Off Topic · The Current State of Stupidity... (page 2)
jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
I'm not inferring anything. My intent was/is explicit. And as I've already said, this isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, evidenced by the ever growing support among "conservative" figureheads and the younger generations of that demography that are overwhelming in favor of it. You're the one who chooses to portrait it as otherwise and cry victim but it is not going to work.
NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
I'm not inferring anything. My intent was/is explicit. And as I've already said, this isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, evidenced by the ever growing support among "conservative" figureheads and the younger generations of that demography that are overwhelming in favor of it. You're the one who chooses to portrait it as otherwise and cry victim but it is not going to work.
Yeah, demographically, it's more of an old white men vs. everyone else issue.
Bonn1997 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
I'm not inferring anything. My intent was/is explicit. And as I've already said, this isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, evidenced by the ever growing support among "conservative" figureheads and the younger generations of that demography that are overwhelming in favor of it. You're the one who chooses to portrait it as otherwise and cry victim but it is not going to work.
Yeah, demographically, it's more of an old when men vs. everyone else issue.
True. And par the course, jrodmc missed the point of my post. My intent was to point out how irrational people are with their outrage. Regardless of where you fall in the spectrum of support for marriage equality, I can not understand why/how anyone could become visibly agitated or angry by it, while being completely indifferent to something that WILL affect them more directly. It just defies common sense to me, regardless of my political positions.
jrodmc wrote:Riiiiiiiiight...it's "moving away from being an issue" but you're posting about Stupid People in the barber shop who don't happen to see it "moving away". And a list of RINO's and something like "young Republicans" makes it not an important moral issue to anyone anymore, right?Please explain how a particular sexual preference is equated to a basic human/civil right. Use examples along the same lines.
I'm Black and it was a Black barber shop. Anywhere between 88%-93% of this population identifies with a liberal political platform, so I was not insinuating anything about conservatism, as I've already stated. This thread has and always been about how ignorant people can be in what they deem to be important/relevant to their lives.
jrodmc wrote:Please explain how being a "decent human being" includes the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality? Suppose consenting adults commit adultery? Or incest? Or necrophelia? And why wouldn't a "decent human being" mean accpetance of all sorts of human activity, not just selected sexual preferences?And your concept of morality can equate human sexuality with minor traffic laws? Common sense and enlightened, indeed.
Like I said, your common sense comments concede putting morality behind money. As just a matter of course. Interesting.
Because what someone does in the privacy of their own home, should not be a concern of yours or mine. The key here is consent between both parties and the fact that no one is being hurt or having their rights infringed upon. There is no consent with necrophelia and the "sorts of human activity" that you are probably envisioning.
And I was not equating "human sexuality with minor traffic laws"; you were through your line of reasoning. You mentioned a "redefining of words" as the basis for your aversion to homosexuality, which I could only conclude to be a body of laws. I pointed out how ludicrous it is to presume that laws are inherently moral because the vast majority, secular or otherwise, has little to do with morality and everything to do with practicality e.g. jaywalking. Truth be told, even the basis of morality has its essence rooted in practicality. We don't kill people because it would create an atmosphere of mistrust and anxiety that would make it impossible for us to serve a common good. We don't steal from others because it de-incentivizes others from working to get those items. Homosexuality has no negative effects on society.
jrodmc wrote:Ah yes, once again, the tired old "sexual preference" = "race" argument. When do you play the "God made me this way" card while arguing against a moral law? What do you do with any or all of those who don't continue to live out that "preference" anymore? When did you read and study about Black people not being Black people anymore?And while you're at it, Perry Mason, what is inherently equal to fairness or righteousness? From who, what or where are your standards derived from?
Yes, sexual preference and race are elements of the human characters. I was born a Black, heterosexual male just as a homosexual was born being a homosexual. I'm not sure how you can argue sexual orientation as being anything other than an innate quality. Did you need someone to tell you to like women? If so, you might have bigger problems than this argument, LMFAO.
jrodmc wrote:Your acceptance in the role of God is greatly appreciated by all us Stupid People. I wonder why you didn't speak up in the barber shop and start bettering the country right then and there? Don't have the courage of your ideal convictions except when typing anonymously on the internet? And yes, I've upheld and spoke out in public about my "right wing idiot" support for anti-abortion and my non-support for gay marriage legislation.
I actually very loudly said "so no one has any comments or gestures to make about that (about the unnecessary increase in expenditures for Meals on Wheels, in spite of a decrease in service quality)". No one said or did anything because they know where I stand on social issues, since I've been going there for a year now. Good try though.
jrodmc wrote:
Not having any obvious clue about the moral implications of a "sexual preference" as a "basic human right", I guess I was reaching too far trying to get you to respond to the issue of abortion. Which you apparently see as a "game". Honestly buddy, are you serious? Again, really, how old are you?You spout these pontifications about what you support on the basis of what? Why is killing an unborn baby supportable by you "in any and every case that merits it"? Let's see, what "merits it" in your estimation here:
1) Someone's (or anyone's) assessment of parenting capability. [Who gets to set that scale?]
2) Having the humility to realize that killing the unborn is more responsible then dealing with the consequences of your actions (in this case, sex) [and please spare me your insipid liberal chanting of "what about incest? what about rape? what about tubal preganancy and the death of the mother? special pleading] and the humility to realize that no matter what dopey latin or greek term you use to descibe the life in the womb, that that life has just as much a right to exist as you humbly do.
3) Burden to the system. I feel truly sorry for you, Nard. I hope and pray to the Jesus you obviously know little to nothing about that you're never in the situation of having an OB/GYN sit in front of you and tell you that the baby you've fathered is only going to be a burden to the system. You see, I've actually been there. I've had the top high-risk pregnancy doctor on the East Coast of the USA tell my wife and I that it would be better for us to abort, because in his vaunted opinion, our child would only be a "tax burden to society". And that "tax burden" fetus is now a 13 year old honor student.And you'll rail against "right wing idiots" who won't fund services to support the poor and needy, but you'll support legislation to destroy those children before they get a chance to become poor and needy. Yes, as we all know, better dead than in the red, right?
Money over morality. See how that works in real life?
Do you actually know the proper use of quotation marks (",")? I never referred to abortion as a "game", so I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I did. As I've said before, I would never coerce my significant other into an abortion but I don't believe in it FOR MY family. I am not egotistical enough, however, to assume that what is good for me and mine, is good for everyone else. This isn't some totalitarian society and we're the better for it not being one despite the efforts of people like you.
I briefly considered responding to your other points but why should it be my responsibility to deal with your ignorance? This thread isn't about you and your social agenda. If you want to talk about abortion, start your own thread and I'd probably oblige you. If you want to contribution to the discussion that everyone else is actually having, then focus on the actual discussion that everyone else is actually having. To reiterate, this discussion is about how people choose to ignore items that have direct consequences on their livelihood while being outraged by other events that have no effect on their livelihood. Whatever you decide to do, take your pulpit elsewhere in the meantime.
jrodmc wrote:Yes, right, when all else fails, blame the military. Excuse me, but how did the Roman Empire come to be an empire to begin with?Some day, when you grow up or wake up, you might find out that "loving each other" as you use the term, is a bit more than what you currently think. But as you say, word definitions, who gives a fuck, right?
So are you trying to insinuate that a multi-front invasion of the empire during the 5th century, in addition to multiple uprisings that were emboldened by military regulars being stretched too thin, had nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire? Please let me know so that I could respond accordingly.
NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:How do you think Rome was destroyed...... from withinPolitical corruption and an over-extension of their military on unnecessary wars. We've got those two issues in spades but I'm not sure how they factor into this discussion.
Rome was also destroyed from within MORALLY, everybody began to do in their own eyes what they thought was right. No moral compass !
So what you're saying is that gay marriage is a stepping stone to the destruction of the nation?
For example look at America once a great Nation and now morally we are destroying ourselves from within.
playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:How do you think Rome was destroyed...... from withinPolitical corruption and an over-extension of their military on unnecessary wars. We've got those two issues in spades but I'm not sure how they factor into this discussion.
Rome was also destroyed from within MORALLY, everybody began to do in their own eyes what they thought was right. No moral compass !
So what you're saying is that gay marriage is a stepping stone to the destruction of the nation?
For example look at America once a great Nation and now morally we are destroying ourselves from within.
You didn't answer my question.
Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
By definition, the OP doesn't and can't infer that.
And you said you cared about the definition of words!And it's odd the "conservative" is the one here who wants to give government a big role - defining marriage, while the "liberals" want the government out of their bedrooms. Maybe you're using these lots of words incorrectly.
Excuse me, but gay marriage is the legislation under discussion, right, not DOMA? The government is redefining marriage for you. The liberal poster agrees and states that it should be up to the common sense posse (read: the government passing legislation for gay marriage) to define words, and legislate morality. The government's not only in your bedroom, it's inside your skull, in your church, in your schools, in your dictionary. "Liberals" want the government everywhere, including your bedroom and if necessary, the womb you happen to be occupying.
Definitions:
OP = Original Post -
Somehow in this Twilight Zone of a society, how two consenting adults choose to validate their love is an effrontery to the masses and their personal life but the dismantling of ****ing program that is evidently designed to save us all money and serve the most vulnerable of us does not even register. And such is the current state of stupidity in our country; one that should earn some kind of recognition for just how unique and intense it is.Thread title -
The Current state of Stupidity
So the Stupid People are against gay marriage and don't have the same level of angst against government sponsored programs being cut.Are you reading any of this?
Right the legislation is basically to take the issue out of the federal government's hands and let states decide how they want to define marriage. The federal government is *not* passing a law that redefines marriage to include homosexual.
And when the cases start appearing requiring homosexual marriages legal in one state to be recognized in another? Really nice try.
jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
By definition, the OP doesn't and can't infer that.
And you said you cared about the definition of words!And it's odd the "conservative" is the one here who wants to give government a big role - defining marriage, while the "liberals" want the government out of their bedrooms. Maybe you're using these lots of words incorrectly.
Excuse me, but gay marriage is the legislation under discussion, right, not DOMA? The government is redefining marriage for you. The liberal poster agrees and states that it should be up to the common sense posse (read: the government passing legislation for gay marriage) to define words, and legislate morality. The government's not only in your bedroom, it's inside your skull, in your church, in your schools, in your dictionary. "Liberals" want the government everywhere, including your bedroom and if necessary, the womb you happen to be occupying.
Definitions:
OP = Original Post -
Somehow in this Twilight Zone of a society, how two consenting adults choose to validate their love is an effrontery to the masses and their personal life but the dismantling of ****ing program that is evidently designed to save us all money and serve the most vulnerable of us does not even register. And such is the current state of stupidity in our country; one that should earn some kind of recognition for just how unique and intense it is.Thread title -
The Current state of Stupidity
So the Stupid People are against gay marriage and don't have the same level of angst against government sponsored programs being cut.Are you reading any of this?
Right the legislation is basically to take the issue out of the federal government's hands and let states decide how they want to define marriage. The federal government is *not* passing a law that redefines marriage to include homosexual.And when the cases start appearing requiring homosexual marriages legal in one state to be recognized in another? Really nice try.
So my argument fails because you can imagine a nonexistent scenario that you think would disprove it.
Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:Amen! So if the common sense posse here could just tell all us Stupid People (read: conservative) what the actual important issues are that we should:
A) agree with and vote for
B) concentrate on
C) fund with our effing tax dollarsYou see, for the enlightened intelligentsia, common sense is simple: morality is personal and secondary, money is a social issue and primary.
Homosexuality isn't as simple as "how someone validates their love". It's the redefinition of words, like marriage and family and child rearing. Oh yeah, and free speech and religious freedom. Little meaningless issues like that.I understand that the redefinition of words is something Stupid People should leave to the common sense posse.
I suppose abortion is in the same vein in your common sense eyes, right? Feed the homeless, kill the babies nobody wants. Simple common sense.
Funny someone mentioned Rome. Any idiot who takes 5 minutes studying the fall of civilizations is concerned with the moral decay of this country. But then who really should care?
We can always move to Sweden. Or Denmark.
You are the only one here who grouped/equated Conservatives and Stupid people, right? Just wanted to see if I am right on that.
Seriously martin, the OP doesn't infer that right? GoshDarnLiberalNation here isn't pontificating from the Enlightened Left wing pulpit, right?
And you are correct; please find me some other conservatives in here, boss.
By definition, the OP doesn't and can't infer that.
And you said you cared about the definition of words!And it's odd the "conservative" is the one here who wants to give government a big role - defining marriage, while the "liberals" want the government out of their bedrooms. Maybe you're using these lots of words incorrectly.
Excuse me, but gay marriage is the legislation under discussion, right, not DOMA? The government is redefining marriage for you. The liberal poster agrees and states that it should be up to the common sense posse (read: the government passing legislation for gay marriage) to define words, and legislate morality. The government's not only in your bedroom, it's inside your skull, in your church, in your schools, in your dictionary. "Liberals" want the government everywhere, including your bedroom and if necessary, the womb you happen to be occupying.
Definitions:
OP = Original Post -
Somehow in this Twilight Zone of a society, how two consenting adults choose to validate their love is an effrontery to the masses and their personal life but the dismantling of ****ing program that is evidently designed to save us all money and serve the most vulnerable of us does not even register. And such is the current state of stupidity in our country; one that should earn some kind of recognition for just how unique and intense it is.Thread title -
The Current state of Stupidity
So the Stupid People are against gay marriage and don't have the same level of angst against government sponsored programs being cut.Are you reading any of this?
Right the legislation is basically to take the issue out of the federal government's hands and let states decide how they want to define marriage. The federal government is *not* passing a law that redefines marriage to include homosexual.And when the cases start appearing requiring homosexual marriages legal in one state to be recognized in another? Really nice try.
So my argument fails because you can imagine a nonexistent scenario that you think would disprove it.
Your argument fails because only in make believe world does leaving moral issues to the states remain a states rights issue. Ever hear of the Civil War? Abortion? Unilateral divorce? They all started out as a states' rights issues.
Do you honestly think homosexual couples married legally in one state are not going to press this issue to the higher courts?
NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:Riiiiiiiiight...it's "moving away from being an issue" but you're posting about Stupid People in the barber shop who don't happen to see it "moving away". And a list of RINO's and something like "young Republicans" makes it not an important moral issue to anyone anymore, right?
I'm Black and it was a Black barber shop. Anywhere between 88%-93% of this population identifies with a liberal political platform, so I was not insinuating anything about conservatism, as I've already stated. This thread has and always been about how ignorant people can be in what they deem to be important/relevant to their lives.
And my response is that you seem to think moral issues should only be more important than financial issues to the ignorant. And the utter arrogant stupidity of proposing that you or anyone else should decide what is important/relevant to someone else's life.
NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:Please explain how being a "decent human being" includes the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality? Suppose consenting adults commit adultery? Or incest? Or necrophelia? And why wouldn't a "decent human being" mean accpetance of all sorts of human activity, not just selected sexual preferences?And your concept of morality can equate human sexuality with minor traffic laws? Common sense and enlightened, indeed.
Like I said, your common sense comments concede putting morality behind money. As just a matter of course. Interesting.
Because what someone does in the privacy of their own home, should not be a concern of yours or mine. The key here is consent between both parties and the fact that no one is being hurt or having their rights infringed upon. There is no consent with necrophelia and the "sorts of human activity" that you are probably envisioning.
If it's no concern of yours or mine, why are we discussing the passing of legislation to validate what they do in the privacy of their own home? So in your world, morality is something that is no business of yours, until you decide that it is? Have you considered that deciding what is important/relevant to someone else is a moral decision?
NardDogNation wrote:And I was not equating "human sexuality with minor traffic laws"; you were through your line of reasoning. You mentioned a "redefining of words" as the basis for your aversion to homosexuality, which I could only conclude to be a body of laws. I pointed out how ludicrous it is to presume that laws are inherently moral because the vast majority, secular or otherwise, has little to do with morality and everything to do with practicality e.g. jaywalking. Truth be told, even the basis of morality has its essence rooted in practicality. We don't kill people because it would create an atmosphere of mistrust and anxiety that would make it impossible for us to serve a common good. We don't steal from others because it de-incentivizes others from working to get those items. Homosexuality has no negative effects on society.
Redefining of words refers to the word 'marriage', not a body of laws or aversion to homosexuality. You tirelessly talk in circles. Laws are rooted in practicality because we need "to serve a common good"? Who's good? Who decides what is "good"? How do you even use these terms without an underlying morality to define "good"? We don't kill or steal simply because it makes no financial sense? What about euthanasia? You say we don't kill, yet you wholly support abortion? Your incoherence masquerading as politically objective common sense is a bit much to follow.
NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:Ah yes, once again, the tired old "sexual preference" = "race" argument. When do you play the "God made me this way" card while arguing against a moral law? What do you do with any or all of those who don't continue to live out that "preference" anymore? When did you read and study about Black people not being Black people anymore?And while you're at it, Perry Mason, what is inherently equal to fairness or righteousness? From who, what or where are your standards derived from?
Yes, sexual preference and race are elements of the human characters. I was born a Black, heterosexual male just as a homosexual was born being a homosexual. I'm not sure how you can argue sexual orientation as being anything other than an innate quality. Did you need someone to tell you to like women? If so, you might have bigger problems than this argument, LMFAO.
Tomorrow morning, when you prefer being some other color, let me know how that works out. Now I'll LMFAO, okay? Again, given you don't GAF about the definitions of words, how does a "preference" = "race"? Type slowly, and try not to let your lips move while you think. Try to stop thinking that saying "orientation" in mid-paragraph somehow changes the meaning of "preference".
NardDogNation wrote:jrodmc wrote:Your acceptance in the role of God is greatly appreciated by all us Stupid People. I wonder why you didn't speak up in the barber shop and start bettering the country right then and there? Don't have the courage of your ideal convictions except when typing anonymously on the internet? And yes, I've upheld and spoke out in public about my "right wing idiot" support for anti-abortion and my non-support for gay marriage legislation.I actually very loudly said "so no one has any comments or gestures to make about that (about the unnecessary increase in expenditures for Meals on Wheels, in spite of a decrease in service quality)". No one said or did anything because they know where I stand on social issues, since I've been going there for a year now. Good try though.
Strange, you would think you would have mentioned the silence of the ignorant in your original post. Good for you, anyway.
NardDogNation wrote:
I briefly considered responding to your other points but why should it be my responsibility to deal with your ignorance? This thread isn't about you and your social agenda. If you want to talk about abortion, start your own thread and I'd probably oblige you. If you want to contribution to the discussion that everyone else is actually having, then focus on the actual discussion that everyone else is actually having. To reiterate, this discussion is about how people choose to ignore items that have direct consequences on their livelihood while being outraged by other events that have no effect on their livelihood. Whatever you decide to do, take your pulpit elsewhere in the meantime.
Convenient response. Keep up with your painfully unexamined points, that must be a very fulfilling existence you lead.
So I'll stop here in responding to your ignorance as well. Despite the fact that the thread's about your idiotic personal outrage at other people's perceived stupidity.
Sorry for intruding on your agenda. The soapbox is all yours.
jrodmc wrote:And my response is that you seem to think moral issues should only be more important than financial issues to the ignorant. And the utter arrogant stupidity of proposing that you or anyone else should decide what is important/relevant to someone else's life.
Uh, no. Reading comprehension is fundamental my friend. Again, why is homosexuality "immoral"? If it is in fact "immoral", by what standard and to what extent does it negatively affect your life and that of the country? For all your talk, I've had a difficult time in assessing the "toll" it'll have if any at all. On the other hand, I have a pretty good idea of how Meals on Wheels WILL negatively effect my life, the people they serve and the country as a whole because there is empirical evidence that has been generated to substantiate that fact. As someone approaching this without a bias, these issues have no parity and I still don't see why there should be an equivalence between the two.
jrodmc wrote:If it's no concern of yours or mine, why are we discussing the passing of legislation to validate what they do in the privacy of their own home? So in your world, morality is something that is no business of yours, until you decide that it is? Have you considered that deciding what is important/relevant to someone else is a moral decision?
Because legislation would and should allow them to exercise the same rights and liberties that heterosexuals have in expressing their love. Things like tax breaks/credits/exemptions, the power of attorney, matters pertaining to inheritance, adopting children and custody of said children are all factors that they are adversely challenged by due to a lack of legal recognition of their status as life partners. That being said, your "moral decision" should have no impact in denying others the same benefits you get to enjoy. It is the epitome of discrimination and an impediment to the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" that is endowed to us and recognized by our government.
jrodmc wrote:Tomorrow morning, when you prefer being some other color, let me know how that works out. Now I'll LMFAO, okay? Again, given you don't GAF about the definitions of words, how does a "preference" = "race"? Type slowly, and try not to let your lips move while you think. Try to stop thinking that saying "orientation" in mid-paragraph somehow changes the meaning of "preference".
Again, homosexuals are born, not created. This is common sense. As a heterosexual male, NO ONE told me to like women; I just did and recognized it from a very young age (thank you Kimberly Hart from Mighty Morphing Power Rangers and Elizabeth Berkley from Saved By the Bell). By arguing the opposite and perceiving sexual orientation to be a "preference" you're effectively saying that you could fuck a dude if you wanted/needed to, lol. Again, there is no judgment on my part, lol.
jrodmc wrote:Strange, you would think you would have mentioned the silence of the ignorant in your original post. Good for you, anyway.
Usually a non-response is irrelevant but I'm not shocked to see you take interest in the irrelevant.
jrodmc wrote:Convenient response. Keep up with your painfully unexamined points, that must be a very fulfilling existence you lead.So I'll stop here in responding to your ignorance as well. Despite the fact that the thread's about your idiotic personal outrage at other people's perceived stupidity.
Sorry for intruding on your agenda. The soapbox is all yours.
It's difficult to have a discussion with you, when the jist of your responses are inane attempts to put words in my mouth. A coherent argument, after all, is not a conspiracy of the liberal media bias, so you should be unencumbered to try it out some time. This is your 4th post directed to me in this thread and you're still on a tangent to the topic at hand.
izybx wrote:This thread is good prep for me to argue with my wife's upper east side hyper liberal family over the holidays, thanks guys!
What makes them hyper liberal?
NardDogNation wrote:izybx wrote:This thread is good prep for me to argue with my wife's upper east side hyper liberal family over the holidays, thanks guys!What makes them hyper liberal?
I'm sure you can imagine the type of world views that would classify someone as being very liberal. Which is fine with me , I enjoy lively conversation. The key is to realize that two intelligent people can be on opposing ends of the political spectrum without being uninformed, or racist, or a communist. I noticed earlier in the thread that conservatives were referred to as stupid. Well I'm conservative and I don't feel very stupid.
It's things like that which make me very selective with who I'll discuss politics with. I'm not interested in changing any minds out there, or proving how "informed" I am. But I still enjoy lively debate, at least until it degrades into name calling, which is inevitable on this board.
izybx wrote:NardDogNation wrote:izybx wrote:This thread is good prep for me to argue with my wife's upper east side hyper liberal family over the holidays, thanks guys!What makes them hyper liberal?
I'm sure you can imagine the type of world views that would classify someone as being very liberal. Which is fine with me , I enjoy lively conversation. The key is to realize that two intelligent people can be on opposing ends of the political spectrum without being uninformed, or racist, or a communist. I noticed earlier in the thread that conservatives were referred to as stupid. Well I'm conservative and I don't feel very stupid.
It's things like that which make me very selective with who I'll discuss politics with. I'm not interested in changing any minds out there, or proving how "informed" I am. But I still enjoy lively debate, at least until it degrades into name calling, which is inevitable on this board.
jrodmc, seemingly a conservative, labeled conservatives as stupid. Not sure why he went there.
izybx wrote:NardDogNation wrote:izybx wrote:This thread is good prep for me to argue with my wife's upper east side hyper liberal family over the holidays, thanks guys!What makes them hyper liberal?
I'm sure you can imagine the type of world views that would classify someone as being very liberal. Which is fine with me , I enjoy lively conversation. The key is to realize that two intelligent people can be on opposing ends of the political spectrum without being uninformed, or racist, or a communist. I noticed earlier in the thread that conservatives were referred to as stupid. Well I'm conservative and I don't feel very stupid.
It's things like that which make me very selective with who I'll discuss politics with. I'm not interested in changing any minds out there, or proving how "informed" I am. But I still enjoy lively debate, at least until it degrades into name calling, which is inevitable on this board.
I'm all for lively debate as well, which is why I enjoy having these conversations especially through this venue. Most people are guarded with their political views and I think this offers one of the few opportunities where people are free to be honest and not feel/be ostracized. That being said, NO ONE called conservatives "stupid" aside from the only person who is a self-described conservative (jrodmc). More importantly, this discussion was about how people set/decide their political priorities; not some "liberal vs conservative" re-thread. If you could offer insight from a conservative perspective, then by all means, do so. With Jrodmc, all I got was a bunch of tangents and poor attempts to be a mindreader.
izybx wrote:NardDogNation wrote:izybx wrote:This thread is good prep for me to argue with my wife's upper east side hyper liberal family over the holidays, thanks guys!What makes them hyper liberal?
I'm sure you can imagine the type of world views that would classify someone as being very liberal. Which is fine with me , I enjoy lively conversation. The key is to realize that two intelligent people can be on opposing ends of the political spectrum without being uninformed, or racist, or a communist. I noticed earlier in the thread that conservatives were referred to as stupid. Well I'm conservative and I don't feel very stupid.
It's things like that which make me very selective with who I'll discuss politics with. I'm not interested in changing any minds out there, or proving how "informed" I am. But I still enjoy lively debate, at least until it degrades into name calling, which is inevitable on this board.
Hence the thread title.
martin wrote:jrodmc, seemingly a conservative, labeled conservatives as stupid. Not sure why he went there.
martin, love you, love this site, but I truly don't understand how you miss this:
1) People are cited as scoffing and expressing their disagreemet with the legislation to support gay marriage. I don't know too many people who would maintain that sexual preference is not a moral issue. Are you maintaining that those who don't support gay marriage are liberal and not conservative? Or are they just centrist? C'mon.
2) People who don't support gay marriage, and don't see the comparative greater importance of government-sponsored programs to feed the poor are termed stupid.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Are you for gay marriage? Are you a conservative? Are you stupid?
And the bigger point is that it doesn't make any sense to care more about who gets married than how much money you take home. You're basically saying you'd pay lots of money to prevent a bunch of strangers from getting married.
Bonn1997 wrote:You're right that most of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from conservatives. However, the point is it's just a subset of conservatives - by and large old white men - who oppose gay marriage. For example, a Quinnipiac poll found Republicans split almost 50/50 (43/53) on the recent Supreme Court ruling. Among both Democrats and Independents it was a huge majority favoring the ruling.
And the bigger point is that it doesn't make any sense to care more about who gets married than how much money you take home. You're basically saying you'd pay lots of money to prevent a bunch of strangers from getting married.
I never mentioned Republicans or Democrats; you and Narddognation did.
And all I'm basically saying is that your bigger point is actually a statement on the importance of morality versus finances, masquerading as common $en$e. And that's okay. Just call it what it is.