Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Some of the News, every Once in a While

Moderator: GreenCrayon

Post Reply
User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by LordRetard »

Euclidthegreek wrote:Wouldn't the giant bottomless pit also be appealing to our desire for vengeance? The thing about the death penalty is it's actually lest economical than life imprisonment.
Why would this be? If it's a bureaucracy thing then that really doesn't count, it's only expensive because people don't want it to happen. By comparison it'd be free to beat someone's brains in with a rock.
Euclidthegreek wrote:
LordRetard wrote:I really just am pro-death. I'm not even really that interested in death penalty or youth-in-Asia or abortion discussions anymore. Actually, I am pro-abortion (not pro-choice) but I don't have much of an opinion on the other two. I guess they're better economically.
Please be elaboratin'.
About what? I'm no witch doctor.*

*So, I wrote this, then looked at it, and then I made this edit and I kinda went "what?" I'm a little confused about what I meant to say.

User avatar
Euclidthegreek
Fisty McGee
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: The Mathiverse

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by Euclidthegreek »

LordRetard wrote:
Euclidthegreek wrote:Wouldn't the giant bottomless pit also be appealing to our desire for vengeance? The thing about the death penalty is it's actually lest economical than life imprisonment.
Why would this be? If it's a bureaucracy thing then that really doesn't count, it's only expensive because people don't want it to happen. By comparison it'd be free to beat someone's brains in with a rock.
Only if all executions were by lynch mob. If not, you'd have to pay the guy with the rock. There's always the cheap and easy option of dumping them in Austra- no wait never mind.
Euclidthegreek wrote:
LordRetard wrote:I really just am pro-death. I'm not even really that interested in death penalty or youth-in-Asia or abortion discussions anymore. Actually, I am pro-abortion (not pro-choice) but I don't have much of an opinion on the other two. I guess they're better economically.
Please be elaboratin'.
About what? I'm no witch doctor.*

*So, I wrote this, then looked at it, and then I made this edit and I kinda went "what?" I'm a little confused about what I meant to say.[/quote]What?
Edminster wrote:I'm starting to think Euclid lives in the past.

User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by LordRetard »

Euclidthegreek wrote:
LordRetard wrote:
Euclidthegreek wrote:Wouldn't the giant bottomless pit also be appealing to our desire for vengeance? The thing about the death penalty is it's actually lest economical than life imprisonment.
Why would this be? If it's a bureaucracy thing then that really doesn't count, it's only expensive because people don't want it to happen. By comparison it'd be free to beat someone's brains in with a rock.
Only if all executions were by lynch mob. If not, you'd have to pay the guy with the rock. There's always the cheap and easy option of dumping them in Austra- no wait never mind.
I'm still confused by this. Who's getting this huge cut for beating a guy with a rock? I think there are a lot of people who'd do it for free. When did it become cheaper to dump people on another continent? How are they going to get there?
Euclidthegreek wrote:What?
What I am saying is, "what do you want me to elaborate on?"

User avatar
Euclidthegreek
Fisty McGee
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: The Mathiverse

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by Euclidthegreek »

LordRetard wrote:
Euclidthegreek wrote:
LordRetard wrote:Why would this be? If it's a bureaucracy thing then that really doesn't count, it's only expensive because people don't want it to happen. By comparison it'd be free to beat someone's brains in with a rock.
Only if all executions were by lynch mob. If not, you'd have to pay the guy with the rock. There's always the cheap and easy option of dumping them in Austra- no wait never mind.
I'm still confused by this. Who's getting this huge cut for beating a guy with a rock? I think there are a lot of people who'd do it for free. When did it become cheaper to dump people on another continent? How are they going to get there?
Well in times when execution was just a guy with a rock (or an axe or a sword or a noose etc.), that guy was paid and was an employee of the state. I find the idea that there are a lot of people who would just kill some random person if asked (or wanted to) disturbing. Maybe if you lived in a close-knit town where everybody knew the victims, there would be someone who would want to kill the murderer*, but in my experience, most people are not involved enough in those things to actually want to kill the murderer/accused. Maybe this is just a personal bias. I'm pretty non-violent and find it extremely difficult to understand wanting to kill someone that you've never met. As per the second part: it was a JOKE. A bad one, like all my jokes.

* Assuming the crime is murder. Do we still execute people for other stuff?
LordRetard wrote:
Euclidthegreek wrote:What?
What I am saying is, "what do you want me to elaborate on?"
I want you to expain what you mean by being pro-abortion. Are you saying that most pregnancies should end in abortion?
Edminster wrote:I'm starting to think Euclid lives in the past.

User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by LordRetard »

Euclidthegreek wrote:Well in times when execution was just a guy with a rock (or an axe or a sword or a noose etc.), that guy was paid and was an employee of the state. I find the idea that there are a lot of people who would just kill some random person if asked (or wanted to) disturbing. Maybe if you lived in a close-knit town where everybody knew the victims, there would be someone who would want to kill the murderer*, but in my experience, most people are not involved enough in those things to actually want to kill the murderer/accused. Maybe this is just a personal bias. I'm pretty non-violent and find it extremely difficult to understand wanting to kill someone that you've never met. As per the second part: it was a JOKE. A bad one, like all my jokes.

* Assuming the crime is murder. Do we still execute people for other stuff?
Everything is disturbing. What a shame. The point is that just because there's a job that no one else wants to do doesn't mean that you'll get that much money for it. How much does a janitor make? Frequently the most degrading and psychologically trying jobs don't pay that well at all, but if you need money then you need a job. Who wants to be a prison guard? Well apparently someone likes it, and someone is getting paid to be a guard. We could pay the same guys to kill people and they'd do it, and we'd need less prison guards. Cheaper. Do you actually have any statistic backing the idea that the death penalty is more expensive than feeding and clothing and bedding and protecting and protecting other people from dangerous individuals? I really don't see it at all.
LordRetard wrote:I want you to expain what you mean by being pro-abortion. Are you saying that most pregnancies should end in abortion?
Joke.

User avatar
AHMETxRock
Spam-Bot Trollop
Posts: 5515
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Box of Cereal.
Contact:

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by AHMETxRock »

Euclidthegreek wrote:
AHMETxRock wrote:
Athiest feminists would argue that not having marriage would be great, as the whole concept of marriage is to assert control over women while allowing the passing of property and wealth through the male's lines to be streamlined. Also, if she marries you and stays in that damn kitchen the whole of her life, you know that kid is yours
I agree with Ahmet.
Hey Fox News, can I intern for your editing position yet?

Asherian: Pro-death implies the person deserves to be killed, while pro-life objects that the child isn't given the chance to live. Being against pro choice has many non religious implications. You might have your baby with a disease that could make it's quality of life very poor, so you can decide to abort. Except we agree you couldn't kill your three year old already born and diagnosed with the disease. If the child's disease doesn't threaten your life while pregnant, it is hypocritical to think that the child has a right to live but the fetus does not. The difference is that the child is still inside you and you can rationalize it.

If you were raped, you can abort. If your life is threatened by it, you can abort. Otherwise, it's much more complicated. I support the right but disagree when it is my child on the line. Now, here's the tricky part, because I'm not a simple minded ass hole. I said being against pro choice is warranted in many cases most people just don't think about, but being for it is also warranted. A woman can die from complications of birth. Calcium deposits, nutrition, a great amount of time, effort, and money are all sucked from her body before a baby can suck at her teat. There is that level, where a mother wants to abort a baby because she doesn't want to have that child from the man who doesn't want to raise it, or the one where the teen girl doesn't want the baby but the teen daddy does. So I think it should be allowed legally, but just as closely watched as Sahan's euthanasia.

Which brings me to Sahan! Many people, when healthy, decided upon a DNR, but there have been many that on the brink of losing consciousness have begged to be saved. Many people become highly depressed when facing death, and decide to just end it. A large number simply lose the will to live, and because they are sick we think that's okay, while a healthy person "DESERVES" to live or some shit. Many people that have survived were glad they were not allowed to die. And sure, many more probably died, and perhaps it's only the ones that could survive that would actually not be depressed. Then again, many people would electrocute a person near to death if ordered by an official rather than voice an opinion, so I'm not a big fan of the collective idea. Also, a person willing to die would have much less of a chance of recovery if allowed to resign. Perhaps even if immoral, not allowing them to die has saved slightly more lives that it ruined by not letting people die. I dunno. I think the doctor that killed all those patients in that hospital when the people couldn't escape due to storms (either in asia or katrina) rather than let them die from lack of support or drowning did an admirable thing.

I'm against feminism, not equal sexes. The fact I have a penis and you maybe have a vagina is not enough of a difference to base our entire philosophy around.
LordRetard wrote:I want you to expain what you mean by being pro-abortion. Are you saying that most pregnancies should end in abortion?
LOL QUOTE FAIL.

I combined the feminist view of marriage as a means to control women and property with the radical athiest (or perhaps at least radical agnostic) belief that marriage is a shall meant to oppress.
Just like an std, will never fully go away.

User avatar
Euclidthegreek
Fisty McGee
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: The Mathiverse

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by Euclidthegreek »

AHMETxRock wrote:I combined the feminist view of marriage as a means to control women and property with the radical athiest (or perhaps at least radical agnostic) belief that marriage is a shall meant to oppress.
Radical agnostic? Isn't that somewhat of an oxymoron?
Edminster wrote:I'm starting to think Euclid lives in the past.

User avatar
AHMETxRock
Spam-Bot Trollop
Posts: 5515
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Box of Cereal.
Contact:

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by AHMETxRock »

And yet when I'm racist or sexist people think it's a big deal. Shame on you dude.
Just like an std, will never fully go away.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by smiley_cow »

AHMETxRock wrote: I'm against feminism, not equal sexes.
I think you just contradicted yourself there.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
Euclidthegreek
Fisty McGee
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: The Mathiverse

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by Euclidthegreek »

What? I'm genuinely confused. How can someone who holds no particular beliefs be radical?
Edminster wrote:I'm starting to think Euclid lives in the past.

User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by LordRetard »

smiley_cow wrote:
AHMETxRock wrote: I'm against feminism, not equal sexes.
I think you just contradicted yourself there.
We've definitely had this discussion before so I hope I can settle the matter once and for all; feminism is the same thing as gender equality. It's a dumb name. Get over it.
Euclidthegreek wrote:What? I'm genuinely confused. How can someone who holds no particular beliefs be radical?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070324.gif

User avatar
AHMETxRock
Spam-Bot Trollop
Posts: 5515
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Box of Cereal.
Contact:

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by AHMETxRock »

LordRetard wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:
AHMETxRock wrote: I'm against feminism, not equal sexes.
I think you just contradicted yourself there.
We've definitely had this discussion before so I hope I can settle the matter once and for all; feminism is the same thing as gender equality. It's a dumb name. Get over it.
Nope. Instead of taking the focus off of the gender difference, it emphasizes it. It's like thinking the way to achieve flight is to have two people flap birds wings rather than one. Ya know how affirmative action is criticized? Same thing.

And agnostic is not believing anything religiously, which means they wouldn't see value in marriage as a religious thing.
Just like an std, will never fully go away.

User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by LordRetard »

AHMETxRock wrote:Nope. Instead of taking the focus off of the gender difference, it emphasizes it. It's like thinking the way to achieve flight is to have two people flap birds wings rather than one. Ya know how affirmative action is criticized? Same thing.
Can you explain this thought? I think affirmative action is dumb but I don't think it's the same thing.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by smiley_cow »

LordRetard wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:
AHMETxRock wrote: I'm against feminism, not equal sexes.
I think you just contradicted yourself there.
We've definitely had this discussion before so I hope I can settle the matter once and for all; feminism is the same thing as gender equality. It's a dumb name. Get over it.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I promise I won't get into another huge discussion on the subject.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
AHMETxRock
Spam-Bot Trollop
Posts: 5515
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Box of Cereal.
Contact:

Re: Gays have literally destroyed the institution of marriage.

Post by AHMETxRock »

Feminism has many of it's own glaring hypocrisies. For example, one example was a large feminist rally that allowed everyone to attend, but had an after party for women only. However, women who identified as men and dressed as such were also barred.

When you think of it as merely an issue of men versus women, it looks like it is fine. However, you are only aware of your group identity when around others that are not. Black people in a white neighborhood identify as black when they get together, but in a black neighborhood issues like being lighter skinned or acting more African comes about. People who are not heterosexual band together when surrounded by a heterosexual community, but within their own there is division between gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and transvestites.

Outside of America there is less emphasis on race and more on ethnicity. German or Scottish, you're white here, but not so much elsewhere. Statistics on race are done by the American government, but many other countries are wary of this practice, and for good reason. Many attempts to link an inferior set of genes by race have happened.
For example, perhaps black people are inferior because they have 3 times the infant mortality rate than white people of babies up to 18 months? Perhaps their genes make them weaker, and breeding with them would be bad for your child. Or perhaps right now white families just tend to wait longer for babies. Or perhaps white families on average make much more and can consistently afford better health care, being able to treat and nurture better, resulting in lower rates of death.

What does the example have to do with feminism? Because it is flawed, and people simplify it, and that allows it to be abused. Everyone thinks they are right, many times very few actually are. Men oppressed women a shitload historically, so instead of removing the emphasis on the genders, it is merely emphasized in favor of women.
From the moment you are born the difference is clear. A boy is dressed in blue, and a girl in dressed in pink. The baby doesn't care, but it matters for some reason. Even though the genitals aren't visible and infants look very similar, it is highly offensive to the parents if you think the boy is a girl or vice versa. Boys are given "action figures" and trucks to build while girls are given "dolls" and play dress up. "Boys will be boys". "Daddy's girl". Guys play dodgeball or football and other sports where one side or person clearly wins, while women play jumprope or hullahoop where they take turns and don't get dirty or highly active.
Do you get the picture? From the very moment you are raised a false pretense of the importance of gender is manufactured. Before men picked up the "I HAVE A PENIS" Banner and waved it around clamoring about their superiority. Having women pick up their own and waving around the "OH YEAH WELL I HAVE A VAGINA" Banner doesn't make things better. Even if you disagree, can you at least see my reasoning is not based on sexism?
Just like an std, will never fully go away.

Post Reply