Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
oilFactotum wrote:
you've read Jonah Goldberg.
Good catch. I'm actually reading it right now, and it has helped clarify some key points for me. I've always argued that fascism and socialism are the same basic set of principles, but the precise historic association between them is always difficult to determine because of the purposeful attempts by the left to obscure them. Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man has been the cornerstone of post WWII liberalism. Goldberg does a good (though not great) job of outlining a bit of that history. The real political extremes are between fascism and classical liberalism. The modern left is economically socialistic, but socially fascist. The right is economically free market but socially it is not rooted strongly in any set of principles, although, in my heart, I believe true Jeffersonianism is still a real possibility.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:04 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man
No turning was required. Fascism is a right-wing form of authoritarianism and it is alive and well in the US in the form of the KKK, militias and skinheads.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man
No turning was required. Fascism is a right-wing form of authoritarianism and it is alive and well in the US in the form of the KKK, militias and skinheads.
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Citations for what? History?
Yes accurate historical documentation is acceptable
led mike
I don't see why someone has to down-vote you for that without even saying why. Bugger.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Hence the famous battle cry "For Butt fucking and abortion boys, forward!" :rolleyes:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jeffersonianism is the belief that such power should be invested in the hands of the people, limited only by a strict interpretation of the consitution.
Stan, I hate to break it to you, but Town Meetings don't work too well when you are talking about 303,569,630 (as I typed) people. And the kicker is "interpretation of the Constitution." Who, besides you, gets to do the interpretation? You have already said that when judges do it, it becomes fascism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like you and led mike simply do not understand that the model of government you are prmoting is predicated upon the evolution of progressivist thought in the late nineteenth and early 20th century which grew out of Marxist theory and finally morphed into fascism.
You have no idea what form of Government I am promoting because I have never spoken in detail about what I think might be a good form of government. Just because Tim & I point out that you are holding a counterfeit ten dollar bill does not mean that we are promoting the further debasement of our currency by Bush, Cheney, et al.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Look at how many of them get caught doing them.
What, 3 or 4? OK, it's more than that, especially if you start counting Catholic priests and tele-evangelists... But what's worse, keeping a standard that you can't always live up to, or having no standard at all.
Tim Craig wrote:
just they've been told they're bad and they shouldn't do them. If they can't do them, then obviously, no one else should.
Well, that's an over simplification and assumes that nobody on the right has a mind of their own or any valid points or perspectives. And it assumes they're all spiteful and vindictive. Which should be obviously silly to try to assert.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
If you do, he'll drink all your beer. You have to take at least two so they'll keep each other honest.
But then they'll throw you in the lake and tell you they won't let you back in the boat until you say you've been reborn. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But then they'll throw you in the lake and tell you they won't let you back in the boat until you say you've been reborn.
Is that the corrolary of the sig line I saw the other day? That the only problem with baptists is that they're not held under long enough.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Did you read my signature?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Yes, it shows that you have an inadequate understanding of even my limited and partial understanding of God. It also shows that you have unacknowledged domain errors in your thinking which is probably why you make so little sense. God is exceptional by virtue of being God. If you can't spot the exceptionality of a definition that is fundamentally unique then you need a holdiay or brain reboot or something.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Marriage is an abstract concept. It is entirely opinion. If society agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has not one definition, but many. Everyone has their own definitions, some similar, some vastly different. God is an abstract concept. It is entirely subjective. God is what you think it is. If you think there is a God, then there is a God. Reality is different for everyone. Everyone has their own perception of reality. It's just that some are more delusional than others…
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Ehh, fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything
True, but this is the one time it actually seems applicable. Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works. I don't think donkeys and blow-up ferrets are going to be an issue but... Personally I don't think it's an arbitrary line, but if gays get marriage it will mean the decision makers do believe it's an arbitrary line. And if you see it as arbitrary, you still have the very real problem of where that line should be. I don't think the slippery slope argument has any weight in the capital punishment issue. It's really easy to draw a logical line for it, repeat offenders of violent crimes showing no sign of rehabilitation. But this... I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Funny how you say this but in the one case you claim it's a slippery slope and that means the line is arbitrary because you disagree with where the line should be moved and in the other it's easy to establish the line because you want it at a certain point. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
You actually believe we're made of atoms? But the Bible didn't say so!
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Neither does it say that we are not. Atoms have been photographed and there's pretty good evidence for them, although not necessarily for the traditional model of how they work, so why wouldn't I believe in them. Spirits have also been photographed and there is far more and more evidence for them but I guess you don't believe in such things. So which of us is consistent?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Damn you for sucking me in. Damn, damn, damn. Get your stinking paws off me.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Is the universe logical?
Irrelevent: you're attempting to ascribe a thought process to an inanimate object. Not cool. There my be apparent logic inherent in aspects of the universe. Or not.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Does God exist?
Nope.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Equally impossible to prove or disprove particularly as we can't agree on an understanding of our limited concept of God let alone come up with a testable definition?
But I don't need to prove what doesn't exist. What would be the point. But if you want me to belive what you believe PROVE IT TO ME!!!
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Is the postmodernist insistence on not 'imposing' your beliefs on others a hyprocritical and self contradictory piece of nonsense? Well that's self evident.
Indeed not: in every post I make or every conversation I have I NEVER raise the subject of god. You always do: it's your first line of defense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Does 'religion', even by your undifferentiated understanding of it, stand in the way of progress and science and understanding?
Mostly: take Creationism. Please. And don't give it back.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you've got any other burning questions by all means go ahead
Enough, already. You win. I'll stop taking the piss out of you poor dumb goddie saps (and your poor dumb god) if you promise never to mention it again.
digital man wrote:
I'll stop taking the piss out of you poor dumb goddie saps (and your poor dumb god) if you promise never to mention it again.
No deal :-D
digital man wrote:
it's your first line of defense.
No that'd be the shield of truth :-D
digital man wrote:
But I don't need to prove what doesn't exist.
What you ASSUME doesn't exist, you seriously do need to prove,especially when your assumption is wrong.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I am God. Everyone is their own God. Why? Because everyone has a different view of what God is. That alone is evidence that there is no unified God.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Now that is provably false and shows once again your utter lack of understanding of the idea of anything greater than yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Wow, there's the pot calling the kettle black. Ignorant and incorrect are you middle names. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
That's no better than the post I was slating, calling me ignorant on a subject that is more than life and death to me is just :rolleyes: He may not be able to do better but that's poor for you.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
Everyone is their own God
I grok
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
as sure of his redemption as you are of yours; as positive that he walked in God's grace, as you are
You may assert this but it is unknowable.
Oakman wrote:
others who said the same thing.
I doubt they said the same things, or meant them if they did. Regardless, "by their deeds you shall know them", just because someone like Torquemada may have known the truth or spoken it unknowingly does not lessen the value of the truth itself. Is house painting unacceptable because it was Hitlers profession? No
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You may assert this but it is unknowable.
You use this argument a lot. But it always seems to be when someone rubs your nose in something you can't support. On the other hand, you seem to "know" everything.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
led mike wrote:
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you.
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt fucking one another.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt f***ing one another.
Geez, Stan. What is it with you and butt fucking? Get over it. No one is interested in your scrawney red necked ass. You're safe! :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.