > If he just left it at, “I don’t think gay people should be allowed to marry each other,” then you’d be right. > > But he makes claims with truth value (e.g., “If you set up the laws the way I suggest, there is one set of laws for everyone.”) These claims are not only false, they are so obviously false that it’s difficult to believe anyone thinks they’d be true. > > That’s what he’s getting mocked for here. Seems like you’re still having trouble with the logic thingy. If you set up a system where there _is_ one set of laws, there would actually be, (drumroll) _one set of laws_. And claims that there _are_ one set of laws _would_ be completely true. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/105 "2013-04-18T12:09:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, let’s say that SCOTUS comes back and through some bizarre legal contortions, a la Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare, SSM is deemed to not be allowed, and SS marriages are stopped completely. That’s as likely as you pulling your head out of your ass. > [@magellan01](#): > > Because the trend would then be a zero increase in SS marriages, since you would be holding the position you do, you would immediately be rendered stupid. I don’t think you understand how numbers work. > [@magellan01](#): > > Your position, as you state it here,is argumentum ad populum on steroids. Nice job! It’s cute that you’re parroting the fallacy’s words. It’s a shame you have no idea what they mean. > [@magellan01](#): > > I think you think you’re making a point here. Can you share what you think that is? What kind of license did they get? Simple enough question for you. Care to venture an answer? > [@magellan01](#): > > I like that old phrase, so I’ll use it, too. I don’t cotton to people who try to shut other people up. Nor punks who slip on a mask of tough bullies when they have the crowd on their side. It’s the sign of a weak, sad pathetic little man. Or woman, whichever you may be. If my gender doesn’t matter here, why would it matter in a marriage. It’s like you set up these things and don’t realize that your argument is just a little house of cards. > [@magellan01](#): > > Really? It appears that you now think that children being raised by gay couples _are_ the norm. I think that is not the norm. Hmmm, I wonder which of us is correct? Hmm, did I say that. Or was that my “social agenda”? [QUOTE=magellan01] Wow. I’m sure those children who get the \*\*less-than-normal childhood are so lucky to make the sacrifice for your social agenda \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/106 "2013-04-18T12:15:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is one of the things that makes debating you useless: you can’t read for shit. I said nothing of the sort. > > I love me some back-country rubes. I have no opinion on your connection to the land; my only knowledge of you is that you are very stupid. From here: [QUOTE=LHOD] If he just left it at, “I don’t think gay people should be allowed to marry each other,” then you’d be right. But he makes claims with truth value (e.g., “If you set up the laws the way I suggest, there is one set of laws for everyone.”) These claims are not only false, they are so obviously false that it’s difficult to believe anyone thinks they’d be true. That’s what he’s getting mocked for here. [/QUOTE] According to you, my participation would be more acceptable to you if I merely shared an opinion that, “I don’t think gay people should be allowed to marry each other”, and left it at that. So, if I held _that_ opinion _and_ didn’t seek a mechanism by which SS couples would be able to enjoy all the legal benefits and privileges that OS couples enjoy, _that_ would be better. Well, you’re either much stupider than I ever imagined or you just don’t believe that gays should have those benefits and privileges. You know, when you type stuff, you’re not only endorsing the actual words you write, but the logical ramifications of them. Maybe it’s that logic thingy that’s screwing you up again. You seem to do much better when you’re not so emotional. Just an observation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/107 "2013-04-18T12:29:00Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > That’s as likely as you pulling your head out of your ass. So, you’re unable to work with hypotheticals. Noted for future reference. > [@stpauler](#): > > I don’t think you understand how numbers work. Unresponsive. Perhaps you should have put a period after the third word and called it a day. > [@stpauler](#): > > It’s cute that you’re parroting the fallacy’s words. It’s a shame you have no idea what they mean. Again, unresponsive to what I wrote. You’ve got to work with me here, Paulie. > [@stpauler](#): > > What kind of license did they get? Simple enough question for you. Care to venture an answer? I don’t know. Now will you tell me? And then tell me why it matters? What bearing the question has on the discussion? > [@stpauler](#): > > If my gender doesn’t matter here, why would it matter in a marriage. It’s like you set up these things and don’t realize that your argument is just a little house of cards. Oh, that’s an easy one. So easy even you should know it. Because marriage in the West has always been comprised of man and woman. Never has it been comprised of two men or two women. Even societies that were very embracing of homosexuality saw the absurdity of giving SS couples the same marriage status that they gave OS couples. I’m not aware of any tradition or information that says that people posting on a message board are “always” male or female. So, you’re gender matters naught. See? Easy, right? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/108 "2013-04-18T12:31:10Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > “Marriage is comprised of two adults.” > > Ta- da! Even simpler. Simpler, yes. So, no other qualifications? Brother/sister, son/mother, daughter/father, etc., all fine? Also, why just two? Why can’t three people get married to each other? Four? While I like the two number, I’m sure there an many that who feel it rather arbitrary and quaint. What do we tell them? ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/109 "2013-04-18T12:41:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, that’s an easy one. So easy even you should know it. Because marriage in the West has always been comprised of man and woman. Never has it been comprised of two men or two women. Even societies that were very embracing of homosexuality saw the absurdity of giving SS couples the same marriage status that they gave OS couples. Plain wrong. Quite a few countries both western and non-western define marriage to include two men or two women. Argentina Belgium Canada Denmark Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/110 "2013-04-18T12:45:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, you’re unable to work with hypotheticals. Noted for future reference. Sure, this thread is a hypothetical that showing you the error of your ideas/ get you to shut up. Like your hypothetical, it’s hopeless. > [@magellan01](#): > > Again, unresponsive to what I wrote. You’ve got to work with me here, Paulie. No, you have understand that when you use a term like “argumentum ad populum” that you know what it means and use it in the correct context. Or else it really makes you look like you’ve climbed the tree of knowledge and stepped off the branch way too many times. > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know. Now will you tell me? And then tell me why it matters? What bearing the question has on the discussion? Really. You don’t know the answer is “a marriage license”? > [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, that’s an easy one. So easy even you should know it. Because marriage in the West has always been comprised of man and woman. Always is an interesting word. So what is Canada giving licenses for. Or Massachusetts. Or Mexico City? And by man and woman, do you mean like a [13 year old girl](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#Marriage_to_a_minor) or do you mean someone of consenting age? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/111 "2013-04-18T12:52:13Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Plain wrong. Quite a few countries both western and non-western define marriage to include two men or two women. > > Argentina > Belgium > Canada > Denmark > Iceland > Netherlands > Norway > Portugal > South Africa > Spain > Sweden Yes, You are correct, of course. But I thought it was obvious that I was talking about until these very recent (historically speaking) developments. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/112 "2013-04-18T13:03:14Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Sure, this thread is a hypothetical that showing you the error of your ideas/ get you to shut up. Like your hypothetical, it’s hopeless. Oh, so you don’t know what a hypothetical is, and are unable to answer a question abased on one. Noted. > [@stpauler](#): > > No, you have understand that when you use a term like “argumentum ad populum” that you know what it means and use it in the correct context. Or else it really makes you look like you’ve climbed the tree of knowledge and stepped off the branch way too many times. I know perfectly well what it means. I even corrected you when you used it incorrectly. Now, how about you go back and respond to my post. Not that I blame you if you’d rather not. In fact, I think it the wise course of action for you. > [@stpauler](#): > > Really. You don’t know the answer is “a marriage license”? I don’t know your friends. I don’t know the laws of Iowa. And I don’t know if your friends think a piece of paper from Reverend Ignatowski is a real marriage license. Or what they think about anything. For all I know they think they’re husband and wife? Now that we have that straightened out, perhaps you can share the bearing this license has on the discussion. > [@stpauler](#): > > Always is an interesting word. So what is Canada giving licenses for. Or Massachusetts. Or Mexico City? And by man and woman, do you mean like a [13 year old girl](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#Marriage_to_a_minor) or do you mean someone of consenting age? Thanks for the opportunity to clarify: both people should be above the legal age of consent. What that age should be is another debate. And I already admitted my error concerning the existence of gay marriage. Obviously, the discussion is not whether it exists, but _should_ it exist. The former is a simple matter of fact. The latter, one of opinion. Ergo, the discussion of the subject on a debate board. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/113 "2013-04-18T13:05:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, You are correct, of course. But I thought it was obvious that I was talking about until these very recent (historically speaking) developments. You should add qualifiers to your statements then. SSM is the law here (and many other places), don’t imply otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/114 "2013-04-18T13:05:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Simpler, yes. So, no other qualifications? Brother/sister, son/mother, daughter/father, etc., all fine? Those qualifications also apply to - and were omitted from - your definition, unless you were including incestuous couples in your “one man and one woman”. > [@](#): > > Also, why just two? Why can’t three people get married to each other? Four? While I like the two number, I’m sure there an many that who feel it rather arbitrary and quaint. What do we tell them? We tell them what I already told **Peremensoe** above. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/115 "2013-04-18T13:07:06Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > 😃 > > Too true. Although you did tell **magellan** to call you a faggot and referenced it as truth. That’s a weird way to interpret the post. I’m straight, for the record. I was saying that if he changed “Stupid Head” to “faggot” he’d be more honestly expressing his opinion, which means I think his objection to SSM is based on a dislike of gay people even though he won’t admit to it. That’s based on the fact that he’s objected endlessly and at great length to SSM for no particular reason that he can express while holding up straight marriage as superior without acknowledging the lack of factual support for that view, and the fact that he rejects the idea that there’s even any inequality at work here - I’ve seen people use that argument before and it’s the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears (if you can make that gesture in a smug way). It’s a refusal to admit the basic facts of the situation because they know people will conclude they’re prejudiced if they just say “I’m OK with straight people being allowed to get married and not gays.” ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/116 "2013-04-18T13:09:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, so you don’t know what a hypothetical is, and are unable to answer a question abased on one. Noted. :rolleyes: > [@magellan01](#): > > I know perfectly well what it means. I even corrected you when you used it incorrectly. Now, how about you go back and respond to my post. Not that I blame you if you’d rather not. In fact, I think it the wise course of action for you. Please repeat what you want me to respond to. There has been a lot of activity and I thought I was being thorough. > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know your friends. I don’t know the laws of Iowa. And I don’t know if your friends think a piece of paper from Reverend Ignatowski is a real marriage license. Or what they think about anything. For all I know they think they’re husband and wife? Now that we have that straightened out, perhaps you can share the bearing this license has on the discussion. [Looks just like this one.](http://iagenweb.org/johnson/MarriageRec/MCertJeffGen.jpg) Except it’s more recent…and has two men’s names on it. > [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks for the opportunity to clarify: both people should be above the legal age of consent. What that age should be is another debate. And I already admitted my error concerning the existence of gay marriage. Obviously, the discussion is not whether it exists, but _should_ it exist. The former is a simple matter of fact. The latter, one of opinion. Ergo, the discussion of the subject on a debate board. But wasn’t it just you who said: [QUOTE=magellan01] Marriage is comprised of a one man and one woman. One husband, one wife. It doesn’t get any simpler. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=magellan01] Simpler, yes. So, no other qualifications? Brother/sister, son/mother, daughter/father, etc., all fine? [/QUOTE] Odd how you try to build a case on those qualifications but when something like Jerry Lee Lewis’ marriage gets thrown in your face it’s suddenly “another debate”. We get it. You’re intellectually dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/117 "2013-04-18T14:33:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, You are correct, of course. But I thought it was obvious that I was talking about until these very recent (historically speaking) developments. And we’re not going to go backwards, just to suit your old (relatively speaking) dictionary definition. Word meanings change. Get used to it. Societies change through time. Some people don’t like that. They want everything to be fixed in place so that they personally feel more comfortable. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/118 "2013-04-18T14:40:05Z")
This really fits with the psyche of the US, and the power of the small c conservative antipathy towards change. Great reasons to drop the penny from circulation, including millions of dollars in savings? Just like many other countries? “Keep the penny because that’s the way it’s always been, and I like it.” Huge savings to be made by removing the dollar bill and replacing it with a coin, just like many other countries have done? “The dollar bill is sacred and you cannot change it because… dollar bill” Metric system more logical and every country in the world has switched to it? “We can’t here in the US because that would mean changing things, and that would be weird. Change is bad.” Have marriage include same sex couples like many other countries have done with no negative effects whatsoever? “No, no no, because word definitions are fixed in place to how they were when I was growing up.” ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/119 "2013-04-18T15:00:09Z")
Well, I’m glad that the same “tolerant liberals” who support gay rights only to the extent that they view homosexuality as a fetish and they also support stepping on your partner’s balls are now putting it on par with irrelevant pet Europhile issues like mandating dollar coins. Seriously, you have a Christian idiot here for his well-deserved mocking, try not to burn up the goodwill by getting off course. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/120 "2013-04-18T15:09:37Z")
Are you high? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967.md?page=7)