Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yet, cows can’t consent to being made into ground beef. Yet, we are not allowed to abuse cats and dogs. Yet we have circus elephants. It is all relative and based on consensus – what people are willing to tolerate – and that toleration changes from time to time. It used to be understood that women should not be allowed to vote. It used to be understood that blacks don’t get married to whites. My, how times have changed.
The STANDARD, a word that you often used, is based upon popular opinion. There is no rhyme or consistent reason to it – and it may change as time passes.
We don't ask Cows to consent to feed us, because cows are FOOD... We also don't need a Goats permission to screw it... thus the point... that 'consent' is a ruse...
We don't screw animals because such provides for the inter-species transmission of disease...
And we don't screw children, because CHILDREN ARE NOT SUITABLE TO BE SEXUALIZED BY ADULTS... PERIOD! AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT "SCIENCE" HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.
And of course standards are based upon popular consensus... Which is why I'm advocating for my position... to sway the consensus, to the extent of my means; and THIS based upon the FACT, that popularity does not a valid and sustainable standard make...
I have advanced my point of view... I have provided in substantial detail the basis of my reasoning...
And for the most part, with rare exception... The opposition has come to impart "Nuh huh..." And it just seems to me, that reason is served by the certainty that sound, well founded reasoning, trumps "Nuh huh ..." in terms of the opinions which are better suited to public standards...
Who is to say that cows are food?
Preference for cows... Many years ago I read an article that spoke to this; the author assigned it to the cat and dog being predators.... but inevitably it boils down to preference.Why is it that we eat cow but not kitten? What is the standard or reason for the standard with respect to that?
Which have already been answered...It sort of harkens back to my other question.
Apparently your ability to use the quote feature isn't far more advanced than your ability to reason.
We don't ask Cows to consent to feed us, because cows are FOOD... We also don't need a Goats permission to screw it... thus the point... that 'consent' is a ruse...
We don't screw animals because such provides for the inter-species transmission of disease...
And we don't screw children, because CHILDREN ARE NOT SUITABLE TO BE SEXUALIZED BY ADULTS... PERIOD! AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT "SCIENCE" HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.
And of course standards are based upon popular consensus... Which is why I'm advocating for my position... to sway the consensus, to the extent of my means; and THIS based upon the FACT, that popularity does not a valid and sustainable standard make...
I have advanced my point of view... I have provided in substantial detail the basis of my reasoning...
And for the most part, with rare exception... The opposition has come to impart "Nuh huh..." And it just seems to me, that reason is served by the certainty that sound, well founded reasoning, trumps "Nuh huh ..." in terms of the opinions which are better suited to public standards...
Who is to say that cows are food?
Nature...
Preference for cows... Many years ago I read an article that spoke to this; the author assigned it to the cat and dog being predators.... but inevitably it boils down to preference.Why is it that we eat cow but not kitten? What is the standard or reason for the standard with respect to that?
Which have already been answered...It sort of harkens back to my other question.
Who is to say that cows are food?
Nature...
Preference for cows... Many years ago I read an article that spoke to this; the author assigned it to the cat and dog being predators.... but inevitably it boils down to preference.
Which have already been answered...It sort of harkens back to my other question.
I think that you are finally catching on. It isn’t nature that decides things. Nature does not determine that cow is food and that dog or cat is not food. It is human preference. The same can basically be said for everything else, including allowing for gay marriage.
Nature...
Preference for cows... Many years ago I read an article that spoke to this; the author assigned it to the cat and dog being predators.... but inevitably it boils down to preference.
Which have already been answered...
I think that you are finally catching on. It isnt nature that decides things. Nature does not determine that cow is food and that dog or cat is not food. It is human preference. The same can basically be said for everything else, including allowing for gay marriage.
Uh... NO Matt... Nature determines that the lower species are food, human's simply have determined a preference for those that they prefer to EAT.
You simply want to stand on the mindless notion that whatever human's determine they prefer is a viable and sustainable concept, based upon the preference.
When as has been repeatedly pointed out, humanity has determined to accept the abnormality of homo-sexuality many times and at each point, that acceptance has preceded the demise of those respective cultures...
So... A culture rises on the merit of their high cultural standards... becomes prosperous and the prosperity beckons a certain level of tolerance for that which they formerly preferred NOT to tolerate... lowering their cultural standards on the decline... whereupon at some point, another culture which is on the rise, conquers their sore ass and the cycle begins anew...
I'm arguing that we recognize the necessity of high standards of public morality and avoid the whole demise of the culture thing... while you're arguing... "WE CAN DESTROY OURSELVES IF WE WANT!"
Sadly you're seeking to do so in a thread which is asking those, such as yourself; who advocate for the normalization of homosexuality, to assume that the culture has accepted your plea to lower the standard of marriage, just a bit, to accommodate your 'special circumstances'... and for you to DEFEND THAT NEW STANDARD AGAINST THE NEXT LOGICAL CONTESTENT WHO WOULD ASK THAT THEIR "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" BE ACCOMMODATED, by FURTHER LOWERING THAT STANDARD...
Now take it from there Matt... What will you say to the Polygamists who want you to adjust the standard which you asked the culture to adjust to accommodate YOU...
And that's all I'm looking for here Matt... We've pretty well covered the ansilary issues... so let's return the discussion to the defense of the newly accepted standard by those who asked the culture to lower it to accommodate them...
I still don't think any of that matters in the long run. If you can't find a constitutional reason to deny a group of law abiding citizens equal treatment under the law then people like Pubic are just doomed to failure in the long run. Which is okay with me and most everyone else.I think that you are finally catching on. It isnt nature that decides things. Nature does not determine that cow is food and that dog or cat is not food. It is human preference. The same can basically be said for everything else, including allowing for gay marriage.
Uh... NO Matt... Nature determines that the lower species are food, human's simply have determined a preference for those that they prefer to EAT.
You simply want to stand on the mindless notion that whatever human's determine they prefer is a viable and sustainable concept, based upon the preference.
When as has been repeatedly pointed out, humanity has determined to accept the abnormality of homo-sexuality many times and at each point, that acceptance has preceded the demise of those respective cultures...
So... A culture rises on the merit of their high cultural standards... becomes prosperous and the prosperity beckons a certain level of tolerance for that which they formerly preferred NOT to tolerate... lowering their cultural standards on the decline... whereupon at some point, another culture which is on the rise, conquers their sore ass and the cycle begins anew...
I'm arguing that we recognize the necessity of high standards of public morality and avoid the whole demise of the culture thing... while you're arguing... "WE CAN DESTROY OURSELVES IF WE WANT!"
Sadly you're seeking to do so in a thread which is asking those, such as yourself; who advocate for the normalization of homosexuality, to assume that the culture has accepted your plea to lower the standard of marriage, just a bit, to accommodate your 'special circumstances'... and for you to DEFEND THAT NEW STANDARD AGAINST THE NEXT LOGICAL CONTESTENT WHO WOULD ASK THAT THEIR "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" BE ACCOMMODATED, by FURTHER LOWERING THAT STANDARD...
Now take it from there Matt... What will you say to the Polygamists who want you to adjust the standard which you asked the culture to adjust to accommodate YOU...
And that's all I'm looking for here Matt... We've pretty well covered the ansilary issues... so let's return the discussion to the defense of the newly accepted standard by those who asked the culture to lower it to accommodate them...
I guess that we just disagree. The standard used to be that blacks were slaves and that women were not allowed to vote. Later it was the standard that blacks were free but it was understood that the races dont mix. It was the understood standard that people be allowed to consume alcohol. Then there was a brief time when it was understood that people should not drink alcohol at all (prohibition). Then we decided that it was okay to drink alcohol in moderation. Again, my point is that standards change with the times and that nature (natural law) has practically nothing to do with it.
I think that you are finally catching on. It isn’t nature that decides things. Nature does not determine that cow is food and that dog or cat is not food. It is human preference. The same can basically be said for everything else, including allowing for gay marriage.
Uh... NO Matt... Nature determines that the lower species are food, human's simply have determined a preference for those that they prefer to EAT.
You simply want to stand on the mindless notion that whatever human's determine they prefer is a viable and sustainable concept, based upon the preference.
When as has been repeatedly pointed out, humanity has determined to accept the abnormality of homo-sexuality many times and at each point, that acceptance has preceded the demise of those respective cultures...
So... A culture rises on the merit of their high cultural standards... becomes prosperous and the prosperity beckons a certain level of tolerance for that which they formerly preferred NOT to tolerate... lowering their cultural standards on the decline... whereupon at some point, another culture which is on the rise, conquers their sore ass and the cycle begins anew...
I'm arguing that we recognize the necessity of high standards of public morality and avoid the whole demise of the culture thing... while you're arguing... "WE CAN DESTROY OURSELVES IF WE WANT!"
Sadly you're seeking to do so in a thread which is asking those, such as yourself; who advocate for the normalization of homosexuality, to assume that the culture has accepted your plea to lower the standard of marriage, just a bit, to accommodate your 'special circumstances'... and for you to DEFEND THAT NEW STANDARD AGAINST THE NEXT LOGICAL CONTESTENT WHO WOULD ASK THAT THEIR "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" BE ACCOMMODATED, by FURTHER LOWERING THAT STANDARD...
Now take it from there Matt... What will you say to the Polygamists who want you to adjust the standard which you asked the culture to adjust to accommodate YOU...
And that's all I'm looking for here Matt... We've pretty well covered the ansilary issues... so let's return the discussion to the defense of the newly accepted standard by those who asked the culture to lower it to accommodate them...
I guess that we just disagree. The standard used to be that blacks were slaves and that women were not allowed to vote. Later it was the standard that blacks were free but it was understood that the races don’t mix. It was the understood standard that people be allowed to consume alcohol. Then there was a brief time when it was understood that people should not drink alcohol at all (prohibition). Then we decided that it was okay to drink alcohol in moderation. Again, my point is that standards change with the times and that nature (natural law) has practically nothing to do with it.
To try and provide an argument against polygamy that still allows for homosexual marriage, I would bring up the difficulties in deciding which spouse retains what rights under a polygamist marriage. One member of the relationship dies; which of the remaining members has decision-making authority? What is the order of inheritance in the absence of a will? Those kinds of issues are what come to mind for me when considering polygamy against the more traditional 2-person marriage.
Of course such things could be determined as any new member enters the union. It's possible that would have to be a stipulation of a polygamous marriage, a determination of which spouses get what rights or privileges in what order in various situations. But it is something different than a 2-person homosexual marriage to take into account.
To try and provide an argument against polygamy that still allows for homosexual marriage, I would bring up the difficulties in deciding which spouse retains what rights under a polygamist marriage. One member of the relationship dies; which of the remaining members has decision-making authority? What is the order of inheritance in the absence of a will? Those kinds of issues are what come to mind for me when considering polygamy against the more traditional 2-person marriage.
Of course such things could be determined as any new member enters the union. It's possible that would have to be a stipulation of a polygamous marriage, a determination of which spouses get what rights or privileges in what order in various situations. But it is something different than a 2-person homosexual marriage to take into account.
While polygamy would not be my personal choice - I can't come up with a rational argument against either it or some form of legally recognized same-sex union, whether it's called marriage or something else.
I am not sure of how the law works in other societies that allow polygamy or in polygamy historically in this country but I would think that the legal aspects could be worked out.
I can see rational arguments made against other "slippery slope" cases of marriage - siblings marrying or a parent marrying their child but not polygamy.
I would say the slippery slope goes the other way...what else will the government be allowed to restrict legal, consenting adults from doing?I can see rational arguments made against other "slippery slope" cases of marriage - siblings marrying or a parent marrying their child but not polygamy.
I can see rational arguments made against other "slippery slope" cases of marriage - siblings marrying or a parent marrying their child but not polygamy.
It's the nature of most slopes to be slippery... thus the reason that they're to be avoided, where possible.
I can see rational arguments made against other "slippery slope" cases of marriage - siblings marrying or a parent marrying their child but not polygamy.
It's the nature of most slopes to be slippery... thus the reason that they're to be avoided, where possible.
Except where alcohol is concerned.
I can see rational arguments made against other "slippery slope" cases of marriage - siblings marrying or a parent marrying their child but not polygamy.
It's the nature of most slopes to be slippery... thus the reason that they're to be avoided, where possible.
Except where alcohol is concerned.
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
It's the nature of most slopes to be slippery... thus the reason that they're to be avoided, where possible.
Except where alcohol is concerned.
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
ROFLMNAO... defining a cultural decline; enumerating the specific elements of cultural behavior wherein the indisputable signs of decadence are demonstrated and associating that decadence with a correlating movement; specifically the advocacy to normalize sexual deviancy, is NOT a demonstration of the above noted fallacy...
An argument fails validity, thus succumbs to the cited fallacious failure where the argument implies that a given subject either is or will lead to such a slippery slope, but fails to demonstrate the specific cause and effects which the argument claims.
As I said, where one denotes a specific slope and the decline of the subject down such; such is a logical valid construct; however the argument which erroneously appeals to such is fallacious and for the same reasons. As it erroneously implies a failure, where non-exists.
Thus the purpose of my comment regarding the certainty that tend towards a natural slippery trait... and as such are to be avoided.
Anything else Matt?
And do us a favor, will ya? Try to maintain continuity of thought. Otherwise ya just muddy the discussion and what viable perspective is served through such?
Except where alcohol is concerned.
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
ROFLMNAO... defining a cultural decline; enumerating the specific elements of cultural behavior wherein the indisputable signs of decadence are demonstrated and associating that decadence with a correlating movement; specifically the advocacy to normalize sexual deviancy, is NOT a demonstration of the above noted fallacy...
An argument fails validity, thus succumbs to the cited fallacious failure where the argument implies that a given subject either is or will lead to such a slippery slope, but fails to demonstrate the specific cause and effects which the argument claims.
As I said, where one denotes a specific slope and the decline of the subject down such; such is a logical valid construct; however the argument which erroneously appeals to such is fallacious and for the same reasons. As it erroneously implies a failure, where non-exists.
Thus the purpose of my comment regarding the certainty that tend towards a natural slippery trait... and as such are to be avoided.
Anything else Matt?
And do us a favor, will ya? Try to maintain continuity of thought. Otherwise ya just muddy the discussion and what viable perspective is served through such?
I think that I see where we disagree. I dont see a cultural decline but a cultural improvement particularly if you consider the past 3 generations. Perhaps allowing women to vote led us to where we are today. Perhaps we never should have freed the slaves. Changes bring changes. Lions and tigers and bears - oh my.
You have your opinion and I have mine. As I see it, people are not dominos. They are able to think on each specific issue on its own merits. Each social topic is its own. Whether to allow people to drink alcohol is separate from whether we should allow people to smoke cigarettes and they are separate from whether or not we should allow people to take marijuana.
No shit we disagree... you see improvement through the sexualization of children... runaway debauchery, infidelity and the normalization of the abnormal; and I see such as a decline; my UP is your down... My white, your black; my good, your evil.
Freedom does not include the freedom to destroy one's self... as such does not sustain viability... such notions are insanity, suicidal... and result from the inability to reason...
You'll of course claim that such is closed minded... and to the extent that there is a line which I and others of like mind, are not prepared to concede... meaning we are not open to compromise on this standard... despite having offered alternatives, which you and your hedonistic rabble openly reject; so to that extent I closed minded... I'm also closed minded on the subject wherein it is suggested that I should place my testicles on the anvil and smach them with a 12 lb hammer... and for the same reason... It's a means to an end which will only produce calamity... no good can come from it... it's a line I will not cross, nor will I provide quarter for those within my sphere of influence to cross... and you people are standing on just such a line.
You will not prevail here; and this point... Homosexual marriage, is the point where history will note that the left went too far...
This at some future explanation of why the ideological left departed from the face of the earth.
Of course that is how every war in the history of humanity has come to pass... now isn't it?
Sure... No Problem: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-18.html#post1241351 Then there's the close of this post where you advocated for such: "there will come a day when there will be legalized gay marriage in America." It's all the same thing sport... Can't have one without the rest...No shit we disagree... you see improvement through the sexualization of children... runaway debauchery, infidelity and the normalization of the abnormal; and I see such as a decline; my UP is your down... My white, your black; my good, your evil.
I don’t ever recall advocating such things. Please point me to a post where I explicitly said that I do.
When I say that culture has improved, it does not mean that I think that sexualization of children is an improvement. There are a few bad eggs on every big farm. I think that in general, all things considered, our society has improved.
Freedom does not include the freedom to destroy one's self... as such does not sustain viability... such notions are insanity, suicidal... and result from the inability to reason...
I had an old friend who was dying of a painful disease. He was not only in practically constant severe pain. He had to be assisted to do practically anything: defecate, urinate, eat, bathe, dress, etc. He was around 90 years old. He was clearly of sound mind. He wanted to die. He was ready to die. He finally managed to kill himself by overdosing on medication. You said that freedom does not include the freedom to destroy one’s self. Oh, are you wrong. Who is good and who is evil?
You'll of course claim that such is closed minded... and to the extent that there is a line which I and others of like mind, are not prepared to concede... meaning we are not open to compromise on this standard... despite having offered alternatives, which you and your hedonistic rabble openly reject; so to that extent I closed minded... I'm also closed minded on the subject wherein it is suggested that I should place my testicles on the anvil and smach them with a 12 lb hammer... and for the same reason... It's a means to an end which will only produce calamity... no good can come from it... it's a line I will not cross, nor will I provide quarter for those within my sphere of influence to cross... and you people are standing on just such a line.
Yet you would allow people to smoke tobacco which has been shown to increase the likelihood of cancer.
You will not prevail here; and this point... Homosexual marriage, is the point where history will note that the left went too far...
This at some future explanation of why the ideological left departed from the face of the earth.
Of course that is how every war in the history of humanity has come to pass... now isn't it?
It might take a few decades – perhaps a few centuries, but there will come a day when there will be legalized gay marriage in America. People will think back and wonder why it was prevented for so long.
