Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

Brick-and-Happy-Gun logo (above) by Munky Wrench, of Bent Wrench Studios

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Not as thunk as you drink I am!

Remember folks... everything the Bible says is both fact and truth!

185 comments:

  1. What is the contradiction in those verses? Perhaps you're not getting a good translation.
    I'm not saying which version is better but in the NIV version of Gen 2:18-19 the word "had" changes the entire meaning as opposed to the NRSV. Pick and choose to make your decision. Just sayin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not my call, as the pic isn’t my creation. “Go home / you’re drunk” is a meme with tons of pics out there. I just thought I’d poke my latest conservative commenter in the ribs a little with this particular one. Now I did check things out before posting it (just to make sure, since it did seem odd.) My initial verification seemed to check out, but it turns out to be a lot more complicated that I had initially assumed…

      I’m, using http://bible.cc/genesis/2-19.htm, which has 17 different version of Genesis 2-19 listed. Here how I read the various translations:

      Clearly fit the meme: New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, King James, King James 2000, American King James, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible, Young’s Literal Translation

      Clearly don’t fit the meme: Douay-Rheims Bible

      Depends on your reading (but LEAN towards ‘doesn’t fit,’ so count them if you want to): New International Version, International Standard Version, God’s Word Translation,

      Now you can nit-pick the individual referee calls if you’d like, but now I think there’s a more obvious point here: Why are there 17 translations (that in this case say contradictory things) of the ABSOLUTE, UNERRING, INFALLIBLE, WORD OF GOD?! Granted that no part of it was written in ENGLISH, but that kind of shoots a hole in the whole “Bible Literalism” school of thought, no?

      Delete
    2. I'd also point out that it's not as if it's the only questionable set of verses:http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/ The "God's nature" section is especially interesting.

      Delete
    3. I guess you are as drink as we thunk you are. Unless you believe NONE of the Bible and in which case ... you determine that murder is immoral by what standards? How, exactly, do you determine YOUR morals if there is no believable Bible?

      Delete
  2. Assuming you're talking to me, because murder is obviously harmful and detrimental to a sense of safety in a community. Same for assault, rape, et cetera. That was easy. What's shocking is that you need an old book to tell you that something so obviously wrong shouldn't be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you decide on the less obvious? So, there are only 2 determining factors in your decision process when determining "obvious" morality? What is your decision process on the less obvious?

      Delete
    2. State sponsored execution. How do you feel about that? And why would that be immoral/moral? Since there is no harm to anyone and the community demands that death to provide for the safety of itself.

      Or, how about, doing drugs/getting drunk? Since there is no harm to anyone or harm to the community while someone voluntarily chooses to abuse their own body. Is it moral for an individual to excessively inebriate themselves?

      Delete
    3. I don't think execution is immoral, depending on circumstances. The way it's done now, most places, it's immoral simply because there's too much of a risk of error with no reasonable recourse for the victim. Look up examples of people put to death and later found to be innocent, and that's clearly "harm". If it's kept to people who are clearly guilty and (therefore, typically) unable to be rehabilitated, I have no problem with that. Government has that right, and those circumstances eliminate any moral problem.

      There's an argument to be made that any self-harm is immoral if it affects other people. However, like with adultery or lying, you can't base any legal determinations off of that.

      Delete
    4. So, you'll decide the morality of drug use on a case/by/case basis? Isn't that kind of like having a slide-rule of morality? That is something you said you do not do, yet given the question; you flip-flop your stance.

      Delete
    5. When did I say not to evaluate based on circumstances? Good luck finding anything to back you up on that one.

      Delete
    6. "When did I say not to evaluate based on circumstances?" ... Ah, so you agree with my initial statement in the "Great" article where I said: "After all, moral standards are just a barometer that change over the years to fit your own personal choices ... like homosexuality"? You seemed to have disagreed with that statement, then. Now, you agree with it?

      That helps prove the case that mis-interpreting the Bible (and the consistancy of It) by non-believers (as in this article) really helps in no way the cause you are trying to achieve. If you're going to use the Bible to fight the Bible, at least do it acurately.

      Delete
    7. You were talking about mass murder, if I recall. Are there circumstances which justify that? Your slippery slope isn't going to work. You can evaluate things without running the risk of eventually favoring, say, genocide. So no, I don't agree with your initial statement, since it was patently absurd.

      Delete
    8. "When did I say not to evaluate based on circumstances? Good luck finding anything to back you up on that one." ... so bring you exact parameters for morality. If you don't then you do IN FACT change your morals based on circumstances.

      Delete
    9. No, you're confused. It's not "changing morals" to evaluate based on circumstances, it's a set of standards that's been established. I'm not sure what you want for "exact parameters", because I don't think in binary terms.

      Can you explain what's wrong with saying that harm to others determines whether something is immoral or not? For instance, cheating at online chess would be immoral, because you're making someone lose unfairly. Cheating at solitaire doesn't affect anyone. I'm curious as to what makes you think you have any sort of position from which to attack here.

      Delete
    10. "Can you explain what's wrong with saying that harm to others determines whether something is immoral or not?" ... there's nothing wrong with it. If that's how you want to decide your morals, so be it. Just don't be afraid to admit what your parameters are.

      Delete
    11. So, even from your point of view, you're not willing to say what you're criticizing here? It seems strange that you're asking the question at all, then. You just wanted to pretend that you had something to talk about, or what?

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous-if the bible is the basis for morality then what about people that don't believe in it? Are they immoral? And was everyone immoral before the bible was written?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janet, I actually asked that in my second post. Would you be willing to answer that one? It was directed at Brabantio, but he doesn't want to answer without some vague reference to harm without establishing the limit or type of harm he is talking about.
      However, to answer your question. I'm not saying there is no morality possible without the Bible. It is a good guide for ME to use. I didn't say everyone has to follow it. Everyone has their own free will to deal with. Nobody has to believe the Bible. Of course, I'd be a bit suspect of anyone who doesn't follow what is taught in the Bible, but I don't make that judgement of (their) salvation, just for my safety.

      Delete
    2. The "limit or type of harm" would depend on the circumstances. You seem to want the answer to all moral questions in cookie-fortune format.

      "I didn't say everyone has to follow it."

      "Unless you believe NONE of the Bible and in which case ... you determine that murder is immoral by what standards? How, exactly, do you determine YOUR morals if there is no believable Bible?"

      So you don't think anyone else has to follow the Bible, but you believe they're massively confused as to why things such as MURDER are immoral if they don't. How open-minded of you.

      I'd also like to point out that if you don't accept references to harm, then you're pretty clearly denying the concept of morality without the Bible. That's a very clear basis for behavior, but you don't seem willing to grasp it, for some mysterious reason.

      Delete
    3. "So you don't think anyone else has to follow the Bible, but you believe they're massively confused as to why things such as MURDER are immoral if they don't." ... I don't think anyone is confused as to how moral murder is. But, yes, I believe those who do not follow the Bible are confused. You are a good example. I asked you about harm that comes to the human fetus and you say it isn't human yet. Please tell me you're not one of those "it isn't human until it's actually born" nutcases! All of your minuscule reputation flies out the window when you say "yes" to that. In addition to that you are trying to advance lies told about the Bible and you consider that to be moral too. I thought you had told me that lying was immoral because there is harm to someone. In this article you are promoting lies and you seem proud of that.
      Yes, Brabantio, you are a very good example of the immorality exhibited by people who don't believe the Bible.

      Delete
    4. "... I don't think anyone is confused as to how moral murder is."

      Then why did you use murder in your question? You meant to say something else, presumedly?

      "I asked you about harm that comes to the human fetus and you say it isn't human yet."

      Because it isn't a person. It's potential life. There is a reasonable debate as to what point it should be protected, but the idea that life begins at conception and therefore there should be no abortions under any circumstances is just crazy. It doesn't even make sense on a religious level. So no, I don't think that abortion should be routine in the third trimester, contrary to your wild assumptions.

      "In addition to that you are trying to advance lies told about the Bible and you consider that to be moral too. I thought you had told me that lying was immoral because there is harm to someone. In this article you are promoting lies and you seem proud of that."

      I don't write the articles here. And even if I did, since when does a difference in opinion equal "lying"? That would mean that you're claiming that your opinion is "fact". Feel free to amend your lunacy at your leisure.

      Delete
    5. "I don't write the articles here." ... No, but you did submit a link that advances lies about the Bible. That isn't a "difference in opinion", is it? You are advancing lies about the Bible and that equates to you lying. You said you learned that lying is immoral. I guess you're morallity "slide rule" thinks lying is ok under certain circumstances?

      "There is a reasonable debate as to what point it should be protected, but the idea that life begins at conception and therefore there should be no abortions under any circumstances is just crazy." ... who made any claim as to when "life begins"? However, you made a good point that you support abortion during the 3rd trimester. If I am correct, the human fetus can live outside the womb at any point during the 3rd trimester. AND, you claim behaviors and orientations are instilled during pregnency. Which leads one to believe you think it is acceptable to murder viable human beings (with complete behaviors and orientations) during a portion of the pregnency cycle. How does that "old book", you use, differentiate 'moral' murder a day before the baby is born or the day after it is born? Does it say one is moral and the other is not? Because the consistancy of the Bible says it is not in either situation.

      Delete
    6. "... No, but you did submit a link that advances lies about the Bible."

      That's not what you said. And can you substantiate that there are "lies" there, or is your mere assertion supposed to qualify as evidence?

      "... who made any claim as to when "life begins"?"

      If you're not talking about when life begins, then what is your point about abortion at all? You said it was "harm" against a human.

      "However, you made a good point that you support abortion during the 3rd trimester."

      How, exactly, did you get that from "I don't think that abortion should be routine in the third trimester"?

      "AND, you claim behaviors and orientations are instilled during pregnency."

      Where did I claim that? I certainly never said "behaviors" were, and saying that orientation isn't a choice doesn't mean it's purely genetic.

      None of that is relevant anyway, since I didn't say I support third-trimester abortions. Try again.

      Delete
    7. "None of that is relevant anyway, since I didn't say I support third-trimester abortions. " ... All of it is relevant, since you DID say you support 3rd trimester abortions. What you said you did NOT support were the "routine" abortions. There was NOTHING in your statement that indicated you did NOT support 3rd trimester abortions at all. Clarify which abortions you do support during the 3rd trimester, please.


      "If you're not talking about when life begins, then what is your point about abortion at all? " ... To show how you have a sliding morality scale even when talking about an issue you say is cut/dry. The "old book" you use to determine your morals doesn't seem to give you the ability to answer for that.

      You see, you say murder is immoral---no questions asked. Then I ask a simple question regarding your morality on murdering human babies and you say THAT is ok as long as they haven't popped out of the womb yet, claiming they aren't human until they are born. When I laughed at you for having the "not human until it's born" opinion, you changed the subject to "when life begins".

      You seem to be claiming superior morals by saying you can learn what is right/wrong without using "an old book" and you even call the "old book" I use a bastion of lies. However, you don't seem to be able to support that claim with any viable proof. BTW, finding lies on the internet and calling them truths doesn't seem very moral to me (you may as well be a FOX nut supporter). So much for you claiming 'lying' is immoral. Supporting, agreeing with and promoting lies is the same as lying. That is how you have lied, here. Perhaps you are a follower of FAUX News, since you employ the same tactic they employ.

      Delete
    8. "Clarify which abortions you do support during the 3rd trimester, please."

      See, a decent person would have asked that first, instead of claiming that I said I support third trimester abortions. Obviously if I had made a blanket statement, then I would have cut out anything that's necessary for the safety of the woman. Note I said "safety" and not "health" so you have to crop this in order to go off on a rant about mental well-being. It's not what I'm talking about, to cut off that nonsense here and now.

      "... To show how you have a sliding morality scale even when talking about an issue you say is cut/dry."

      That doesn't even make sense. A fetus isn't a person, so it's not like talking about murder.

      "Then I ask a simple question regarding your morality on murdering human babies and you say THAT is ok as long as they haven't popped out of the womb yet, claiming they aren't human until they are born."

      That's your wording, not mine. Try making an honest argument.

      "When I laughed at you for having the "not human until it's born" opinion, you changed the subject to "when life begins"."

      No, "when life begins" has to be relevant because YOU are equating a fetus to a person. Do you have any concept of how silly you sound claiming that "subject" is extraneous to a conversation about abortion?

      "You seem to be claiming superior morals by saying you can learn what is right/wrong without using "an old book" and you even call the "old book" I use a bastion of lies.

      Where did I say "bastion of lies"? I'm not sure where you get the "claiming superior morals" bit, either. I'm sure you won't explain.

      "BTW, finding lies on the internet and calling them truths doesn't seem very moral to me (you may as well be a FOX nut supporter)."

      You've been asked twice to substantiate the "lying" claim. It's clear that they're simply "lies" because you find them inconvenient to your point of view.

      Delete
    9. "It's clear that they're simply "lies" because you find them inconvenient to your point of view." ... I've already debunked the one this main article is about. Do you think the ones in the link you brought will be any harder to debunk? So it is clear you are supporting/promoting lies which equates to you lying. Your "old book" isn't any better than mine if you think lying is moral.

      "No, "when life begins" has to be relevant because YOU are equating a fetus to a person." ... Uh, what do you call a baby ONE day before it is born? What do you call that baby ONE day after it is born? Please explain how your concept of "life begins" relates to those examples.

      Delete
    10. "... I've already debunked the one this main article is about. Do you think the ones in the link you brought will be any harder to debunk?"

      Yes, considering there's over a thousand of them. Thanks for referencing the one in the article, since you "debunked" it through...ready? Interpretation. You're claiming that a thousand examples are "lies" because one example is debatable. That's phenomenally stupid, and I think you know it.

      Also notice, which I'm sure you haven't, that the site I gave you actually noted examples that were commonly perceived to be contradictory, but actually weren't. What brazen liars! (snark)

      "... Uh, what do you call a baby ONE day before it is born? What do you call that baby ONE day after it is born? Please explain how your concept of "life begins" relates to those examples."

      It's not my concept, it's a religious one. One day before a fetus is born, it's still a fetus. A day after, a neonate, or baby. Since I've already smacked you down on your third-tremester abortion assumption, I'm eager to find out exactly what you imagine your point is here.

      When you talk about "murder" of a fetus (you use the term "fetus" yourself, notice), then you're defining that as "life" (otherwise, it couldn't be "murder"). Hence the question of when life begins. And since you're talking religious morality and not biology, the context is that there's a soul involved. There's no legal entity. Nobody except the mother even has to know about a pregnancy for at least the first few months. So it's not a question of "rights", it's a religious debate.

      Personally, I'm not sure why it should take longer than a couple of months for a woman to decide, so I have yet to hear a clear reason for abortions after the first trimester. There can always be exceptions, but I don't see why that shouldn't be the rule. And I find the issue of morality as hard to apply, since I don't condemn people for having sex. Biologically, we're programmed to start procreating much earlier than our societal structure allows. It used to be that you could just take over your dad's blacksmithing business, now it's a little more difficult to make ends meet. Certainly adoption should be encouraged, but you also have to factor in the aspect of judgmental idiots on a nine-month pregnancy. It also has to be noted that too many women will keep a child when they don't have the capacity to raise one properly, which contributes to future crime rates. So, realistically, it has to be an option, whether you like it or not.

      See, nobody loves abortion. It's not like people want to "murder" fetuses. I would normally refer to it as a "necessary evil", but I would expect you to type "evil" twenty times in every post afterwards (and I'll still be surprised if you don't, even with all that said). I do think that women should have to have serious consideration on the matter since they do have potential life in them, and so any woman who uses abortion simply as birth control is acting immorally.

      So all that leaves is the "soul" aspect. Obviously, I don't believe in "souls", so that's not going to be a factor in deciding morality. And you shouldn't need that. I think it's immoral to abuse pets, and does anyone believe that animals have "souls"? Does St. Peter let hamsters into heaven if they've lived good lives? I'm genuinely curious what you think about "souls" and how they play into your determinations of morality.

      Delete
    11. "I'm eager to find out exactly what you imagine your point is here. "
      "I would normally refer to it as a "necessary evil", "

      Yes. That's what I thought you would refer to it as. Can anyone say 'sliding scale morals' ?

      Delete
    12. So you didn't grasp the point that "evil" isn't supposed to be literal? That's what I figured.

      Can you explain the difference between evaluating morality based on circumstances (thinking for yourself) and "sliding scale morals"? If not, what's the problem with "sliding scale morals", exactly? Let's see you contribute something besides brainless condemnation, just for a change.

      And, again, how does the concept of a soul play into your concept of morality? Is that or is that not your basis for opposing abortion?

      Delete
    13. "And, again, how does the concept of a soul play into your concept of morality?" ... I don't think the "soul" has anything to do with morality. I don't think killing dogs is moral, and they have no souls (IMHO). So, obviously, that is not the basis of my opposition to abortion. Let's put it in a way even you can understand: I think abortion is immoral because it is killing an innocent human life.

      " If not, what's the problem with "sliding scale morals", exactly? " ... there is nothing wrong with it if you want to have an inconsistent application of morality. I just don't want to be the one who tells God that His morals are fine and all, but mine are better. I guess if you don't believe in God then you have nothing to worry about. But, I told you that you used a sliding scale of morality early on and you vehemently denied that. Were you lying then, too? I thought you said lying was immoral. Is that more of your "sliding scale" in action? BTW: You have a real problem with lying.

      "So you didn't grasp the point that "evil" isn't supposed to be literal? " ... I didn't take it literally.

      Delete
    14. "Let's put it in a way even you can understand: I think abortion is immoral because it is killing an innocent human life."

      So, I'm supposedly immoral because I don't put an embryo on an even footing with actual people? There's no legal basis for doing that, so it either has to be religious or dogmatic for you. If the woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, then what gives that "life" value?

      "... there is nothing wrong with it if you want to have an inconsistent application of morality."

      What are you claiming is inconsistent, specifically?

      "But, I told you that you used a sliding scale of morality early on and you vehemently denied that."

      No, I asked what was wrong with taking circumstances into account. It's unclear what makes that a denial, especially since you're not even defining your phrase.

      It seems like you're not really denying that one can use their own judgment in determining morality, so hopefully that answered your "murder" question from the start.

      "... I didn't take it literally."

      Then your previous post made no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
    15. " If the woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, then what gives that "life" value?" ... Exactly. If we can't figure that out then what is the purpose of even discussing it? I put a different "value" on life than you do, which explains the difference in morality, (no claim to correct or incorrect), just noting a difference.

      "It seems like you're not really denying that one can use their own judgment in determining morality," ... That's right. I even said I did that. The difference is I try to keep mine more consistant. The guide we use to determine morality is different. Your guide seems to allow for continual changing of the 'bar level' to determine morality. Wasn't that my concern oh so long ago?
      This article is trying to discredit the Bible by using lies that cannot stand on their own merit and here you are fully supporting and defending that and bringing more. Just sayin'

      Delete
    16. "If we can't figure that out then what is the purpose of even discussing it?"

      No, I was actually asking you a question. It wasn't rhetorical. According to your well thought-out rationale for morality, what makes a fetus "life"?

      "I even said I did that. The difference is I try to keep mine more consistant."

      But you're suggesting that it's wrong to work from personal principle ("inconsistent", inexplicably) as opposed to doing what other people tell you God wants.

      There's a difference between the ability to "allow" for change and being inconsistent. Lacking judgment doesn't make morals better, just more dogmatic. For instance, http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/12/04/prsa1204.htm. Aside from the question of whether or not such a procedure should have been forced, the religious aspect is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. By working from the idea that you can't take the life of a child (actively), these people would have assured that both of their children died (passively). That's not better. These people may consider themselves "consistent", like you, but they looked like idiots. This is why I've asked as to the merit of your "concern" regarding taking circumstances into account. That would obviously be a case where "life" dictates the need to make every effort to save one child instead of letting both wither and die. Thoughts?

      "This article is trying to discredit the Bible by using lies that cannot stand on their own merit and here you are fully supporting and defending that and bringing more. Just sayin'"

      Sorry, you lost that argument already. Don't act as if I might have forgotten.

      Delete
    17. "But you're suggesting that it's wrong to work from personal principle ... as opposed to doing what other people tell you God wants." ... No, I'm questioning your statement that the morality of murder is an open/shut case and there is no doubt everyone knows murder is immoral. However, you can't address the fact that abortion is murdering a viable human life and you want to explain it away using semantics. I value life, you do not. That's our difference in this issue. When you value life, you'll be more inclined to protect life and not destroy it. But, right now, you are a democrat (liberal) and think life is expendable. Good for you. You can choose that path if you want. I choose not to.

      Delete
    18. "... No, I'm questioning your statement that the morality of murder is an open/shut case and there is no doubt everyone knows murder is immoral."

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

      "However, you can't address the fact that abortion is murdering a viable human life and you want to explain it away using semantics."

      Translation:"it's not actually murder, and I wish you wouldn't point that out." You should also look up the word "fact". Obviously you're having difficulty with basic word definitions, since something which relies on your personal perspective can't possibly be "fact".

      "I value life, you do not. That's our difference in this issue."

      You sound like an idiot saying that after I linked to a case where I criticized parents for wanting to let two children die instead of just one. You also sound ridiculous for preaching to me about anything of this sort when you can't even explain your rationale for calling a fetus or especially an embryo "life". So, when you find yourself capable of expressing yourself on an intellectual level, let me know.

      Delete
    19. "So, when you find yourself capable of expressing yourself on an intellectual level, let me know." ... When you stop posting and let some "intellectual" people in on the discussion then I'll be able to express myself on an even level. I don't like stooping down to your level and using your tactics, but when in rome do as the romans.


      I haven't heard you offer any explanation for allowing abortion other than it is your opinion that those beings may not be human as they wait to be born or killed. You express your thoughts that before a baby is born (2 days) that baby may be a different being entirely. Your intelligence level allows you to support abortion based on the fact YOU think it may not be human. Yes, you really got me, there. I am having trouble "expressing" myself to someone with an "intellectual level" like that. Yeah baby, you are the smart one.

      Delete
  5. "I haven't heard you offer any explanation for allowing abortion other than it is your opinion that those beings may not be human as they wait to be born or killed."

    I never said anything about a fetus not being "human", because it's a nonsensical and emotional argument.

    "You express your thoughts that before a baby is born (2 days) that baby may be a different being entirely."

    Really? So that's why I said I think there could be a limitation on abortion after the FIRST trimester, somehow?

    So, all you have in response to your glaring failure to explain how you determine "life" is to build the same strawman that I proved fallacious several posts ago. Here, I'll repost a couple of things that directly contradict your comments here:

    "Personally, I'm not sure why it should take longer than a couple of months for a woman to decide, so I have yet to hear a clear reason for abortions after the first trimester. There can always be exceptions, but I don't see why that shouldn't be the rule. And I find the issue of morality as hard to apply, since I don't condemn people for having sex. Biologically, we're programmed to start procreating much earlier than our societal structure allows. It used to be that you could just take over your dad's blacksmithing business, now it's a little more difficult to make ends meet. Certainly adoption should be encouraged, but you also have to factor in the aspect of judgmental idiots on a nine-month pregnancy. It also has to be noted that too many women will keep a child when they don't have the capacity to raise one properly, which contributes to future crime rates. So, realistically, it has to be an option, whether you like it or not...See, nobody loves abortion. It's not like people want to "murder" fetuses. I would normally refer to it as a "necessary evil", but I would expect you to type "evil" twenty times in every post afterwards (and I'll still be surprised if you don't, even with all that said). I do think that women should have to have serious consideration on the matter since they do have potential life in them, and so any woman who uses abortion simply as birth control is acting immorally."

    That goes a bit beyond your question of whether it's "human" or not. Don't let the facts interfere with your brainless blathering, though. It's not your style.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And I find the issue of morality as hard to apply, since I don't condemn people for having sex." ... you condemn the polygamist, don't you? Or are you in favor of allowing multiple partners in one marriage? So much for denying the use of a 'moral barometer' when choosing what is moral or not.

      " It also has to be noted that too many women will keep a child when they don't have the capacity to raise one properly, which contributes to future crime rates." ... Not true. According to YOU, humans have their behaviors and preferences all decided before birth. So, those crimes rates would rise no matter WHO raised the child. Your claim that homosexuality is decided during pregnancy must also be applied to other (seemingly) chosen behaviors.
      The key to this statement of yours is: " "capacity to raise one properly". Wow, are you ever a hypocrite. Now, you are including a parameter that parents must be capable of raising children PROPERLY before they can have any? What is your definition of "properly" in this context? Are you going to force abortions on those who you think aren't capable to "properly" raise their child? Or are you going to forcibly remove the child from the mother after it is born?

      Delete
    2. "... you condemn the polygamist, don't you?"

      Yes, because that goes beyond a natural desire to have sex. You don't need to get married to multiple women because you have a libido, obviously.

      "... Not true. According to YOU, humans have their behaviors and preferences all decided before birth."

      Not true, you can't find anything I've ever said that denies environmental factors.

      "Your claim that homosexuality is decided during pregnancy must also be applied to other (seemingly) chosen behaviors."

      Actually, even if the basis of your argument was accurate (hint:it's not), that's fallacious. Some things could be genetic and others a result of environment, traumatic experiences, injuries, etc. There's no "must" about it, because this isn't a black and white world where everything has to be completely one way or the other, contrary to your demonstrated mindset.

      "Now, you are including a parameter that parents must be capable of raising children PROPERLY before they can have any?"

      No, especially considering that the very next sentence after what you quoted contains the word "option". So, I can safely dismiss the rest of the garbage you post after that moronic question.

      Delete
    3. "Yes, because that goes beyond a natural desire to have sex." ... So does homosexuality. Yet you fully support that. There is nothing "natural" about homosexuality either, unless you bring in your famous "animals do it" argument. At that point I would have to say that polygamy happens in nature too ( http://www.livescience.com/12963-top-10-polygamous-animals-bonobos-hyena.html ). In that article, I notice that incest occurs often too. Do you support incest since it occurs in nature and (by your standards). Does that makes it "natural"?

      Now, you've lost ANOTHER argument on the differences between gay marriage and polygamy. Since it occurs in nature, you must now allow it. That is your stance on homosexuality, right? Let's do another quick recap: no harm, consenting adults, life/liberty/happiness and NATURAL. Both polygamy AND homosexuality fit within those parameters as you define them for supporting and demanding marriage rights for gays. Please tell me that isn't all you have. You are becoming boring. You are 0-4 in your hypocrisy between polygamy and homosexuality.


      "Not true, you can't find anything I've ever said that denies environmental factors." ... Where have you said anything that includes those factors?

      Delete
    4. "Not true, you can't find anything I've ever said that denies environmental factors." ... Let's test your convictions: Are homosexuals "born that way" or not?

      Delete
    5. "... So does homosexuality."

      Why is that? Gay people are attracted to people of their own gender, therefore sex is going to be with someone of the same sex. Your comment doesn't make any sense.

      "There is nothing "natural" about homosexuality either, unless you bring in your famous "animals do it" argument."

      No, because gay people say they didn't choose it, and because it's beyond absurd to believe that people have gone through millenia of persecution for "choice". The "animal" argument is one demonstration of how it's natural, not the only one.

      "At that point I would have to say that polygamy happens in nature too."

      When animals have a legal system, that will be meaningful.

      "In that article, I notice that incest occurs often too. Do you support incest since it occurs in nature and (by your standards). Does that makes it "natural"?"

      By your standards, you're trying to change the subject. But, as you know, "natural" isn't the only criteria involved, so it doesn't make it automatically acceptable.

      "Let's do another quick recap: no harm..."

      Wow. So, you just got done declaring victory based on "natural" all by itself, and then you mention "harm", the other factor I've mentioned as to why homosexuality is acceptable.

      "Where have you said anything that includes those factors?"

      Why would I have to, since such factors vary on an individual basis? Saying "it's not a choice" doesn't exclude environmental factors, so if you made the contrary assumption, you were wrong.

      "Let's test your convictions: Are homosexuals "born that way" or not?"

      You're the one stuck on "born that way", pretending that's the only alternative to "choice". It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors. Does that breaking away from your binary framework make you uncomfortable?

      Delete
    6. "By your standards, you're trying to change the subject. But, as you know, "natural" isn't the only criteria involved, so it doesn't make it automatically acceptable." ... I know. You've used "HARM" and "CONSENTING ADULTS" and "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" as your other reasons. You've brought nothing else.

      "Why would I have to, since such factors vary on an individual basis? " ... That's right. Get your morality barometer ready. I see some flip-flopping coming soon by another democrat.

      "You're the one stuck on "born that way", pretending that's the only alternative to "choice"." ... What other options are there? Either you choose your preferences or you are born with them. Since you can't back up your "born that way" claim, then it must be "choice". Don't worry, your binary thinking won't be able to break away from anything.

      Delete
    7. "... I know. You've used "HARM" and "CONSENTING ADULTS" and "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" as your other reasons. You've brought nothing else."

      What else would I need, and why? Besides, I don't think I said anything about pursuit of happiness myself, especially not in capital letters.

      "... That's right. Get your morality barometer ready. I see some flip-flopping coming soon by another democrat."

      Was that supposed to make sense? Are you really trying to argue that environmental factors don't involve variant environments?

      "... What other options are there?"

      Read it again:"It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors." That's not "born that way", unless you think "born" includes the formative years of one's life. Also, look up "binary". I'm the one offering a third option, while you insist on two. That doesn't make me the one using binary thinking, by dictionary definition.

      And nothing more on the polygamy of animals? That's a shame. I was really looking forward to that.

      Delete
    8. Genetics are the "formative years of one's life"? Wow, are you dilusional?

      Delete
    9. How, exactly, did you pick "genetics" out of "genetic, developmental and environmental factors" there? I can't wait to hear this one. Chances are I'm going to have to define the word "combination" for you, as if you were in first grade or something.

      Delete
    10. How, exactly, did you pick "genetics" out of "genetic, developmental and environmental factors" there?" ... Well, you put it there for me to use. You claim genetics cause homosexuality (combined with other factors), but the key is you say genetics cause homosexuality during the "formative years". How so?

      Delete
    11. " ... Well, you put it there for me to use. You claim genetics cause homosexuality (combined with other factors), but the key is you say genetics cause homosexuality during the "formative years". How so?"

      This has to be either one of the dumbest or most dishonest posts you've ever made. Can you not see italics in the post you responded to, first off? And now, you admit "(combined with other factors)", then assert that I said "genetics cause homosexuality during the 'formative years'." If you understand "combined", then you can't say that I singled out "genetics" regarding "formative years". That was you, jackass. You picked that one out of the group, not me. The phrase was "includes the formative years", remember? The same way "genetic, developmental and environmental factors" includes the word "environmental".

      Anything else? If so, please make it better than that last piece of rancid garbage.

      Delete
    12. What difference does the word "combined" have? You still INCLUDE genetics as a factor during the "formative years". Again, I'll ask (and you'll ignore): what effect do genetics have during the "formative years of ones life"?

      "Read it again:"It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors." That's not "born that way", unless you think "born" includes the formative years of one's life."

      Delete
    13. "What difference does the word "combined" have? You still INCLUDE genetics as a factor during the "formative years"."

      No, because different factors take effect at different times. Environmental factors apply during the formative years. Listing three things doesn't mean that they all apply throughout the entire period of time.

      Here's an example, (not that I'm making a comparison to homosexuality, which I expect you would claim):As well as probable genetic and environmental factors, serial killers have a high percentage of head trauma or other brain damage. So, if I were to say that the cause of their psychopathic behavior is a combination of genetics, environmental factors and physical damage, that doesn't mean I think their DNA got hit with a hammer or something. That would obviously apply later on.

      Any questions on that? Would you like to continue to pretend to be this obtuse, or shall we move on?

      Delete
    14. "No, because different factors take effect at different times." ... You said they ALL occur during the "formative years". What part of your statement did you say one thing happens at a different time than the others during the "formative years"??

      "Any questions on that?" ... Yes. Why would you bring an unrelated strawman argument to your denial of things you HAVE said?

      Delete
    15. "... You said they ALL occur during the "formative years"."

      No, I didn't.

      "What part of your statement did you say one thing happens at a different time than the others during the "formative years"??"

      Your inability to understand anything over a third-grade level is neither my problem nor my responsibility.

      " ... Yes. Why would you bring an unrelated strawman argument to your denial of things you HAVE said?"

      How do you imagine it's unrelated? By your logic, since I didn't specify when the trauma factor took place, I must have been saying all factors took place before birth. But somehow, you didn't read it that way, this time. Interesting.

      Delete
  6. "No, I didn't." ... I am going to do something that you do not do. I'm going to use the entire quote in my effort to show you said genetics influence choice during the formative years. Here is your exact quote: "It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors. That's not "born that way", unless you think "born" includes the formative years of one's life."
    Now, please try to follow along, the CONTEXT is talking about "born that way", you say there are several factors, including genetics that determine the "choice" of sexual preference "DURING THE FORMATIVE YEARS". How are genetics affecting a CHOICE during the "formative years"? Hey, YOU SAID IT, now defend what you say and stop avoiding the question and being dishonest about it.


    "How do you imagine it's unrelated?" ... How is 'serial killers with head damage' related to the subject in ANY way? Explain how. Unless you are saying serial killers are "born that way" too. Maybe you're saying that because of damage to the brain serial killers do what they do. Am I supposed to equate that to homosexuality? Maybe that is your intent with that analogy? People with defective brains do defective things? Well, that sure is more accurate than my simple 'its immoral' argument. Thanks for offering that explanation for why homosexuals are that way. I would have been called a bigot for saying something like that. But you use a sliding scale to determine morality, so you don't consider yourself a bigot when you say stuff like that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Now, please try to follow along, the CONTEXT is talking about "born that way", you say there are several factors, including genetics that determine the "choice" of sexual preference "DURING THE FORMATIVE YEARS"."

    Did you notice, possibly, that I said that it's not "born that way" because the combination of factors involves the formative years? Have you been going on this entire time thinking I did say "born that way"?

    " ... How is 'serial killers with head damage' related to the subject in ANY way? Explain how. Unless you are saying serial killers are "born that way" too."

    I think you just answered "yes" to my previous question. How would me saying that head trauma is a factor be saying that serial killers are "born that way"? You seem vastly confused.

    "Am I supposed to equate that to homosexuality?"

    When I said this?:"(not that I'm making a comparison to homosexuality, which I expect you would claim)" No, obviously you're not supposed to do that. Thanks for the laugh at your extended rant on something I covered ahead of time. Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Did you notice, possibly, that I said that it's not "born that way" because the combination of factors involves the formative years?" ... I absolutely noticed that. That is what makes the entire statement. That means you intended to say that those factors are NOT caused by birth, but later on ... during the "formative years". So, answer the question about genetics and the formative years.

      Delete
    2. "That means you intended to say that those factors are NOT caused by birth, but later on ... during the "formative years"."

      No, because it's a "combination" of factors, which take effect at different times. The word "includes" in my comment does not mean all of them take place in the formative years, it in fact suggests otherwise, since if that was my intent I would have used the word "means" or something similar.

      When you can show how that reasoning is faulty, then you can accuse me of dodging your question. Until then, this is where you're stuck. So sorry.

      Delete
    3. "No, because it's a "combination" of factors, which take effect at different times. " ... You're floundering. At what "times" did you mention in your statement? You didn't mention any "times" did you? Now, you need to cover your ass for a false statement so you make shit up ... AGAIN. Because YOU said they all occur during the "formative years". Now explain how genetics and the "formative years" correlate with your claim. YOU said they all occur during the formative years, not at timed intervals. So, stop dodging the question. Unless that is all you know how to do. Then dodge away ... like usual.

      Delete
    4. I guess my first statement to you is turning out to be more true that you and I ever figured: "I guess you are as drink as we thunk you are.". Next time you reply to my posts, please sober up. I realize you're military, but you still need to be sober when posting intelligently. I understand drinking will excuse your earlier posts, but it really needs to stop. It isn't healthy and if you saved the money you spent on beer/liquor you could afford that inexpensive electric Nissan Leaf. Maybe discuss your "God's nature" reference again. THAT was funny. You make a claim then can't even back it up with facts or evidence. You merely let someone else post something on-line and you regard it as factual. Hey, doofus, prove what you say or don't say it.
      Maybe I've given you enough fodder for you to change the subject again and dodge answering the actual question? I'm sure I have.

      Delete
    5. "At what "times" did you mention in your statement? You didn't mention any "times" did you?"

      I don't have to. Genetics clearly applies before birth, environmental applies during the formative years. There's no sensible way of suggesting otherwise, so I saw no reason to specify that. I would think that if I explained such a simple concept, you would accuse me of being insulting and condescending.

      "Because YOU said they all occur during the "formative years"."

      I said that? Lie. I said the combination of factors "includes" the formative years. Look up the word "includes".

      "I realize you're military, but you still need to be sober when posting intelligently."

      There's no alcohol where I am.

      "You make a claim then can't even back it up with facts or evidence."

      The website was evidence. You didn't address it.

      "You merely let someone else post something on-line and you regard it as factual."

      Like how you posted an FRC link? Hilarious. Note that I actually rebutted that, while you don't feel confident enough to address inconsistencies in the Bible.

      "Maybe I've given you enough fodder for you to change the subject again and dodge answering the actual question?"

      That's pretty funny, considering your disjointed rant and the fact that you've brought polygamy onto several threads a propos of nothing at all. Also considering you've asserted that you don't have to answer questions, yet I'm obligated to answer yours even after I repeatedly explain how they're illogical. That would make you a hypocrite, consistent with the actual meaning of the word (unlike how you use it).

      Delete
    6. "Genetics clearly applies before birth, " ... I know that is true. But, YOU SAID it occurs during the "formative years". Were you lying when you made that statement? Why haven't you corrected the statement and moved on, instead of defending your bigoted statements.

      "There's no alcohol where I am." ... Never stop lying, do you?

      "The website was evidence. You didn't address it." ... evidence of WHAT? Further lies brought by haters? BTW, I have addressed the lies brought by the site you proclaim as fact.

      "Note that I actually rebutted that, while you don't feel confident enough to address inconsistencies in the Bible." ... Uh, the VERY FIRST COMMENT is addressing the drummed up inconsistencies in the Bible. Do you really have such a problem reading that you didn't even see that?

      Delete
    7. "But, YOU SAID it occurs during the "formative years"."

      Still a lie. Have you found the definition for "included"?

      "... Never stop lying, do you?"

      Do you know where I am?

      "... evidence of WHAT?"

      Biblical inconsistencies.

      "BTW, I have addressed the lies brought by the site you proclaim as fact."

      First, you have not. You addressed the picture in Eddie's article, which, as noted more than once, may not even be part of that website. You haven't shown that it is. Secondly, addressing one interpretation, even if your opinion is sensible, doesn't make that interpretation a "lie", never mind a thousand others "lies" by extension. Third, I didn't say anything was "fact". That's you lying, yet again.

      "... Uh, the VERY FIRST COMMENT is addressing the drummed up inconsistencies in the Bible."

      We're talking about links. I addressed your link, you did not address mine.

      If you don't like the fact that you bit off more than you can chew, I suggest you deal with it. I wouldn't dream of making a comment like "Democrats never make verbal gaffes", because it would be too easy for someone to pull up a webpage with however many examples to the contrary. And it would be my responsibility to address those examples, since I made the claim. But when you make a similar claim, while there are 1001 questionable sets of verses in the Bible, suddenly it's my responsiblity to reassert (how? nobody knows) that they're actually inconsistencies. The burden of proof is on you. Your take on one is not applicable thousand and one. Let me know what part of that previous sentence is giving you trouble, and I'll try to break it down further if necessary.

      Delete
    8. Should be "applicable to a thousand and one". That would give anyone actual trouble, left uncorrected.

      Delete
    9. "Do you know where I am?" ... Yes.

      Why do I need a definition of "included"? It is obvious you used genetics when explaining that it happens during the "formative years". Now, explain how.

      "But when you make a similar claim, while there are 1001 questionable sets of verses in the Bible, suddenly it's my responsiblity to reassert (how? nobody knows) that they're actually inconsistencies." ... You're right. I should NEVER expect you to take responsiblity for your own statements. That would be too ... reasonable. And, God knows, you aren't very reasonable.

      "may not even be part of that website" ... You're right again. Since you haven't even been to the website, I wouldn't expect you to know what's there. That's why you brought that link, because it 'sounded good' to whine about the Bible. You even acted like you read a little of the link, but it is obvious by your statements, that you haven't even been to the site. All that "natures law" crap was just made up, huh?

      "But when you make a similar claim, while there are 1001 questionable sets of verses in the Bible, suddenly it's my responsiblity to reassert (how? nobody knows) that they're actually inconsistencies." ... Another way to look at it is to compare what I've done to what you've done. You say I claim that the 1001 inconsistencies are lies and I need to prove it. I say you claim the FRC is unacceptable for data and facts so you need to prove THAT.

      Delete
    10. "... Yes."

      Then you explain where I could find alcohol, if I really wanted any. This should be fun.

      "Why do I need a definition of "included"?"

      Because that word was key to my comment.

      "It is obvious you used genetics when explaining that it happens during the "formative years"."

      Baseless assertion. You can't explain the use of the word "includes" in my post, so it's not "obvious" that I was applying genetics to "formative years". You won't get past this point, if it wasn't clear to you already. You can ask a thousand times and I'll point out that your question is bullshit.

      "... You're right. I should NEVER expect you to take responsiblity for your own statements."

      Why would "responsibility" include verifying what's on the website, and how would that be done?

      "... You're right again. Since you haven't even been to the website, I wouldn't expect you to know what's there"

      I cited a section of the website, so it's obvious I was there. Would you rather that I assert as fact that the quote in question isn't there, while I'm not sure of it? The point is that you keep talking about Eddie's example as if it's relevant, and it's not clear that it applies to the site I listed in any way at all.

      "All that "natures law" crap was just made up, huh?"

      Where was "natures law" mentioned?

      "I say you claim the FRC is unacceptable for data and facts so you need to prove THAT."

      I posted a link that addressed their claims before you even cited them. I mentioned this already. And if I'm supposed to reassert the Biblical inconsistencies, why isn't it your responsibility to prove that the FRC is right?

      Did you notice that you posted the exact same quote twice, by the way? It looks odd, as if you forgot what you'd copied and pasted halfway through.

      Delete
    11. "Then you explain where I could find alcohol, if I really wanted any. This should be fun." ... You take that gas powered car of yours and drive about 20 minutes into New York and buy whatever you want.
      You're right. That WAS fun.

      "Because that word was key to my comment." ... But, you didn't USE it in your comment. Doofus

      Delete
    12. "... You take that gas powered car of yours and drive about 20 minutes into New York and buy whatever you want."

      I've never lived anywhere near New York. Try again?

      "... But, you didn't USE it in your comment."

      You caught me, I made a typo. Here's what I said first"Look up the word "includes"." You should have no problem addressing that, now that we're past your little bit of intellectual dishonesty. Or are you going to claim the word "includes" isn't in the quote in question either?

      Delete
    13. "I've never lived anywhere near New York. Try again?" ... Don't need to. I was correct the first time and don't need to alter my response at all.

      So, bring the quote and show me where the word "includes" is at. From what I see ... it is in a sentence where you compare it to what "I think". I just don't see the word "includes" in the part of the statement that you are trying (unsuccessfully) to defend. So, yes, I caught you lying again. No "typo".
      How can what I think change the meaning of your statement? Because I think "born that way" does not include the "formative years of ones life". So, you are ruling out "born that way" as being affected by ANY of those factors you listed. That means you say those factors occur during "the formative years of one's life". Doofus

      Quote: "It's probably a combination of genetic, developmental and environmental factors. That's not "born that way", unless you think "born" includes the formative years of one's life."

      Delete
    14. "... Don't need to. I was correct the first time and don't need to alter my response at all."

      No, you're wrong. Do you have some basis for claiming New York, or did you throw a dart? It's pretty arrogant to insist that I live somewhere when you have no damn clue what you're talking about, don't you think?

      "From what I see ... it is in a sentence where you compare it to what "I think". I just don't see the word "includes" in the part of the statement that you are trying (unsuccessfully) to defend."

      What sentence are you talking about? The quote with "includes" is the one you cited at the end of your post.

      "Because I think "born that way" does not include the "formative years of ones life". So, you are ruling out "born that way" as being affected by ANY of those factors you listed."

      I don't think "born that way" includes the formative years either. Your sentence doesn't even make sense. What does "ruling out 'born that way' as being affected' mean, exactly? Genetics would obviously apply, if I thought people were "born that way". Fix your word salad and try again. Also, let's revisit this quote:"Because YOU said they all occur during the "formative years"." Now, it's about what you "think", using some convoluted logic and not what I "said". You just got caught in a lie.

      "Quote:..."

      Oh, look, the word "includes" is in there. How about that?

      Delete
  8. Oh, look, the word "includes" is in there. How about that?" ... How about that! You are saying that "born that way" would not include the formative years, correct? But you use genetics as one of your examples of the factors that cause homosexuality during the "formative years of one's life". And that is after you rule out all three of your factors being a cause at birth. Because you're saying those examples are NOT part of born that way, unless I think born INCLUDES the formative years of one's life.
    What is the connection between genetics and the formative years that you claim is present?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But you use genetics as one of your examples of the factors that cause homosexuality during the "formative years of one's life".

      No, only environmental factors applied there.

      "And that is after you rule out all three of your factors being a cause at birth."

      That makes no sense. Right now I'm saying that some factors apply before birth and some apply after. Now, hypothetically, if I were to eliminate environmental factors, the comment really would change to "born that way". Conversely, adding environmental factors to the concept of genetic and developmental factors doesn't make everything magically shift to the formative years.

      You're taking a comment on one part of a group and applying it to all of them, and you can't possibly defend it. There's no logic to what you're saying at all. You can keep saying it, but my response isn't going to change. I was correct the first time and don't need to alter my response at all.

      Speaking of which, where's your evidence of your claim that I live in New York or anywhere near it? You got caught lying about what I "said", now you're going to tacitally admit to lying about where I live as well? St. Peter might be taking notes, you know.

      Delete
    2. " Right now I'm saying that some factors apply before birth and some apply after. " ... "Right now". Thanks for admitting that you fucked up and now you want to change your statement. I thought you would, but I didn't think you'd be so hard-headed about it. Your statement was completely off track and it is much better now that you've changed the statement to fit better within your bigoted mind-set.

      "where's your evidence of your claim that I live in New York or anywhere near it?" ... What evidence do I need? You don't bring evidence for claims you make. All I merely have to do is SAY it and it is suddenly true ... just like the way YOU do it.

      You really are a doofus, huh?

      Delete
    3. BTW, my clarification of why your statement was wrong was what I meant by you taking all comments about it out of context. I do know how to use the word and it was used correctly in that instance and you have now admitted as much. Stop being such a doofus.

      You know, maybe ... just maybe, being the moral person you are, I might get an apology for the way you had been calling me a liar regarding your statement. Now that you've changed your statement, perhaps I wasn't lying after all. I wonder if you have the guts to admit your mistake and except responsibility for it (by apologizing).

      Delete
    4. "... "Right now". Thanks for admitting that you fucked up and now you want to change your statement."

      Here's the context:"Right now I'm saying that some factors apply before birth and some apply after. Now, hypothetically, if I were to eliminate environmental factors, the comment really would change to "born that way"." I'm contrasting my actual argument with the hypothetical that follows. Note that there's no difference between what I said in that post and what I said previously, so your claim of altering anything can't be substantiated.

      "What evidence do I need? You don't bring evidence for claims you make."

      Examples? Of course you can't bring any. Once again, you lie under the philosophy that you claim that I lie and therefore it's acceptable for you to do it brazenly and unapologetically.

      "All I merely have to do is SAY it and it is suddenly true."

      Wow, quite the ego there, thinking you control reality like that. Just kidding, I know that's not how you meant it, but by your philosophy when you take my words out of context (or even if I just say it, which has never happened), then I can take you out of context with impunity. Again, I'm not claiming you meant it that way, but it would be fair by your standards. What would really be funny is if you take something out of context again from this paragraph to claim I took you out of context. I expect no less from you.

      "I do know how to use the word and it was used correctly in that instance and you have now admitted as much."

      Which is why you never answered any questions about how your use of the word was supposed to make any sense at all. Sure.

      "Now that you've changed your statement, perhaps I wasn't lying after all."

      You're not sure if you were lying or not? That would have worked a lot better if you had said something like "perhaps you'll admit". That really did not come across well.

      "I wonder if you have the guts to admit your mistake and except responsibility for it (by apologizing)."

      Aren't you the same person that brought up my mother's dementia as a personal attack, accused me of being drunk, told me I was lying because I didn't fit your prejudiced views of Democrats and asked if I was gay for no apparent reason other than I contest what you say? And you want an apology based off of an out-of-context quote, after insisting for days that I meant something that not only makes no sense on a scientific level, but which requires the most convoluted and unjustifiable logic imaginable to believe, all because you ostensibly wanted me to say gay people are "born that way" and you didn't like the more sophisticated response you received.

      It seems a tad bit unlikely.

      Delete
    5. "That would have worked a lot better if you had said something like "perhaps you'll admit". " ... How about I add "now everyone can see" in place of "perhaps". It makes more sense and the guilty party is exposed. That way everyone can wait and see if the guilty party actually apologizes for their fuck-up.

      "Aren't you the same person that brought up ... " .. when you figure out what whine you want an apology for, let me know. Otherwise, it looks like a list of things you just made up (as your usual MO).


      I said: "I wonder if you have the guts to admit your mistake and except responsibility for it (by apologizing)."
      You said: "It seems a tad bit unlikely."
      Thanks, democrat, for exemplifying your moral standards. Too bad you couldn't hold up with your end of the conversation. Maybe (being so proudly military) you might comment on the Karzai article. Because if you try talking morals again, you'll woefully disillusion yourself and the others who read these comments.

      Delete
    6. "How about I add "now everyone can see" in place of "perhaps"."

      Add whatever you like, you still won't be credible.

      ".. when you figure out what whine you want an apology for, let me know. Otherwise, it looks like a list of things you just made up (as your usual MO)."

      I never asked for an apology, I simply pointed out your hubris in asking for one. It's pretty hilarious for you to ask for an apology, but when I point out the nature of your behavior, that's a "whine". Why isn't you asking for an apology a "whine"? It's a mystery of your deluded mind.

      Which one of those things are you denying, specifically, so I can remind you of your own contemptible behavior? And when I assert where you live and that you've changed occupations in the last year, then you may be able to talk about making things up without making me laugh at you.

      "Thanks, democrat, for exemplifying your moral standards."

      Did you notice that you didn't address my demonstration of you taking me out of context? That, along with your doubling-down on the call for an apology, suggests you know you did it and have no qualms with such dishonest behavior. There's the key difference;you merely accuse, while I demonstrate your lack of morality. Also notice that I don't try to apply your behavior to a larger group. Because you're a bigot, and I'm not.

      "Maybe (being so proudly military) you might comment on the Karzai article. Because if you try talking morals again, you'll woefully disillusion yourself and the others who read these comments."

      Why would I need to comment on Karzai? What he said was insane and potentially dangerous. Did you disagree with that?

      Delete
    7. I'll also note this:"You said: 'It seems a tad bit unlikely.'"

      That's quite the truncated quote, don't you think? Here's what I said preceding that:"And you want an apology based off of an out-of-context quote, after insisting for days that I meant something that not only makes no sense on a scientific level, but which requires the most convoluted and unjustifiable logic imaginable to believe, all because you ostensibly wanted me to say gay people are "born that way" and you didn't like the more sophisticated response you received."

      So the quote you provided wasn't in direct response to "I wonder if you have the guts to admit your mistake and except responsibility for it (by apologizing).", as you portrayed it, it reflected my response to you. Yet another example of your dishonest behavior.

      Delete
    8. "I never asked for an apology," ... well, quit whining about your faults then.

      "Did you notice that you didn't address my demonstration of you taking me out of context? " ... It's got to happen before you can demonstrate it.

      " Because you're a bigot, and I'm not." ... Of course, you live in denial, I do not. At least I can admit that people like you will call me a bigot for beliefs that I hold.

      "What he said was insane and potentially dangerous. Did you disagree with that?" ... I wouldn't agree with anything you say just on face value. You are a known liar and bigot. Who knows what you would think to say. Example: WHAT did he say that is insane? He says a lot of stuff, you just randomly throw a "what he says is insane" bomb out there without any connections? Well, that's the way you roll, so I would expect nothing better from you.

      "That's quite the truncated quote, don't you think?" ... Well, I'm not the one who said I "brought up my mothers dementia". When did that happen?

      Delete
    9. "... well, quit whining about your faults then."

      Your behavior equals my "faults"?

      "... It's got to happen before you can demonstrate it."

      You didn't address what I posted about it, so your denial is worthless.

      "At least I can admit that people like you will call me a bigot for beliefs that I hold."

      Saying that you're going to be called a bigot isn't really acceptance of anything.

      "Example: WHAT did he say that is insane?"

      What was specified in the article? You commented on it, but you don't know what he said?

      "He says a lot of stuff, you just randomly throw a "what he says is insane" bomb out there without any connections?"

      Note that you changed my word from "said" to "says". My quote dealt with the specifics of Eddie's article, which you should know because you brought said article into this. Your change makes what I said more general.

      "When did that happen?"

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362297208463#c8036793674261821901

      Is that the only one you didn't remember? That's odd, because you said it looked like a "list" of things I supposedly made up. I take it you don't want to challenge me on the other examples?

      Delete
    10. "Saying that you're going to be called a bigot isn't really acceptance of anything." ... Yes, I know.


      "http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362297208463#c8036793674261821901" ... God, you're floundering. Bring a real quote where I said something about your Mother. Obviously, I'm referring to YOUR dementia. And .. WOW .. does it fit!

      Delete
    11. "... Yes, I know."

      Then it's not in contrast to "denial".

      "Obviously, I'm referring to YOUR dementia."

      What does "relative" have to do with that, then? If that was your intent, you could have simply said to look up the word. Let's look at what I said shortly before your quote:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362279735103#c7932779834513887920 "My father's will was never found, because my mother was coming down with Alzheimer's when he died." Now, if you really threw "dementia" in that soon after that comment (and not before, oddly enough) without realizing that it would be taken as a reference to my mother, then you are a complete idiot. If that wasn't your intent, you can't possibly blame me for believing it was. Your claim does not come close to qualifying as "obviously".

      So, no other examples from that "list" of what I supposedly made up? Not much of a "list", after all. You don't want to pursue your point about Karzai, or anything else you seemingly forgot to address in this very short post of yours?

      Delete
    12. "What was specified in the article? " ... I don't know. Do you?

      Delete
    13. Is this you?:"I mean, can he really be thinking that the US would collude with the taliban. We would never do anything like that ... ;|"

      If so, you would seem to know what the article was about. Otherwise, what's your point?

      Delete
    14. Do you see the grinning wink at the end of that statement? What do you think that means?

      Delete
    15. The wink is supposed to mean that you didn't know what the Karzai reference was about? That you had a psychic moment when you used the phrase "the US would collude with the taliban"?

      I'm looking forward to your explanation as to what the wink has to do with you supposedly not knowing what the article was about.

      Delete
    16. Considering you are supposed to be military, you should know. I don't believe you, so of course you don't know about the US/taliban connection during the Soviet/Afghan war.

      Don't worry, I know what the article was about. Are you having trouble focusing on your different questions that you keep changing around because you aren't capable of simple reading comprehension?

      Delete
    17. "I don't believe you, so of course you don't know about the US/taliban connection during the Soviet/Afghan war."

      What does this have to do with what I asked you?

      "Don't worry, I know what the article was about."

      So why did you say you didn't?

      Delete
    18. "So why did you say you didn't?" ... Where did I say I "don't know what the article is about"?

      "What does this have to do with what I asked you?" .. I didn't expect you to understand. Trying to explain would be fruitless, you would simply act(?) dumb anyway.

      Delete
  9. "... Where did I say I "don't know what the article is about"?"

    March 26:"... I don't know."

    Note also that I asked what your point was, in case you weren't saying you didn't know what the article was about, and you gave a cryptic answer. So, again, what's your point?

    ".. I didn't expect you to understand. Trying to explain would be fruitless, you would simply act(?) dumb anyway."

    In other words, you're just being a jackass and playing games. I figured as much, but feel free to explain what the hell you think you're talking about if you're capable of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "March 26:"... I don't know." " ... Hey doofus. I didn't say I didn't know what the article was about. Hey doofus, I said I didn't know what was "specified in the article". If you ask me if I know what the article "was about" then I'll give you a different answer. But, since you asked what was "specified in the article" then I must stick with the answer I gave.

      "In other words, you're just being a jackass and playing games." ... I'd rather be a jackass than a lying, bigoted, hypocritical doofus. At least I can (and do) defend my statements, you cannot (and do not). Hell yeah I'm playing games with you. There is nothing more fun than playing games with democrats who don't read and can't quote correctly and can't follow simple context within statements. Also, when you can't bring evidence to support your ideological priorities it is simply amusing watching you play dodge-the-facts in your replies. Is there anything else to do when the other person simply cannot discuss honestly?

      Delete
    2. "But, since you asked what was "specified in the article" then I must stick with the answer I gave."

      Semantics is a great way to admit defeat, isn't it?

      "At least I can (and do) defend my statements, you cannot (and do not)."

      You do? Like the way you claim I'm stealing from the government, and have supposedly changed my profession in the last year? Or that I live in New York?

      "There is nothing more fun than playing games with democrats who don't read and can't quote correctly and can't follow simple context within statements."

      You just posted half of a question of mine on another thread, ignoring the purpose of that question. As always, your criticisms apply to you, while you have never brought any evidence of the same against me.

      "Also, when you can't bring evidence to support your ideological priorities it is simply amusing watching you play dodge-the-facts in your replies."

      Facts? What facts are you referring to, specifically? This should be amusing.

      Delete
    3. "Semantics is a great way to admit defeat, isn't it?" ... You tell me, you're the one who uses that excuse.

      "Facts? What facts are you referring to, specifically?" ... Hey, good job. You just dodged another one. Using semantics AGAIN as your excuse?

      Delete
    4. " ... You tell me, you're the one who uses that excuse."

      No, that's what you said when I specified a difference between aggressiveness and homicidal abandon. Did you forget?

      "... Hey, good job. You just dodged another one. Using semantics AGAIN as your excuse?"

      How is asking you to explain yourself "dodging"? It's inviting the discussion, the very opposite of a dodge. On the other hand, when asked what facts you were talking about, you didn't answer the question. That would be a "dodge". Thank you for cementing this quote of mine as accurate:"As always, your criticisms apply to you, while you have never brought any evidence of the same against me."

      Delete
    5. "Did you forget?" ... I must have, since you often claim to have said something after never having said it.

      Delete
    6. "... I must have, since you often claim to have said something after never having said it."

      First off, you have no examples of that. Secondly, we're talking about something you said, not me. And third, in case that was supposed to be a denial that you said it:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/republicans-are-scum.html?showComment=1361157562610#c2122612625995954695

      Delete
    7. "No, that's what you said when I specified a difference between aggressiveness and homicidal abandon. Did you forget?" ... Again, you've NEVER discussed the "difference" between those issues.

      Delete
    8. "... Again, you've NEVER discussed the "difference" between those issues."

      Because you can be aggressive and not kill anyone. Why would that ever need to be discussed? And was this actually a point of contention ("Again") at the time, or did you just make the "semantics" comment when I stated there was a difference?

      I've checked the thread, so maybe you should do the same before you respond.

      Delete
    9. "I've checked the thread, so maybe you should do the same before you respond." ... You can check the thread all day long. You still won't find what you claim you will find. If you could, you would bring it. But, you don't bring it, so you can't find it. You can't find it because it isn't there.

      I hope you get some help before you hurt people. If there was a way to call the police on you now, it would be done. But, you'll stay a danger to society because of the anonymity of the internet. Please get help.

      Now, I'm off to another topic. When you get more intelligence I'll let you discuss with me more. Until then you haven't the intellectual ability to discuss with me further.

      Delete
    10. "You still won't find what you claim you will find."

      I notice you didn't answer the questions. I'll take that as an admission that the difference doesn't need any elaboration, which is evidenced by your failure to ask for it.

      "Until then you haven't the intellectual ability to discuss with me further."

      Which is why you're running away. Of course.

      Delete
    11. "I notice you didn't answer the questions." ... Little boy (or girl) you didn't ask any questions for me to answer.

      "Which is why you're running away. Of course." ... See how far I ran? You still refusing to answer the tough questions?

      Here's a question for your intellectual level: If I have 2 RED apples and you have 3 GREEN apples how many ORANGES are in the fridge?

      Now, go chase that laser beam

      Delete
    12. "... Little boy (or girl) you didn't ask any questions for me to answer."

      Here's what I posted:"Why would that ever need to be discussed? And was this actually a point of contention ("Again") at the time, or did you just make the "semantics" comment when I stated there was a difference?" Note the little marks at the end of those sentences? The name of them might be a clue for you.

      "... See how far I ran?"

      See what you said?:"Now, I'm off to another topic." Why do you say you're leaving, and then don't? That would seem to qualify as a "lie". Also, what questions are you specifying on this thread? I don't see any question marks of your own in your last three posts here.

      Delete
    13. "Why do you say you're leaving, and then don't? " ... Toying with you (again). You're so easy, little-one.

      "I don't see any question marks of your own in your last three posts here." ... Do you know what a "question mark" is? You don't know what an apostrophe is, how could you know what a question mark is. Especially considering the way you ignore the questions I ask of you.

      Delete
    14. "... Do you know what a "question mark" is? You don't know what an apostrophe is, how could you know what a question mark is. Especially considering the way you ignore the questions I ask of you."

      Funny how that didn't answer the question. Since you can't specify what questions you're trying to get answered on this thread, I have to conclude you don't have any.

      Guess you're done, then.

      Delete
    15. "Guess you're done, then." ... Yeah, probably. When people are too stupid to respond with honesty, then why bother with them.

      Delete
    16. Any examples?

      No, of course not.

      Delete
    17. Examples of your dishonest stupidity? Here's one:
      I said: "... Yes, just like Jesus would do."

      and you responded by asking: "Now you really think you're Jesus?"

      Are you really so dishonestly stupid that you think I'm claiming to be Jesus? Do you need more examples or will the one quicky be good enough for you?

      Delete
    18. "Are you really so dishonestly stupid that you think I'm claiming to be Jesus?"

      I was asking you for clarification. You claimed to perform some sort of miracle, so it warranted a question as to what the hell you were talking about.

      Incidentally, what is "dishonestly stupid"? Those are two separate concepts, distinguishing between not understanding and not telling what's actually understood.

      I also notice that the quote you provided isn't on this thread, so it doesn't explain why you can't answer the questions asked of you on this thread. That would also qualify as changing the subject.

      You really aren't very good at this.

      Delete
    19. "You claimed to perform some sort of miracle, so it warranted a question as to what the hell you were talking about." ... which miracle was that?

      "Those are two separate concepts, distinguishing between not understanding and not telling what's actually understood." ... Yes, that would be you. Any chance of you actually answering a direct question? Perhaps one of those you've been ignoring for the longest time?

      "You really aren't very good at this." ... What? Changing the subject? I guess I have to give credit where credit is due: you are the champion at changing the subject. If there is one thing that you are better than me at that would be changing the subject as you get asked the tough questions.

      Delete
    20. "... which miracle was that?"

      Making your vile comments some sort of reflection on me.

      "... Yes, that would be you."

      So, you answer "tea or coffee" with "yes"?

      "Any chance of you actually answering a direct question?"

      I've addressed everything you've said. If your questions are bullshit, then I'll call them out as exactly that. Don't like it? Do better.

      Delete
    21. "Making your vile comments some sort of reflection on me." ... That's a "miracle"? You are a shining example of true atheism.

      "So, you answer "tea or coffee" with "yes"?" Tea? Coffee? When were those mentioned. I thought I saw you using "separate concepts" and "not understanding". Which can both have the same answer.

      "If your questions are bullshit," ... You mean like when I asked you to provide proof that anyone will scam the system? Or when I asked how much it will cost? Or when I asked why human nature applies to polygamy and not gay marriage? Are those the questions you are having trouble understanding?

      Delete
  10. "... That's a "miracle"? You are a shining example of true atheism."

    Wait, what? I said it was a "trick", you then compared it to the actions of Jesus Christ. Do you think what Jesus did were "tricks"? Like a birthday-party magician, or something? You don't call the miracles of Jesus "miracles, now?

    "I thought I saw you using "separate concepts" and "not understanding". Which can both have the same answer."

    You'll have to rephrase that, since it makes no sense at all. It's an either/or scenario. Either someone doesn't understand, or they misrepresent themselves when they do. It's not that complicated.

    "...You mean like when I asked you to provide proof that anyone will scam the system? Or when I asked how much it will cost?"

    You have yet to explain how anything in a hypothetical can bear "proof" (while you won't explain why we have laws, and you think everyone is so pure of heart), and you're the one who brought up the hypothetical of legalizing polygamy. As to cost, you said yourself it can't be quantified. So, two strikes right there.

    "Or when I asked why human nature applies to polygamy and not gay marriage?"

    I never said human nature didn't apply to everyone, and this has been stated multiple times. Strike three.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What dictionary (anywhere in the world) has "miracle" listed as part of a definition of "trick"?

      "Either someone doesn't understand, or they misrepresent themselves when they do. It's not that complicated." ... Adding words to your statement? I don't remember seeing "when they do" in your first idiotic claim. Now that you got busted on that stupid statement you are changing the wording around? Good for you. You keep my faith in atheists who lie intact.

      "and you're the one who brought up the hypothetical of legalizing polygamy." ... I did not. Bring the proof of ME bringing up the hypothetical on legalized polygamy. That makes the 3rd time you've brought this lie. Do atheists always lie like that?

      "I never said human nature didn't apply to everyone, " ... How can you continue to use "human nature" as the reason that polygamists will scam the system, but deny that "human nature" will cause gays to scam the system? You even deny that YOU scam the system, when YOU say "human nature" WILL cause that.

      Delete
    2. "What dictionary (anywhere in the world) has "miracle" listed as part of a definition of "trick"?"

      Probably none. So why did Jesus come to your mind when I used the word "trick"?

      "... Adding words to your statement? I don't remember seeing "when they do" in your first idiotic claim."

      I said "what's actually understood". If you'd like to explain the semantic difference there, I'd love to hear it.

      "... I did not. Bring the proof of ME bringing up the hypothetical on legalized polygamy."

      This has been done. You brought it up on the "human sexuality" thread. When pressed as to how you could be talking about anything other then legalizing polygamy, you tried to shift it to the costs involved. Remember this quote of yours:"... Oh, that? It absolutely insinuates polygamy."

      "... How can you continue to use "human nature" as the reason that polygamists will scam the system, but deny that "human nature" will cause gays to scam the system?"

      I don't deny that, any more than I deny straight people will scam the system. The point is that polygamy would create a loophole for people to exploit, a loophole that doesn't exist in any "two consenting adult" marriage.

      "You even deny that YOU scam the system, when YOU say "human nature" WILL cause that."

      You do realize you haven't even explained how I could be scamming the system, right? Your argument would just as easily apply to someone checking out a library book. Even if that person was utterly despicable, you can't explain how human nature is supposed to be relevant to that specific act.

      Delete
    3. "Probably none." ... Exactly. Proving you lie like a rug every chance you get. Nice morals you follow there.

      "I said "what's actually understood"." ... I know that's what you said. That's what I replied to. Then you changed the wording so you could whine some more. Why would I need to explain your whine after I've answered your initial question?

      "This has been done." ... There was no "hypothetical" brought into that discussion by me. I talked about the perversion, but brought no "hypotheticals". Is that your 3rd grade reading comprehension at work?

      "The point is that polygamy would create a loophole for people to exploit," ... no it won't and you haven't been able to show how it could.

      " Even if that person was utterly despicable, you can't explain how human nature is supposed to be relevant to that specific act." ... Exactly, that's what I've been saying. However, YOU still claim polygamists will scam based solely on "human nature". Now you say I "can't explain how human nature is relevant". That sure is a 180 degree turn from your earlier claim that said human nature will in fact cause the polygamist to scam the system.
      I didn't think you'd be able to explain human nature. Perhaps you should leave things out of the conversation that you know nothing about.

      Delete
    4. "... Exactly. Proving you lie like a rug every chance you get."

      Where did I say that miracles and tricks were synonymous?

      "... I know that's what you said. That's what I replied to. Then you changed the wording so you could whine some more."

      The change of wording didn't make any difference. You're the one who complained about the rephrasing. I simply asked what the hell your previous response was supposed to mean, and restated my point. How is it that I'm the one supposedly whining in this picture, exactly?

      "... There was no "hypothetical" brought into that discussion by me."

      So, polygamy is currently legal, then?

      "... no it won't and you haven't been able to show how it could."

      Government benefits to spouses. You've only claimed that it would be minimal (wishful thinking), but you have never explained what could possibly make you believe that.

      "... Exactly, that's what I've been saying."

      Really? Then your accusations against me make no sense at all.

      "However, YOU still claim polygamists will scam based solely on "human nature"."

      No, I say people will become polygamists when they start scamming the government. It has nothing to do with genuinely polyamorous people.

      "Now you say I "can't explain how human nature is relevant"."

      How did you take words out of that phrase? It's regarding specific people and specific acts. It's not in application to large groups of people. Do you really not understand the difference?

      Delete
    5. "Where did I say that miracles and tricks were synonymous?" ... That's the best response you have to a lie that you brought and are now trying to defend?

      "Really? Then your accusations against me make no sense at all." ... That because you are stupid and you are as thunk as we drink you are. Sober up then read it over, and over. Eventually your minuscule mind will understand what is being said.

      "No, I say people will become polygamists when they start scamming the government." ... Is that an admission that gays will turn to polygamy in order to scam the government? That is what you are saying isn't it? That people will turn to polygamy in order to scam the government?
      Also, all you've been doing is pointing out that the entire group of polygamists (your hypothetical) will attempt to scam the government if polygamy is legalized. So, you are contradicting your own statement that you admonishing me with.

      Delete
    6. "... That's the best response you have to a lie that you brought and are now trying to defend?"

      That's your best response to the question? Where did I say that miracles and tricks were synonymous? It's your assertion, back it up.

      "... That because you are stupid and you are as thunk as we drink you are."

      Actually, it's because you're stupid. You made an absurd accusation, I point out why, and then you say it's what you've been saying. Again, if you can't explain what human nature has to do with using a computer provided for personal use, then your accusations made no sense. You can't defend yourself, so you launch into an ad hominem attack.

      "... Is that an admission that gays will turn to polygamy in order to scam the government?"

      I'm sure some will. So?

      "That is what you are saying isn't it? That people will turn to polygamy in order to scam the government?"

      Yes, it is. I've made the point several times, I'm proud of you for finally grasping it.

      "Also, all you've been doing is pointing out that the entire group of polygamists (your hypothetical) will attempt to scam the government if polygamy is legalized."

      No, I never said that, nor did I suggest it. Prove otherwise.

      I notice you didn't respond to the point about polygamy being hypothetical in nature. Why didn't you?

      Delete
    7. "using a computer provided for personal use," ... You keep mentioning computer use in your denials of committing crimes. Are you feeling guilty for something that you're not telling us? Because any half-way smart person will know that "human nature" controls more than just computer usage.

      "I'm sure some will. So?" ... Will those be new cases or ones that would have happened anyhow? (like you claim in comparison to straight marriages?)

      "Yes, it is. " ... Wow, simply wow. You really think that? But you deny that gays will scam the system through legalized gay marriage. Wow, simply wow.

      "Why didn't you?" ... Because that's a strawman argument. Do you always (ever) respond to strawman arguments?

      Delete
    8. "... You keep mentioning computer use in your denials of committing crimes."

      Your accusation was that using a government computer for personal use was "illegal". Hence the mention of computer use.

      "Because any half-way smart person will know that "human nature" controls more than just computer usage."

      Have you made other accusations I haven't addressed? Would you like to throw a dart at possible violations, so you have something to bring up?

      "... Will those be new cases or ones that would have happened anyhow?"

      Considering you're talking about polygamy? No, there's no way they would have happened anyhow, since polygamy is illegal. Did you forget where you were?

      "... Wow, simply wow. You really think that? But you deny that gays will scam the system through legalized gay marriage."

      You haven't explained any "scam" that doesn't already exist for straight marriage, so your distinction makes no sense.

      "... Because that's a strawman argument."

      How's that? You said you didn't introduce a hypothetical scenario. I pointed out that polygamy is hypothetical by its very nature. It addresses your denial specifically and directly. Would you like to explain how you believe otherwise, or are you just throwing out a term without having any comprehension of it?

      Delete
    9. "Would you like to throw a dart at possible violations, so you have something to bring up?" ... Are you denying that you break the law? Do I need to stand over your shoulder to prove you break the law? Here's your chance to finalize this line of conversation: Do you break any law or not?

      "You haven't explained any "scam" that doesn't already exist for straight marriage, so your distinction makes no sense." ... Of course they exist already for straight marriage. Now, you are demanding that gays be allowed the same ability to scam. How are the scams different for gays than for straights? Since any gay marriage would be a NEW instance of marriage, not one that would have happened. No gay will marry a straight person just to get benefits that they want for their gay partner. So ALL the new gay marriages would provide NEW court cases as they fail at the same rate of straight marriages. And, at those rates, that would mean MILLIONS of new cases clogging the court system. And NONE from polygamy. Yet, you fear polygamy marriage rights and demand gay marriage rights.

      " I pointed out that polygamy is hypothetical by its very nature." ... No, you said it is hypothetical. That doesn't mean it is. Human nature is hypothetical in nature, but you use it in almost every comment you have about what people will do if allowed.

      Delete
    10. "... Are you denying that you break the law?"

      I've never violated UCMJ, which is what you accused me of doing. I shoplifted from a used bookstore when I was a kid, but your claim wasn't that general, now was it? Your claim was that I must be guilty of stealing from the government because I used the phrase "human nature", and since you can't justify that claim you want to branch out to something else.

      "... Of course they exist already for straight marriage."

      Then there's no reason for anyone to enter a gay marriage in order to accomplish any personal gain.

      "Now, you are demanding that gays be allowed the same ability to scam."

      Which they would be able to do if they "chose" to be straight and enter a straight marriage.

      "Since any gay marriage would be a NEW instance of marriage, not one that would have happened."

      Again, you're setting up an arbitrary line. You have no problem with everyone entering a straight marriage, yet the equal costs of having some people in gay marriages is a problem for you. Why?

      "... No, you said it is hypothetical."

      Is there a third option, outside of hypothetical vs. reality? Polygamy is currently illegal, so discussing what would happen if that changed is hypothetical. If you have anything at all to dispute that, please let me know.

      "Human nature is hypothetical in nature, but you use it in almost every comment you have about what people will do if allowed."

      Are you denying that there is such a thing, or what? It sounds like you're stomping your feet because your argument is so easily shown to be naive and outrageously optimistic.

      Delete
    11. "I've never violated UCMJ," ... Yeah, like anyone is going to believe that one.

      "Then there's no reason for anyone to enter a gay marriage in order to accomplish any personal gain." ... Yes there is. They can scam the government just as easily as anyone else. You've said so yourself (human nature)

      "Which they would be able to do if they "chose" to be straight and enter a straight marriage." ... You mean that's what they WILL do WHEN they CHOOSE to enter a gay marriage. According to your "human nature" comments, they will absolutely scam the government. At the same rate that straight people do. With millions of potential gay marriages, that equates to millions of potential court cases.

      "You have no problem with everyone entering a straight marriage, yet the equal costs of having some people in gay marriages is a problem for you. Why?" ... The cost has NEVER been my concern. It has been YOURS. My concern is with sexual perversions. All of them.

      "Are you denying that there is such a thing, or what?" ... Hell no. But, you are. You deny that human nature will cause gay marriages to clog the court system by the millions. While according to your human nature standard it will be as costly as straight marriages. Yet, you fear ONLY polygamy and not gay or straight marriages. Why the double standard?

      Delete
    12. "... Yeah, like anyone is going to believe that one."

      There's no reason not to believe it. Or would you like to launch into some generalizations in order to "support" your point?

      "... Yes there is. They can scam the government just as easily as anyone else."

      Non sequitur. Here's what you said:"But you deny that gays will scam the system through legalized gay marriage." The point is that there's no distinction between gay and straight marriage in that regard. There's no need for anyone to enter a gay marriage with the purpose of scamming the government.

      "... You mean that's what they WILL do WHEN they CHOOSE to enter a gay marriage. According to your "human nature" comments, they will absolutely scam the government."

      Which would be no different than if everyone was in a straight marriage, so there's no basis for a complaint.

      "... The cost has NEVER been my concern. It has been YOURS."

      Then don't presume to tell me what costs I think are acceptable and which ones aren't. The normal costs of marriage and amount of fraud that exists come along with what is a worthwhile legal concept. I've made that position quite clear, so your concerns on my behalf are no longer required.

      "... Hell no."

      Then why say that it's "hypothetical" when contrasting it to polygamy?

      "You deny that human nature will cause gay marriages to clog the court system by the millions."

      Because people will get divorced? I'd love to see you cite my denial of that.

      "While according to your human nature standard it will be as costly as straight marriages. Yet, you fear ONLY polygamy and not gay or straight marriages. Why the double standard?"

      Because marriage has a valid legal purpose. Polygamy does not. It's not a double standard when you're comparing two completely separate concepts of wildly disparate value.

      Delete
    13. "There's no reason not to believe it." ... Human nature doesn't come into play in your life?

      "There's no need for anyone to enter a gay marriage with the purpose of scamming the government." ... And there's no need to enter into a polygamist marriage with the purpose of scamming the government, yet that is what YOU FEAR most.

      "Then don't presume to tell me what costs I think are acceptable and which ones aren't." ... Well, someone has to. You refuse to defend your own statements.

      "Because people will get divorced?" ... Did I say divorce?

      "Because marriage has a valid legal purpose." ... Yet you fear marriage of polygamists. In spite of the "valid legal purpose". If you fear separate concepts, then why do you support gay marriage? It is a completely separate concept than 1 man/ 1 woman. Which is the tradition and law of the land.

      Delete
  11. "... Human nature doesn't come into play in your life?"

    Me:"Why does being affected by human nature specify breaking certain laws, in your mind?"
    You:"... It doesn't."

    "... And there's no need to enter into a polygamist marriage with the purpose of scamming the government, yet that is what YOU FEAR most."

    Sure there is. There's no need compared to entering a straight marriage. Polygamy is different, because I could give any number of women benefits. Free money, with no limitation.

    "... Well, someone has to. You refuse to defend your own statements."'

    I've defended everything I've said, multiple times since you have no memory whatsoever.

    "... Did I say divorce?"

    Did you notice that I asked you a question? If you don't mean divorce, then you could answer the question in order to make yourself clear.

    "... Yet you fear marriage of polygamists. In spite of the "valid legal purpose"."

    Polygamy changes the framework, opens up the system to massive fraud, and is completely unnecessary. Would you care to explain what "valid" purpose there is for polygamy? You act as if it's simply about approval or something. As if it's intended to make people feel better about themselves because the government said it's fine. It's a legal matter. Polyamorists can have one legal marriage, then keep other partners around if they like. That covers any legal concerns. Otherwise, what the hell is necessary, as far as anyone is concerned?

    "If you fear separate concepts, then why do you support gay marriage?"

    I don't "fear" polygamy, for starters. I don't approve of it. And it has nothing to do with it being "separate" by itself, so you can't use "separate" as some catch-all group that I oppose. I support gay marriage because I support straight marriage, and there's no tangible difference as far as anyone can demonstrate.

    "It is a completely separate concept than 1 man/ 1 woman. Which is the tradition and law of the land."

    I don't give a damn about "tradition". Slavery was tradition, and it was legal. The law makes no sense, because legally it isn't a separate concept from straight marriage. Gender has no more bearing on the matter than race. And, to predict your knee-jerk response, you can't show how "choice" makes a difference, even if anyone with an IQ of 50 could actually believe it's a "choice".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Polygamy changes the framework, opens up the system to massive fraud, and is completely unnecessary. " ... What does framework have to do with it? I've already shown that gay marriage changes the framework too, yet you are a major proponent of that. And, now that you've stated it again: HOW MASSIVE? If you can't bring potential reality to your hypothetical you have nothing but bigoted fear of a sexual perversion.
      One thing I must point out, my wife's first husband has been married 3 times. Each of the ex-wives are eligible to claim parts of his retirement/benefits (and 2 of them are currently doing just that). That's 3 potential additional cases of being able to sue and get "free money" (as you call it). How is that different than polygamy (in relation to your fear of scamming)?

      "I don't "fear" polygamy, for starters." ... Obviously, you do. I've been saying that since the beginning and this is the first time you've said anything about it.

      "I don't give a damn about "tradition"." ... You did not too long ago as you used it as an excuse to support gay marriage while opposing polygamy. What "tradition" was slavery? You are a racist bigot, ain't you?

      "Gender has no more bearing on the matter than race." ... It does when it comes to the LAW: 1 MAN / 1 WOMAN. No matter how much you scream and stomp your feet, you can't change that.

      "you can't show how "choice" makes a difference, even if anyone with an IQ of 50 could actually believe it's a "choice"." ... I'm not interested in what you "actually believe". The facts are that it is a choice and there is nothing to show otherwise.

      " I support gay marriage because I support straight marriage, and there's no tangible difference as far as anyone can demonstrate." ... Except the immense cost of each of those. Yet, you fear polygamy BECAUSE of the POTENTIAL minor cost to someone, somewhere, but you can't demonstrate who or where.

      Delete
    2. "... What does framework have to do with it?"

      Because that involves the way the law works, the effects that it has on the population.

      "I've already shown that gay marriage changes the framework too, yet you are a major proponent of that."

      No, you haven't. You insist that the framework is "1 man/1 woman", yet you can't explain what significant differences there are between gay and straight marriage. Legal differences. That's what would show a change in "framework". And you can't do it.

      "And, now that you've stated it again: HOW MASSIVE? If you can't bring potential reality to your hypothetical you have nothing but bigoted fear of a sexual perversion."

      Well, since you said yourself it can't be quantified, it's pretty hard for you to claim the lack of quantification makes me a bigot. I should say, hard for someone with a brain to claim that, anyway. You do whatever you want, regardless of logic or any form of sense whatsoever.

      "One thing I must point out, my wife's first husband has been married 3 times. Each of the ex-wives are eligible to claim parts of his retirement/benefits (and 2 of them are currently doing just that)."

      They claim "parts" of his retirement/benefits? So does that amount of money increase based on how many ex-wives he has, or are these percentages that change based on the number of ex-wives?

      "... Obviously, you do. I've been saying that since the beginning and this is the first time you've said anything about it."

      I've ignored your stupidity in that regard. It doesn't change the fact that you can't demonstrate anything resembling "fear" as opposed to simple disapproval.

      "... You did not too long ago as you used it as an excuse to support gay marriage while opposing polygamy."

      Lie. I never used "tradition" to support gay marriage.

      "What "tradition" was slavery? You are a racist bigot, ain't you?"

      Since I'm pointing out that tradition isn't always a good thing (slavery), my comment would indicate the opposite of racism. Do you think "racism" means "any mention of race"? That's a serious question, because your usage makes no sense at all.

      "... It does when it comes to the LAW: 1 MAN / 1 WOMAN."

      No, because the LAW was also two people of the same race at one point. It's arbitrary, because there's no reason to prevent people of two different races from getting married. The same way there's no reason, given the way the laws work, to prevent gay people from marrying each other.

      "... I'm not interested in what you "actually believe". The facts are that it is a choice and there is nothing to show otherwise."

      You fail to address the point. Can you explain how "choice" could possibly make a difference, as far as legal concerns go? Meanwhile, your psychotic opinion is not "fact".

      "... Except the immense cost of each of those."

      How would that be a "difference" between them, idiot? You're claiming something they have in common while saying "except" as if you're pointing out a difference.

      "Yet, you fear polygamy BECAUSE of the POTENTIAL minor cost to someone, somewhere, but you can't demonstrate who or where."

      Baseless assertion. You've never explained your reasoning for your minimalist claims. I've also explained, multiple times, that anyone who gets spousal benefits would get those benefits for any number of spouses. That's a multiplication of money. Do you want names and addresses of people who might do this, or what? "Who or where" is just plain stupid, unless you'd like to clarify it into something sensible.

      Delete
    3. "No, you haven't. You insist that the framework is "1 man/1 woman", yet you can't explain what significant differences there are between gay and straight marriage. Legal differences. That's what would show a change in "framework". And you can't do it." ... What are you asking me to do? Am I to justify a framework, tradition and law that has been in place since the beginning in order to show how your desired change is better or not? Isn't it on YOU to show how your desired change of the framework, tradition and law is better?

      "They claim "parts" of his retirement/benefits? So does that amount of money increase based on how many ex-wives he has, or are these percentages that change based on the number of ex-wives?" ... I'm not privy to the specifics, but the point is they are each getting money. Which is your fear of polygamy ... that many will get benefits instead of ONE. And, it is already happening in a marriage institution that you say you support.

      "Since I'm pointing out that tradition isn't always a good thing (slavery), my comment would indicate the opposite of racism. Do you think "racism" means "any mention of race"?" ... There is no "tradition" of slavery. To equate that is to show your utter ignorance of how white people treated black people throughout history.

      Delete
    4. "... What are you asking me to do?"

      It's right there in what you quoted:"yet you can't explain what significant differences there are between gay and straight marriage. Legal differences. That's what would show a change in "framework"."

      "... I'm not privy to the specifics, but the point is they are each getting money."

      They're each getting a portion of a set amount of money. That's not the same as every wife someone has getting over a thousand dollars of their own each month. His amount of money is already limited, so there's no benefit to having ex-wives. He could just as easily give the money that he would have received anyway to whoever he wanted. Nothing is being added or authorized there.

      "... There is no "tradition" of slavery."

      Not now. The word "was" is important.

      "To equate that is to show your utter ignorance of how white people treated black people throughout history."

      Would you care to elaborate on that?

      Delete
    5. "They're each getting a portion of a set amount of money." ... I'm not sure, but I can safely say YOU don't have a clue what is happening in that situation either. Don't try to act like you're smart all of a sudden. Your scenario doesn't even make sense. You just make shit up, constantly, don't you?

      "Not now. The word "was" is important." ... You racist bigot. There never WAS a tradition of slavery either. You just can't let go of your racism, can you?

      "Would you care to elaborate on that?" ... Why? You want to change the subject again? Are the actual questions getting too tough for you, AGAIN?


      My genius simply outshines your stupidity. It is obvious in each thread we discuss that you don't know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    6. "... I'm not sure, but I can safely say YOU don't have a clue what is happening in that situation either."

      Why the hell are you bringing up a situation you don't know the first damn thing about, then? How did you think that was supposed to help your case? I'm pretty sure that people's pensions don't get increased simply because they've been divorced, but if you want to make that case you really should make some effort to do so instead of acting like it might be a good argument for you. Seriously, wow.

      "Your scenario doesn't even make sense."

      Why not? Be specific.

      "... You racist bigot. There never WAS a tradition of slavery either."

      There wasn't? What do you call it when it's continued from generation to generation? Besides:"To equate that is to show your utter ignorance of how white people treated black people throughout history." That sounds like the treatment is negative. "Throughout history" sounds a bit like tradition. Does that make you racist? If not, why not?

      "... Why? You want to change the subject again? Are the actual questions getting too tough for you, AGAIN?"

      No, I'm genuinely curious what the hell you think you're talking about. If you don't want to be accountable for what you say, then maybe you shouldn't say such things.

      "My genius simply outshines your stupidity."

      Yes, geniuses believe that it's against the law to covet. That's sarcasm, in case you're not bright enough to grasp it.

      Delete
    7. "Why the hell are you bringing up a situation you don't know the first damn thing about, then?" ... To show that your fear from polygamy is unfounded and irrational because it happens in straight marriages also.

      "What do you call it when it's continued from generation to generation?" ... To them, it was a business. That is what they handed down from generation to generation.

      Delete
    8. "... To show that your fear from polygamy is unfounded and irrational because it happens in straight marriages also."

      You should have brought a better example, then. Someone's pension getting cut up into smaller pieces is irrelevant.

      "... To them, it was a business. That is what they handed down from generation to generation."

      Why are the concepts of monetary gain and tradition mutually exclusive? Sounds like semantics, anyway.

      Delete
    9. "You should have brought a better example, then. Someone's pension getting cut up into smaller pieces is irrelevant." ... Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You should have brought a better whine than that to oppose polygamy. If all they're going to do is split up what is already theirs to begin with how will that effect national taxpayers? Since you haven't (can't?) bring any real-world examples of your fear, then you have simply a fear of that lifestyle that gives you the rational to oppose those marriage rights.

      Delete
    10. "... Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You should have brought a better whine than that to oppose polygamy. If all they're going to do is split up what is already theirs to begin with how will that effect national taxpayers?"

      What orifice are you pulling this out of, now? I never said anything was being split up. How would that work? Someone's going to have eight wives, and getting paid as if he has one? That's clear discrimination. BAS at the very least would have to be multiplied proportionately. BAH would be if the spouses didn't live in the same house.

      Feel free to explain what you think is supposed to happen there. I'd love to see you solve that problem without paying out more money per spouse.

      "Since you haven't (can't?) bring any real-world examples of your fear, then you have simply a fear of that lifestyle that gives you the rational to oppose those marriage rights."

      It's a hypothetical situation, moron. There are no "real-world examples" of how it would play out. Don't like it? Then you shouldn't have changed the subject to polygamy. I would say "live and learn", but that doesn't seem to be your style.

      Delete
    11. "It's a hypothetical situation, moron. There are no "real-world examples" of how it would play out." ... Gay marriage is a hypothetical situation too. Yet you feel there are real world examples for that? But, there are none, since gay marriage changes the framework and tradition and law of normal marriages. Then you fully support that sexual perversion. There must be some reason for your irrational FEARS that you express at this site concerning sexual perversions and their marriage rights.

      Delete
    12. "... Gay marriage is a hypothetical situation too. Yet you feel there are real world examples for that?"

      You mean nationalized, presumably. And again, feel free to explain what the monetary and legal differences is between gay marriage and straight marriage. If there is none, then you can use straight marriage as a reference.

      "But, there are none, since gay marriage changes the framework and tradition and law of normal marriages."

      Again, your mindless repetition of your assertions don't give them any validity. The framework is not affected by gender identification. You can't counter that.

      "There must be some reason for your irrational FEARS that you express at this site concerning sexual perversions and their marriage rights."

      That's really pretty funny, grouping "sexual perversions" together immediately after saying I support gay marriage ("that sexual perversion"). By the way, why aren't your opposing positions to gay marriage and polygamy based on "FEARS"? I'm deeply curious what makes concerns about the nature of the law "FEAR" but your religious opposition something else.

      I'd also love to see you explain how it's possible to oppose anything based off of concerns you don't share, without it being labeled as a "FEAR". I'll bet you can't do it.

      Delete
    13. I notice that you abandoned your argument regarding the "split up" pension. I'll take that as an admission that you have no point to make, after all your blustering.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    14. "And again, feel free to explain what the monetary and legal differences is between gay marriage and straight marriage." ... I've explained already that the "LEGAL" difference is 1 man/ 1 woman. THAT is the legal stance in the Nation of America. Monetary costs would be an additional hypothetical 6 million court cases clogging the system in that Nation of America costing an unimaginable amount of taxpayer money.
      There you go, fully explained and ready for your denial.

      "Again, your mindless repetition of your assertions don't give them any validity." ... My assertions have LAWS to back them up. Just because you don't LIKE the law doesn't mean it isn't real.

      "By the way," ... And, on to yet another topic change. I ask the tough question, you change the subject. Funny how that works.

      "I notice that you abandoned your argument regarding the "split up" pension." ... I've stated my stance on that only 2 posts ago. That means it is YOU who is abandoning your argument and have offered an admission they you have no point to make. Funny how that works.

      "I'd also love to see you explain how it's possible to oppose anything based off of concerns you don't share, without it being labeled as a "FEAR". I'll bet you can't do it." ... You lose, then. I've explained time and time again that my rational for opposing gay or polygamous marriage rights is based on MORALS. Obviously you can't understand that and that is why you quit posting on the human sexuality article. It works like this: I don't FEAR murder, but I think it is immoral. Funny how that works.

      Delete
    15. "... I've explained already that the "LEGAL" difference is 1 man/ 1 woman."

      No, idiot, that doesn't change anything. There are no legal ramifications with two men or two women as opposed to 1 man/1 woman.

      "Monetary costs would be an additional hypothetical 6 million court cases clogging the system in that Nation of America costing an unimaginable amount of taxpayer money."

      Which would be the same money spent on heterosexual marriages. That's not a difference. What makes you think that, on average, gay marriage will cost more?

      "... My assertions have LAWS to back them up."

      No, they don't. Your citation of tradition is not framework, no matter how many times you assert it is.

      "... And, on to yet another topic change. I ask the tough question, you change the subject."

      I've answered your questions. You aren't accountable for what you say, so you can't answer my question.

      "... I've stated my stance on that only 2 posts ago."

      And I responded to it, at which point you abandoned your argument.

      "I've explained time and time again that my rational for opposing gay or polygamous marriage rights is based on MORALS."

      Why does that preclude fear?

      "It works like this: I don't FEAR murder, but I think it is immoral."

      Then I don't FEAR polygamy, I think it's a bad idea. Checkmate.

      Delete
    16. "Obviously you can't understand that and that is why you quit posting on the human sexuality article."

      Not intentionally. Thanks for pointing it out, now there is a reposted response there.

      Delete
    17. "There are no legal ramifications with two men or two women as opposed to 1 man/1 woman." ... There MUST be some kind of ramifications. The gays have been clogging the court system with lawsuits for the past 40 years. So there most certainly IS a legal ramification over "1 man / 1 woman".

      "Which would be the same money spent on heterosexual marriages." ... How so? Because if gay marriage wan't legalized then those 6 million would NOT have gotten married.

      "No, they don't. Your citation of tradition is not framework, no matter how many times you assert it is." ... My citation of FACT is much more than you've been able to bring. Funny thing is that YOU used "tradition" and "framework" first, then stopped using them when you realized neither fit your argument. Now you refuse to admit those are viable reasons. Who's the real idiot?


      "Then I don't FEAR polygamy, I think it's a bad idea." ... A bad reason that you can't explain. Let's recap: you fear polygamy because it may cost a couple hundred dollars to the tax-payer. You fear polygamy because your gay friends won't be able to profit from it like they can from gay marriage. You may say it's a bad idea, but you just can't seem to bring yourself to tell us the reason why without showing what a bigot you are.


      "Why does that preclude fear?" ... Why would it preclude?

      Delete
    18. "The gays have been clogging the court system with lawsuits for the past 40 years. So there most certainly IS a legal ramification over "1 man / 1 woman"."

      Can you define "ramification"?

      "... How so? Because if gay marriage wan't legalized then those 6 million would NOT have gotten married."

      Why not? They can simply choose to be straight, right? And you're intentionally missing the point. Everyone should be able to get married to one person, so the costs of that are acceptable. You haven't shown how the costs would be different if everyone entered a straight marriage or five percent entered a gay marriage or whatever else.

      "... My citation of FACT is much more than you've been able to bring."

      You haven't cited any relevant facts. Pointing to the tradition of marriage doesn't make any comment on the framework we use legally. I could cite baseball statistics as "FACT" but that doesn't make it relevant.

      "Funny thing is that YOU used "tradition" and "framework" first, then stopped using them when you realized neither fit your argument."

      I haven't stopped using either term. I simply corrected you when you claimed I was trying to use "tradition" to support gay marriage.

      "Now you refuse to admit those are viable reasons."

      Explain, please.

      "... A bad reason that you can't explain."

      Sorry, you have a vested interest in not accepting anything I say. You've made this more than obvious, as you do in your comments immediately following.

      "Let's recap: you fear polygamy because it may cost a couple hundred dollars to the tax-payer."

      Your assertion, not mine. I'm not responsible for your estimates.

      "You fear polygamy because your gay friends won't be able to profit from it like they can from gay marriage."

      This has been addressed many times. I never said gay people wouldn't scam the system through polygamy.

      "You may say it's a bad idea, but you just can't seem to bring yourself to tell us the reason why without showing what a bigot you are."

      Your entire defense rests on your claim that hardly anyone would take advantage of an opportunity for free money and health care, and the absurd notion that competing spouses are going to hold hands and sing Kumbaya whenever they're presented with an opportunity for inheritance and control of marital rights.

      You have no argument.

      "... Why would it preclude?"

      Then you're not explaining how you don't have a "FEAR" of polygamy, idiot.

      Delete
    19. "Can you define "ramification"?" ... Yes, I can.

      "Why not? They can simply choose to be straight, right?" ... They CAN, but they DIDN'T. What part of THAT do you NOT understand?

      "Your assertion, not mine. I'm not responsible for your estimates." ... Oh, sorry. Was my estimate too HIGH? Since there is NO OTHER cost prediction out there for me to use, I simply CHOOSE to use the cost I THINK will occur through legal polygamy. Do you have something that would indicate a different cost would be more reasonable? After all, YOU ARE THE REASONABLE ONE.

      "Your entire defense rests on your claim that hardly anyone would take advantage of an opportunity for free money and health care, ... " ... See? There's more of your atheistic morals in action. That is a lie. I have never implied that. What I DO claim is that very few will take advantage of free money/health care through polygamy. Besides, health care is free now, anyway. Just ask Obama-care.

      "Then you're not explaining how you don't have a "FEAR" of polygamy, idiot." ... Are your feelings getting hurt? Now you've resorted to claiming I have a fear of polygamy? Wow, you give up really easy.

      Delete
    20. "... Yes, I can."

      Then why don't you?

      "... They CAN, but they DIDN'T. What part of THAT do you NOT understand?"

      Why would it be unchangeable?

      "Since there is NO OTHER cost prediction out there for me to use, I simply CHOOSE to use the cost I THINK will occur through legal polygamy."

      Funny you should do that, since you said yourself it wasn't quantifiable. Also realize you didn't address my point. I'm not responsible for your estimates, so you shouldn't attribute them to my views. If you can help yourself, that is.

      "... See? There's more of your atheistic morals in action. That is a lie. I have never implied that. What I DO claim is that very few will take advantage of free money/health care through polygamy."

      What? Please explain the difference between "hardly anyone would take advantage" and "very few will take advantage". Be specific, since that difference is the basis for your charge of lying.

      "... Are your feelings getting hurt? Now you've resorted to claiming I have a fear of polygamy?"

      You fail to address the point. Score another one for me.

      Delete
    21. " Also realize you didn't address my point." ... You don't have a point, let alone try to get someone to figure it out. You're so wishy-washy you make Charlie Brown seem like a genius.

      "What? Please explain the difference between" ... Doofus, I've been talking about polygamy. So have YOU. You have said people will take advantage of free money THROUGH polygamy. You (or I) have not talked about it being a generalized 'anyone will scam the government' , polygamy has ALWAYS been a part of that equation. If you are going to change the equation in mid-sentence, then quit your whining about apples and oranges.

      Delete
    22. "... You don't have a point, let alone try to get someone to figure it out."

      Nice English (sarcasm). The point would be that I'm not responsible for your estimates, no matter times you claim I "fear" polygamy because "2 or 3" people would scam the system. Your numbers don't apply to my viewpoint.

      "You (or I) have not talked about it being a generalized 'anyone will scam the government' , polygamy has ALWAYS been a part of that equation."

      Right, so I was talking about polygamy as well. Let's review:
      Me:"Your entire defense rests on your claim that hardly anyone would take advantage of an opportunity for free money and health care, ..."
      You:"... See? There's more of your atheistic morals in action. That is a lie. I have never implied that."
      Me:"Please explain the difference between "hardly anyone would take advantage" and "very few will take advantage"."

      Now, since you admit that both of us are talking about polygamy, you can answer the question. What is the difference between those two phrases?

      Let's also highlight this:"You may say it's a bad idea, but you just can't seem to bring yourself to tell us the reason why without showing what a bigot you are." Are you not referring to polygamy there? If so, then how the hell would you take my response as being generalized, as opposed to being directly related to what you said?

      Delete
    23. "What is the difference between those two phrases?" ... None. You left "polygamy" out of each phrase. Since you were talking about polygamy, I can't be expected to answer questions not related to polygamy.

      Delete
    24. "... None. You left "polygamy" out of each phrase."

      One of the phrases was yours. Did you not realize that?

      "Since you were talking about polygamy, I can't be expected to answer questions not related to polygamy."

      Since I was talking about polygamy, the comment you're questioning was clearly about polygamy. Explain what made you think otherwise.

      Delete
    25. "One of the phrases was yours. Did you not realize that?" ... So? What does that have to do with anything?

      Delete
    26. "... So? What does that have to do with anything?"

      It has to do with the fact that you said "each phrase". Why would I use a word in your phrase, moron?

      Now, again:"Explain what made you think otherwise", regarding how I was clearly talking about polygamy in the comment you're whining about. What, exactly, made you think I was speaking generally?

      Delete
    27. You did not include the word polygamy in your statement. From experience with how you post, I've found that you are very specific about the words you use and don't use. If you left a word out, then it was meant to be left out. You do that in order to trip people up when you lose an argument and need something else to try to prop your lies up. But, you got called on it, and now you whine about words being in proper places. Thanks for admitting you lost to me again. You're not running a very good record against me. So far, you haven't been able to sustain a decent argument for longer than 2 or 3 posts, then you revert back to your 'word games'. That may work at sites that you democrats post at, but in the real world, smarter people (like me) see right through it and simply string you along as long as possible. So far you've stuck around for several hundred posts. Hell, I've got you posting about the same issue on 3 or 4 different articles. You ARE fun to play with.

      Delete
  12. "From experience with how you post, I've found that you are very specific about the words you use and don't use. If you left a word out, then it was meant to be left out."

    Utter bullshit, and you know it. The entire conversation is about polygamy, so there's no need to add it into every goddamn sentence. What I said was in direct response to your comment about my stance on polygamy. There's absolutely no reasonable way to claim that I suddenly was making a blanket statement.

    "You do that in order to trip people up when you lose an argument and need something else to try to prop your lies up. But, you got called on it, and now you whine about words being in proper places."

    Aren't you the one whining about words being in proper places, since you expect me to add "polygamy" in continuously?

    "So far, you haven't been able to sustain a decent argument for longer than 2 or 3 posts, then you revert back to your 'word games'."

    You're the one who takes phrases out of context and asserts meaning for what I say. What "word games" do I play? Of course you won't have a good answer for that.

    "So far you've stuck around for several hundred posts. Hell, I've got you posting about the same issue on 3 or 4 different articles. You ARE fun to play with."

    Sounds like you're admitting to being a troll. If you're making a genuine argument, why do you take joy in how much I post?

    If your goal is really to waste the time of someone with plenty of spare time, you lose. You obviously can't make a decent argument, and you're not even a good troll. You're pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Sounds like you're admitting to being a troll." ... So what? This isn't mediamattersforamerica and you aren't able to get people kicked out simply because they enjoy leading you along on a string and beating down your arguments.

      Delete
    2. "... So what?"

      So that would mean you aren't making your arguments in good faith. I don't care about getting you kicked out, but being a troll doesn't have anything to do with "beating down" anything, it involves you being an ass for the sake of it.

      I'm pretty sure nobody ever got kicked off of MMfA for making legitimate arguments, either. Do you have experience with that site, perchance? If so, what was your handle?

      Delete
    3. "So that would mean you aren't making your arguments in good faith." ... Do you mean I'm making arguments that are too good for you to answer? If you want me to make stupid arguments like 'a baby isn't human until it's born', I could try. But, arguments like that just make people look simply stupid. And, I'll leave that ability to you. You have so much practice at it.

      Delete
    4. "... Do you mean I'm making arguments that are too good for you to answer?"

      No, I mean you're not making arguments in good faith. Do you need an adult to help you learn a new phrase, today?

      Delete
    5. Oh, and aren't you the clown who always talks about "changing the subject"? While you bring up abortion a propos of nothing at all?

      Hypocrite.

      Delete
    6. How is discussing abortion on a religious article considered "changing the subject"? Since that is all you seem to have, I take it you plan on leaving. Unless you plan on answering questions, for a change.

      You might want to look up the word "hypocrite". I don't think it means what you think it means. But, of course, what you think words mean are totally different than reality anyway, so it really won't matter if you look it up. You don't have the ability to comprehend what you are reading to begin with.

      Delete
    7. "How is discussing abortion on a religious article considered "changing the subject"?"

      Because it's not the topic of the thread, and it's not what we were talking about previously, moron.

      "But, of course, what you think words mean are totally different than reality anyway, so it really won't matter if you look it up."

      Like your definition of "troll"?

      Delete
    8. I never looked up troll. What IS my definition of it?

      You lose your ass in this discussion and now all you got left to do is whine about trolls and changing the subject. As much as you lie (in these articles) and divert from the discussion, I can't believe you haven't been called a troll more often.

      Delete
    9. "What IS my definition of it?"

      Apparently something along the lines of this:"This isn't mediamattersforamerica and you aren't able to get people kicked out simply because they enjoy leading you along on a string and beating down your arguments."

      Thanks for admitting that you commented on something without making any effort at understanding, though.

      "You lose your ass in this discussion and now all you got left to do is whine about trolls and changing the subject."

      I responded to what you posted. Notice that you bailed on the points I listed above (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/not-as-thunk-as-you-drink-i-am.html?showComment=1367720474673#c2701234566681032399), and then you whine about the responses I make to your short posts? If there's a diversion, then you must have been the one who made it.

      Why would you expect me to be called a troll when you don't know the definition of the word?

      Delete
    10. "Why would you expect me to be called a troll when you don't know the definition of the word?" ... I know the definition of that word. I just thought it kind of funny that you are telling me what MY definition of it is.

      Delete
    11. "... I know the definition of that word. I just thought it kind of funny that you are telling me what MY definition of it is."

      Then you know it doesn't actually involve making strong arguments. You were lying, then? Also, I commented on your apparent understanding of the term. You can't explain what's wrong with that, just to save you the effort.

      Delete
    12. "You were lying, then?" ... No, I'm not brabantio, so no lies from me.

      Delete
    13. You've never proven a lie on my part. Keep squawking, parrot.

      Delete
    14. proven smoven. the very fact that you do it is enough for me. I've proven it several times, you simply choose to deny it. That's your "prerogative".

      Delete
    15. "proven smoven."

      That sums your argumentation up perfectly. You don't feel you really have to prove anything, as long as you claim it you've "proven" it as far as you're concerned.

      You've never proven a lie on my part. Not once. Not...even...close.

      Delete
    16. "You've never proven a lie on my part. Not once. Not...even...close." ... Do you ever get tired of saying that? You must say that to virtually everyone you meet. Is that how you treat the UMCJ rules too? Relying completely on someone being able to "prove" what you did? Because it is a known fact that you will never admit to lying even when it is shown that you have and do.
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1367771484106#c82300385781089632

      Delete
    17. "... Do you ever get tired of saying that?"

      I never get tired of setting you straight.

      "Is that how you treat the UMCJ rules too? Relying completely on someone being able to "prove" what you did?"

      How the hell else do you imagine it would work? You think that a mere accusation should carry legal ramifications? Wow.

      As to your link, you've already been shot down on that. Your contortion of my words is not my responsibility.

      You lose. Again. Big surprise.

      Delete
    18. "How the hell else do you imagine it would work? You think that a mere accusation should carry legal ramifications? Wow." ... No, I would think personal morals would keep you on the straight and narrow way of righteousness. But, I keep forgetting you don't believe in God. So, it seems, that you need to be convicted before you feel guilty of doing crimes. Good thing about democrats ... they refuse the concept of 'personal accountability'. If there's one thing you can always depend on, that will be it.

      "Your contortion of my words is not my responsibility." ... You mean a direct and exact quote of yours is 'contorting' your words? See what I just wrote in the first paragraph to get my reaction to that one.

      Delete
    19. " ... No, I would think personal morals would keep you on the straight and narrow way of righteousness."

      Then your comment made no sense, because I already told you I haven't violated UCMJ. Standard of proof has nothing to do with anything.

      "But, I keep forgetting you don't believe in God."

      But you've asked why you need to tell the truth (when you claimed I changed my profession in the last year) since you accuse me of lying. If you really believed in God, and that made a difference, then you wouldn't have needed to ask that question. You would believe that God would keep you in line, if not personal morals.

      "... You mean a direct and exact quote of yours is 'contorting' your words?"

      Sorry, you fail. Your difference in viewpoint is what's making you change the meaning of what I said. Anyone with a brain and a sense of objectivity knows your interpretation is bullshit. Next?

      Delete
    20. "You would believe that God would keep you in line, if not personal morals." ... That's right. And, that's why your morals don't stay constant. You have no God to answer to, so your morals aren't as convicted as mine.

      "Your difference in viewpoint is what's making you change the meaning of what I said." ... So, you're not denying what you said? Let's get that part out of the way, first of all. Are you denying what you said?


      Sorry, But I don't expect you to answer this topic ever again because of that last question. I hope you do, because I'm curious with that excuse you just gave. But, I just don't expect anything.

      Delete
    21. "... That's right."

      Then why did you say that I claimed to have changed professions, which wasn't true?

      "And, that's why your morals don't stay constant."

      Another claim you've never substantiated. Parrot, parrot, parrot.

      "... So, you're not denying what you said?"

      I never denied what I actually said. I denied your extrapolation of it.

      Delete
    22. "I never denied what I actually said." ... Then you are a self-admitted liar. Thank you for that much.

      Delete
    23. Not only did I not lie, what I said was not an admission of anything. Explain your reasoning.

      Delete
    24. "Explain your reasoning." ... No. Go back and read. Like everyone can as they see the lies you brought to this discussion. If you're so stupid that you need ME to explain everything to you, then there isn't much left to say about your intelligence.

      Delete
    25. No, moron. Your comment made no sense. Note that you said "let's get that part out of the way". That can't be your entire argument if it's "that part". Pointing out that I never denied what I actually said is not an admission of lying, because you haven't established how what I actually said is a lie.

      If you can't substantiate your claims, they're worthless. Sorry. You're not special, and you don't get special treatment. You have to do your work the same as everyone else, your assertions don't magically become true just because you wish really hard or something.

      Delete
    26. "You have to do your work the same as everyone else, " ... If you truly mean that, then why are you expecting me to do the work for you? Just because you're too stupid to understand English, don't whine this way. I think everyone else is getting the feeling you are the "special" one. Does the Army pick you up in the short bus, too?

      Delete
    27. "... If you truly mean that, then why are you expecting me to do the work for you?"

      So it's my job to explain your idiotic comments? Fine, I'll simply say your comments made no sense.

      How did that work out for you?

      Delete
    28. "How did that work out for you?" ... It reached my opinion of your expected capabilities.

      Delete
    29. And since you can't explain how I'm wrong in that assessment, you can't very well complain.

      Anything else? Or would you like to cry about being accountable for what you say for a while longer? It's quite entertaining and revealing of your character, so feel free to stomp your feet some more if you feel the need.

      Delete
    30. And, your capabilities didn't surprise me.

      Delete
    31. Your ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument don't surprise me. It's really all you have.

      Delete