Well, you used to debate me, until you recognized how easily (and calmly) I could destroy your arguments simply by pointing out their internal absurdities, so you latched onto a lame “you owe me an apology” excuse to cut off contact.
I am now of course free to call you the chicken that you are. * Bwock bwock bwock.*
Ah, so you now claim that you could control yourself. But you did it twice in that GD thread. At first you claimed that you weren’t really trying to insult me, but then you did it again. So, looks like you’re truth-challenged. And you opened this thread only after a mod shut you down over there.
Let’s see. I express my opinion on a message board. When topics of interest come up, I often participate. My position has been consistent on one such topic over the years. And you have a problem with that and I should stop. Why? Because you, and others, don’t like my position. Are you starting to see the stupidity and odious nature of your position here?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I’ll participate as I see fit. I do have a suggestion for you that will save you oh-the-pain of digesting my horrible words: don’t read them. :eek:
If you have a mirror in your house you need no additional reminder. Take a peek. If you prefer to not get up, just look at your hands. They’re attached to a real live idiot.
No.
Anything else?
Oh, I love your “we”. The weak always like the comfort and safety of crowds. “Grab your pitchforks, everyone!”
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t tell magellan to shut up.
I would hope, though, that he’d be smart enough to realize he should. He’s not, though. Oh, well…
No, you seemed confused about my language. I had to make sure that my intentions were crystal clear. I’m sure I could’ve gone down on one knee with crayons to help you understand if I had to. And I respect Marley enough to concede to his moderation and take my point to a more appropriate forum. A place where direct insults are allowed. I know this is all confusing for you-what with words and all that stuff-but don’t worry. I don’t expect you to understand much of it anyways.
Yes, it is I who has the odious position here. :rolleyes:
And you’ll be mocked as I see fit.
It’s not an argument ad populum. But, if you haven’t noticed, you tend to carry an outlying and unpopular opinion continuously debunked and ridiculed. (Underlined so you know that it’s not just that about an unpopular opinion, but that it’s a stupid fucking opinion). You’ve been pitted 4 times* on this board for your stupidity, meaning that at some point you think that by doing the exact same thing over and over that you’ll get a different result.
Lemme break it to you. There’s no “hidden genius” in your words. They come from a little bigoted man afraid of change. Luckily, the world is moving away from your kind. You’ll be left more cold and more alone as the years go by. And you know what? I’ll have moved on, probably as soon as this thread peters out. And you’ll be back to repeating your argument, thinking about the time that you at least got a modicum of attention for it.
*We get it magellan01, you’re the bigottiest bigot who ever bigotted. Now shut up about your POV.
Magellan01 is a fascist.
Magellan01 is a fucking moron.
Fuck canine lymphoma, me, magellan01, and Lacunae Quell (in that order)
Yes it is.
You can do whatever you’d like. As can I. And will. So, be sure to keep an eye out for my posts. You know, those that you hate so much that you just must read them!
Pay attention. I didn’t accuse you of being guilty of an ad populum fallacy in that post. I didn’t say that you were using the opinion of the masses to convince me that your position was correct and mine was incorrect. I talked about inadequate people finding safety and comfort in crowds. They like to rally people around them. A definite sign of weakness. One that can be detected by your use of “we” and “us”. The sign of a punk.
Hilarious. I agree there is no genius in my words. Not on this issue. What I put forth is common sense of the most common variety. It’s almost tautological. Marriage is comprised of a one man and one woman. One husband, one wife. It doesn’t get any simpler.
By the way, I love the fact that you’re engaging me on the subject both here and in the GD thread. Giving me more opportunity to share with you those views that you, I guess, secretly love! Tricky, tricky. You, dickens, you.
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.
I gotta say, I can’t get behind this pitting. I think that Magellan’s position is bizarre, incomprehensible, and in practice abhorrent; and I think that he does a quite poor job of trying to support it logically when it’s debated. But at this point I’m fairly convinced that he does approximately believe what he says. At which point, it’s reasonable to pit him for holding an opinion we disagree with, and reasonable to pit him for arguing illogically, but seems a bit unfair to pit him for being consistent. I mean, if I went on to a very right wing board, I would expect people to disagree with me. I would expect to be pitted for my beliefs. But if I stayed there and maintained my left wing positions for many years, and then someone started a thread quoting me saying the same thing in each of the 10 previous years, and somehow intimated that my consistency and long posting history was, in and of itself, another pittable offense… well, it would be pretty weird and unfair.
+1
Well, if it was just his opinion, and his comments on the subject were just variations on “Well, that’s how I feel about it”, then you’d be right. Thing is, he claims to be operating by the cold light of reason, which is not only absurd, but arguably offensive to anyone who values reason. On that basis, his positions get their deserved challenge and ridicule.
The pitting, I admit, gives him an opportunity to dance around mockingly and claim victory in a manner that wouldn’t fly in a GD thread, for what it’s worth.
Right, I agree that he’s wrong, and that his attempts at logically supporting his position have failed. I think that he thinks that he has supported his position based on rational logical arguments, and he has clearly tried to do so, although I believe he has failed to do so.
That still doesn’t make it meaningful to give him an EXTRA pitting for having maintained that position for 10 years. I mean, heck, don’t we usually get pissed off at people for drive bys in which they drop some unpopular opinion and then vanish, never to be seen again? Seems a bit silly to get mad at someone for doing the opposite.
Why is it useful to have a term that distinguishes same sex marriage from heterosexual marriage? You claim to support a civil union that is in every way the equivalent to marriage, except for the word itself. There’s no reasonable explanation for that. The reason we have distinguishing words for “man” and “woman” are because there are distinguishing characteristics between them. It’s a useful distinction to make. It’s nothing like the distinction you’re drawing between SSM and traditional marriage, because you’re claiming to want no distinction between them.
Why is it so important to you to deny homosexuals the right to use that word? Why would you rather deny an entire class of people a basic civil right that you claim to support, than let them use a particular descriptive term for it? Why does it irk you (your words) in the extreme that they want to use the word “marriage?” Are you really that terrible at introspection that you haven’t considered that maybe all of this is your psychological hangup, not theirs?
Well, clearly you and the OP of this thread are of differing opinions on this.
Personally, I think his eccentric mathematical interpretation where two legal definitions demonstrate the existence of one set of laws (among his other quirky theories) is worthy of scorn, mockery and ridicule rather than anger.
magellan01’s argument is a lot more fun to think about and hear when you realize that it’s essentially the same debate over whether or not caramel is prounounced kar-muhl, or care-uh-mell. These kinds of debates are trivial and fun, nothing to get worked up about.
Whether it’s just me saying it or the teeming millions repeating it. Either way, your opinion is still bullshit.
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.
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:
[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]
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.
This board pits people for stupidity all the time. Why should magellan be an exception?
If anything, people are giving him more of the benefit of the doubt, acting like he’s some smart guy who just has a mental block on this one issue. They ignore the basic truth that he arrived at his position and then came up with the reasons to back it up. They ignore that he was never logically convinced of his position.
I held a similar position to magellan01 once.
I even posted it on this very board, I think. Then people explained why it wasn’t a viable solution, and I shut up, reassessed my opinion, and realised I was wrong.
So thanks for that, guys - you’ve succeeded once, at least once, so it might sink in yet.
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.
“Marriage is comprised of two adults.”
Ta- da! Even simpler.
“Marriage comprises [requisite/eligible members].” The whole comprises the parts.
I find the specification of number as unsupportable as the specification of gender.
Ooh, I feel bad for misusing “comprise”.
<wears the Cone of Shame>
One step at a time on the number thing. SSM requires a tiny change in the wording of the law to remove gender specificity. Legal equitable polygamy will require an encyclopedia’s worth of new laws.