*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #220 on: July 10, 2015, 06:54:23 PM »
Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.

When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.

I did not use the status quo as justification for anything, only as a means to simplify my argument. I already stated this, which you've conveniently ignored:

I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.

I never once made the claim that, if I were under 18, my assertions would be untrue. If you had posed a more general question as to whether mothers in general should be able to control their children's lives, then you might have a point, but instead you inexplicably decided to focus on my mother. That makes mothers of under-18s irrelevant, and therefore a discussion of the restrictions imposed on under-18s by the government irrelevant.

If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.

Why do you keep bringing up the age of 18, over and over, even ignoring what I said earlier that laws do not matter to your mom, and to pretend that written laws do not exist for the scenario?

You are so gung-ho about the age of 18 being a mark of independence from your parents that you are continuously bringing that point up, arguing the status quo, resting your laurels on "the majority said so and so I can do it." This is diametrically opposed to your previous arguments.

Others in this thread keep bringing up that dogs cannot consent, but this is also arguing the status quo, essentially justifying that we should have the majority telling us what to do in our sex lives.

Don't you see how arguing these points entirely destroy your earlier arguments?

Quote
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the government had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.

Ignoring what I've said and repeating yourself isn't going to change my response. If you'd like to continue pretending that the status quo is the same thing as democracy, perhaps you'd care to answer this question I posed previously?

Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?

I provided arguments earlier by Justice Scalia at the top of page 7 that the Supreme Court's decision did not accurately represent the people.

Quote
Yes, I imagine you would have a tough job explaining how it is relevant. That's most likely why you ignored my claims of irrelevance and focused on the unimportant parts of what I said to begin with.

Seeing as you have backed yourself into a hypocritical corner in attempting to answer the mom analogy, she was not irrelevant.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 08:07:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2987
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #221 on: July 10, 2015, 06:58:50 PM »
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #222 on: July 10, 2015, 07:02:04 PM »
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.

It doesn't matter what she thinks. What matters is that Parsifal thinks he has sexual independence to screw the pooch because of a status quo law passed by the majority. Disgusting.

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #223 on: July 10, 2015, 07:09:08 PM »
I would be utterly shocked if Tom Bishop could, in his own words, accurately describe the majority's holding in this case.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 07:12:07 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #224 on: July 10, 2015, 07:57:33 PM »
Gay marriage is literally bestiality.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5230
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #225 on: July 10, 2015, 08:03:04 PM »
Quite.
The Mastery.

Rama Set

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #226 on: July 10, 2015, 08:46:20 PM »
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.

It doesn't matter what she thinks. What matters is that Parsifal thinks he has sexual independence to screw the pooch because of a status quo law passed by the majority. Disgusting.

Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation.  Well played.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #227 on: July 11, 2015, 12:54:09 AM »
Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation.  Well played.

Pointing out a slippery slope wouldn't necessarily be wrong, though. Now that gay marriage is settled, something will take its place in the political vacuum. Give it a few years and polygamy will be the major social talking point. Politicians like having social topics because everyone has a strong opinion on them and they are easier to talk about than, say, the economy or war.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #228 on: July 11, 2015, 02:48:45 AM »

Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation.  Well played.

Pointing out a slippery slope wouldn't necessarily be wrong, though. Now that gay marriage is settled, something will take its place in the political vacuum. Give it a few years and polygamy will be the major social talking point. Politicians like having social topics because everyone has a strong opinion on them and they are easier to talk about than, say, the economy or war.

That only works if there's a strong opposition. Until polygamists organize in a unified manner, I doubt that will become a mainstream topic. I imagine immigration, or some other social sector will be the next big thing.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #229 on: July 11, 2015, 05:42:14 AM »
Why do you keep bringing up the age of 18, over and over, even ignoring what I said earlier that laws do not matter to your mom, and to pretend that written laws do not exist for the scenario?

Which universe have you been living in, Tom? You're the one who's fixated on that issue. I've only been responding to your posts. If you'd prefer to concede defeat, then I can stop doing that.

Also, you have a funny definition of "ignoring". I responded directly to what you said about laws not mattering:

No shit. This entire discussion is about what should be legal, and so far the only person who has based any claims on what is currently legal is you with your circular "democracy is good because it exists" argument.


You are so gung-ho about the age of 18 being a mark of independence from your parents that you are continuously bringing that point up, arguing the status quo, resting your laurels on "the majority said so and so I can do it." This is diametrically opposed to your previous arguments.

Yes, it is. That's why I didn't say it. You're welcome to continue pretending I did, though.


Others in this thread keep bringing up that dogs cannot consent, but this is also arguing the status quo, essentially justifying that we should have the majority telling us what to do in our sex lives.

Don't you see how arguing these points entirely destroy your earlier arguments?

Are you trying to hold me accountable for others' arguments? My, we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.


I provided arguments earlier by Justice Scalia at the top of page 7 that the Supreme Court's decision did not accurately represent the people.

Irrelevant. The United States is a democracy. All it takes is a single ruling that does not reflect the will of the people to demolish your assertion that the laws of a democratic nation are necessarily the same thing as the majority view.

Am I to understand that you wish to rescind that claim?


Seeing as you have backed yourself into a hypocritical corner in attempting to answer the mom analogy, she was not irrelevant.

Which I've already responded to:

If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.

The fact that you're continuing to cling to this tangent, despite me pointing out in every single post that my mother is irrelevant, only emphasises how weak your case is. I'd suggest getting back to the topic, but you're just going to pick and choose which bits of this post to reply to as well. I'm betting this paragraph won't be one of them.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 05:44:07 AM by Parsifal »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #230 on: July 11, 2015, 03:25:09 PM »
That's enough.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #231 on: July 11, 2015, 04:21:34 PM »
That's enough.

You don't get to dictate the terms of this debate. If you want to duck out now, that's your option, but don't pretend it's anything other than that.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #232 on: July 13, 2015, 08:06:27 AM »
I doubt Parsifal's mom would be happy with him hosting a parade through her house, either. Does that mean Macy's should cancel their parade?

Rama Set

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #233 on: July 13, 2015, 03:18:30 PM »
I doubt Parsifal's mom would be happy with him hosting a parade through her house, either. Does that mean Macy's should cancel their parade?

That's enough.

Saddam Hussein

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #234 on: July 13, 2015, 05:34:40 PM »
Your mom bursts into your room and finds you having sex with your dog.  What does she do?  What do you do?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #235 on: July 13, 2015, 05:38:47 PM »
Why are you lot still talking about dog sex?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #236 on: July 13, 2015, 06:42:41 PM »
Saddam is disappointed the topic did not continue.