Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

8: The Mormon Proposition

profile picture
Shreddysaurus
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 59
Searchbar = Nothing

Oct 26 2010 1:44AM
4 2
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Click for larger image
Oct 27 2010 12:17AM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
thank you, this thread needed this
Oct 27 2010 1:16AM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
lets just delete this thread, its a bunch of people who have not done any research into their side of the argument, how about big spence write a debate paper and somebody else write a debate paper and post a video of them reading them, then we all post our responses...

cus this is just retarded
Oct 27 2010 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Shreddysaurus
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 59
but i got rayban vision
Oct 27 2010 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
wow dude seriously?
Oct 27 2010 1:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Shreddysaurus
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 59
fuck it! you guys are bumping it talking about how it should get deleted. I thought I would share that I really like that song. Now reply and let it die.
Oct 27 2010 1:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Profpimpcain
Posts: 395 - Karma: 62
Actually you are wrong. Two siblings with healthy genetics have a greater percentage of healthy offspring then two genetically diverse couple.






GET LEARNED ON GENETICS SON!
Oct 27 2010 1:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
Bump for Big_Spence's ignorance.
Oct 27 2010 1:43AM
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
honestly i think people should be able to fuck whatever the hell they want, your sister, mom, dog, tree, whatever... we make such a fucking big deal out of who and what people stick their dicks in. its like outlawing who you give high 5's to. its such a ridiculous thing to care about. it doesn't hurt anyone, and it makes people happy. obviously rape is different, but violently forcing anyone to do anything is wrong, and thats a different matter.
we need to be like animals, where we just see something fuck it, and move on.
the actual act of sex doesnt hurt anyone, its our society's "rules" that cause any harm. us making such a huge deal out of a completely natural and regular act creates these negative outcomes that normally wouldnt even exist.

now that being said, they really cannot be considered equal to heterosexuality, because they simply arent, humans as well as every other species would not exist if homosexuality was the norm. and for this reason i gotta say that Big-Spence has a point. its taking marriage, and turning it into something else. marriage isnt what it used to be, and legalizing same sex marriage would only make this worse. its just hard for me to think of a man and a man in the definition of marriage. i could really care less about marriage and all that, if they legalized gay marriage i wouldnt have any feelings one way or the other. im just saying that there is a somewhat good argument against it.

i would be completely fine with it if they came up with something that gives gay couples all the rights of a straight couple. but just not calling it marriage, and it not being related to religion i guess.


Oct 27 2010 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
bootleg_BEN
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 44
Seriously.


I just read the whole thread. And Big_Spence's arguments did not have any logic. It was disgustingly ignorant.


I assume that Big_Spence has no problem watching two girls make out. Also would you allow two Girls too marry?
Oct 27 2010 2:52AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
just because you type something out does not make it true. you need to provide citations for outlandish claims.

and there's no way i'm going to waste my time trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oct 27 2010 7:47AM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
look dude i can understand your frustration with the thread and all but do you really think youre helping by bumping it, especially with a scroll bomb? if you dont want to read the thread don't click on it
Oct 27 2010 11:46AM
0 0
profile picture
yojimbo
Posts: 3631 - Karma: 27
you sir, are a fucking retard.
I hope you get married and have retard babies and I hope it means a whole lot to you.

Oct 27 2010 12:02PM
0 0
profile picture
rYb
Posts: 944 - Karma: -12
Yo guy youre dumb guy.
Oct 27 2010 12:05PM
0 0
profile picture
blindside
Posts: 5619 - Karma: 1,201
nope.


Oct 27 2010 5:19PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
judging by this post I am going to assume you are a first year university student who recently took a class in which legal precedents were discussed. Saying that gay marriage will pave the way for inter species marriage, is to say the least, a ridiculous statement. Besides the obvious absurdity of this statement, bestiality is illegal. Also, if you think the bible thumpers and rednecks would get worked up over gay marriage i'd think inter species marriage would probably make them actually go insane.

could you define what marriage stands for? that would make it easier for me to understand why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Yes, I understand you will say it is the sanctity of a bond between man and women and all that, but define what it stands for beyond that, as in why people should want to get married.
Oct 27 2010 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
I am not joking. We're taking this shit to the mooooon!
Oct 27 2010 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
Although i do agree with bestiality being illegal as it should be.  You are forgetting in your post that sodomy used to be illegal in most states.  So whatever point you are trying to prove, the evidence you are using is invalid.
Oct 27 2010 9:38PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
don't worry about that one little aside. we already discussed legality in this thread (it's the whole point of the thread. dont make it a circular argument) and what he said was a non-essential add-on to the rest. unless you think bestiality is legit, you can't say "the evidence [he is] using is invalid"
Oct 27 2010 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
.
Oct 27 2010 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
missed this gem. nice irrelevant comment that attempts to discredit a post without committing to saying what side youre on or presenting an argument. should be called a "mr. panda comment"
Oct 27 2010 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
Your analysis of my post is very narrow.  You have viewed my comments lopsidedly.  Or maybe you just missed the entire implication my post intended. 

Perhaps what I am saying is that the evidence you have chosen to use in order to discredit the "slippery slope" argument is in no way valid.  There may or may not be other argument that can discredit the "slippery slope" argument, but your evidence implying that bestiality is already illegal so the slope cannot slip that far is invalid. 

There originally existed statutues that forbade homosexual behavior.  Those have almost all been abolished in America.  Now statutes forbidding same-sex marriage are being repealed.  Those that are asking where the line will be drawn are being discredited by posters like yourself.  Your only argument is that bestiality is illegal.  I agree that it should be illegal.  But if gay marriage is being legalized where it was once illegal, and if homosexual relationships were once illegal and are now widely accepted, how can you be sure that other behavior which some might see as being similar won't be legalized?
Oct 28 2010 12:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Rockhound
Posts: 3432 - Karma: 851
i couldn't have said it better myself
Oct 28 2010 12:21AM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
that wasn't my evidence. read the thread guy
Oct 28 2010 12:21AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
because those who see bestiality and homosexuality as similar are wrong. they are two completely distinguishable things. just because they both gross you out isn't sufficient to say they are the same.
Oct 28 2010 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
First off, there is no "evidence" you need to provide to discredit a slippery slope argument, it is inherently fallible, therefore, no counter-argument is needed thusly.

Second, please stop using the word "statute(s)". They were LAWS that forbade homosexual behavior, and many of those laws (usually filed under the sodomy moniker) are still in place in many states. In fact, Utah is one of them, though it is uniformly considered a useless law, police don't enforce it,, and sodomy laws were struck down as inherently discriminatory by the Supreme Court in 2003.

And still only 5 states with Same Sex marriage that is equal to hetero marriage.


In response to your question about bestiality, do you see how in any way that might be offensive? I recommend you take a debate class. You actually just outlined an argument that is both logically and evidently unsound. There is no "if Y will happen, X might happen, too". It's simply not an argument. If we legalize abortion for all, how can we be sure that we won't legalize killing babies next?

It doesn't make sense, so stop it.
Oct 28 2010 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
First off, I clearly said that while there may be other reasons to discredit the slippery slope argument, the reason that the poster used was invalid.  I agree that the slipperly slope argument is inherently fallible in 99% of cases (nothing is ever certain). I was simply pointing out the fallacies of the posters comment.

Second, a statute is a law.  The laws I was referring to were actually passed by legislators, in contrast to the common law which is formed by courts.   I never said at any point that I agreed with sodomy laws or laws banning homosexual behavior, all I said is that they at one time existed.  I also only said that some people view bestiality as similar to homosexuality, I didn't say that everyone views it that way.

I never took a side in any debate, but you did infer a lot from my post.  In fact, inference in a debate (while I deny ever participating in this debate, I simply pointed out another posters flawed reasoning) is also generally a logical fallacy, not to mention the ad hominem you employed at the end of your post.
Oct 28 2010 1:02AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
that is an opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with you as I see bestiality as one of the most despicable things on the face of the earth, but it is your opinion that those people are wrong.
Oct 28 2010 1:05AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
ummm... you specifically said the following:

"Saying that gay marriage will pave the way for inter species marriage, is to say the least, a ridiculous statement. Besides the obvious absurdity of this statement, bestiality is illegal."

You first mentioned his slipperly slope argument.  Then you expressed an opinion about the absurdity of that statement.  Then your evidence as to why the slipperly slope was invalid was the legality of the action.   What do you mean that wasn't your evidence?
Oct 28 2010 1:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
1. No, his reasoning was fine. Not necessarily relevant, but he needn't say much to discredit Big_Spence.

2. Law: a binding custom or practice of a community.
Statute: legislated rule of society which has the force of law.

Lrn 2 difference.

3. The way in which you presented your argument was on the offensive side, both in hostility towards RubberSoul, and with your statement: But if gay marriage is being legalized where it was once illegal, and if homosexual relationships were once illegal and are now widely accepted, how can you be sure that other behavior which some might see as being similar won't be legalized?

Which shows me you really haven't wrapped your head around the whole argument.


Oct 28 2010 1:16AM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
like i said, read the thread. 1) i didnt say that. you took that quote out of someone else's post and 2) again, read the thread. if you want me to respond to the slippery slope argument for the 4th time.. i dont know youre just straight up retarded
Oct 28 2010 1:20AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
1. No, his reasoning was not fine.  He was not discrediting the slippery slope argument on the proper grounds.

2. Did I not just say that a statute is a law passed by a legislature?

3. I indeed have not wrapped my head around the whole argument.  I know which side I believe is correct on a religious basis, but as that is not a point I want to discuss with anyone on this forum I did not express it, especially in a forum where many do not share my belief in God. My main purpose in reading this post is to see what others views on the subject are on more of a social and political basis so that I can better understand both sides of the debate.  Where I saw a flaw in logical reasoning I made note of it, as doing so either publicly or privately helps one to better understand the argument and form his own opinion concerning it.
Oct 28 2010 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
sorry, I did not realize that you were a different poster defending his post.  That is my mistake.  I never claimed to be infallible.  You could have just mentioned that originally though.

Most of what I have written to you though does apply to his post though, as it was that section of his post that you were defending.
Oct 28 2010 1:29AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
Dude, you really need to read your fucking posts. Honestly, this is retarded.


First sentence of your response to me : "Second, a statute is a law. "


Get your head out of your ass. You're representing your Orange name terribly.
Oct 28 2010 1:30AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
I have read the thread.  You specifically said that a statute is a "legislated rule of society which has the force of law." While you might try to split hairs and say that it is not law but has the force of law, you would be be doing just that, splitting hairs.  While splitting hairs in some instances is proper, it is not proper when only looking at a single definition which was formulated by the individual doing the hair splitting. Other definitions could include: "a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government", "black letter law",

The reason I mentioned "statute" instead of "law" was because the majority of the laws were enacted by state legislatures.  This word is used in contradistinction to the common law.  I made this distinction because it is important to never confuse statutory law with common law.  Statutory law can be more binding in some instances than common law.  There is a huge difference, and it is upon these types of law that our country is established.  Thus, I am not quite sure why you are still stuck on me calling statutory laws statutes. 


Oct 28 2010 1:44AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
Congratulations, you learned to Wikipedia, which also 'splits hairs' concerning statutes and laws. And then you agreed with me. And then you disagreed with me.

You're the worst orange name since McMurray.
Oct 28 2010 1:49AM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
look pal, i have known several gay guys, they loved each other no different than how i love females. Maybe you should get some gay friends and then you would understand. And your grammer is embarasing to even the most uneducated ski bum.

The last person i know of who talked about gays the way you do now was Bush's former campaign manager....and guess what! hes gay now!
Oct 28 2010 1:57AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
I have no need to use Wikipedia.  I have studied the United States common law system exhaustively.  If you want to discuss it further I would be happy to show you how it was handed down to us by the Normans and why the distinction between common and statutory law is so important. 

You are likely going to try to pull something out of my post that is quoted directly from Wikipedia. I will admit that I did. 

When I copied that single line into my post I was not actually looking for a distinction between the two types of law, I was just looking to see if you came up with your definition of statute by yourself or not.  Your definition is a common one, so I was checking it out.  When I saw the single line that I copied, it said exactly what I was in the middle of writing anyway, I just changed a single word to conform with what Wikipedia said as it had a better word usage than what I had originally typed.

Keep the ad hominem coming though, its an awesome way to foster intelligent thinking.
Oct 28 2010 1:58AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
I never said anything negative about homosexuals.  I was only pointing out that someones reasoning was improper.
Oct 28 2010 2:00AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
On another note, what is everyone's opinion of suspending Miranda rights to those accused of terrorist activities?

lol
Oct 28 2010 2:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9671 - Karma: 482
I didn't make an argument, so it's not applicable to the last post. You're just being a pretentious douche.
Oct 28 2010 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
dude i did not mean to suggest you said bad things about homosexuals, i was talking about Arabian
hahaha and you clearly have the best grammer in this thread
Oct 28 2010 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
haha.  My bad.  I was confused with what you wrote because I thought Arabian was supporting the homosexual argument here.
Oct 28 2010 2:12AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
I am often a douche, but I would not call you anything different either.
Oct 28 2010 2:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Shreddysaurus
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 59
but dude, arabian is gay
Oct 28 2010 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Rockhound
Posts: 3432 - Karma: 851
Click for larger image
Oct 28 2010 2:58AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
no, it's not an opinion as to what the differences are between two consenting adults of the same species who choose to engage, sexually, with one another (not talking about a choice of sexual preference, but to draw the distinction between rape and something consensual) and an individual who rapes a creature from a different species.

they are two completely different issues.
Oct 28 2010 7:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
I remember in science class I took that supposedly incest with like... your 4th cousin is ok but nothing closer.
Oct 28 2010 7:50AM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
all you did was get caught up on an aside. you know damn well we've brought up more arguments against this slippery slope BS than we should need to. Stop acting like you're some intelligent and respectful debater when all youve done so far is talk in circles. Read the thread, read the arguments posted and reply to something of substance or just drop the charade
Oct 28 2010 9:12AM
0 0
profile picture
General_Ripper
Posts: 3327 - Karma: 189
I don't get this. If you are born gay wouldn't eventually there be no gays because they can have kids?
Oct 28 2010 9:25AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)