tommythelurker

cap?stone

see how many digits you can calculate pi to Uh oh, did I just end a sentence with a preposition?

Originally posted by -=MYK=- Spicy chicken. Crispy. Spicy chicken?!?! Heck ya!

Originally posted by -=MYK=- So would you let a gay cow poke you in the bottom for a million bucks and a chicken sandwich? Depends. Is the chicken grilled or crispy?

Originally posted by rgf Your arguing style is unique. No it's not. It's pretty common to anyone familiar with the concepts of logic and writing an agumentative essay. I will admit I do tend to mix things up now and then though. I don't have a great memory and not exactly putting a lot of effort into what I write here. But that's execution, not style.... You make untrue statements like "Your argument up to that point proclaimed that you knew for absolute fact what was best for mankind" and then make judgements based on the untruths. I know I make mistakes, but I don't believe the statement you sighted to be untrue. After all, you're the one who said, "men marrying men isn't helping [to ensure the survival of the species]." That sounds to me like the proclomation I accused you of, after all, how can you know that unless you know what is best for mankind? So while you didn't make the statement explicitly, you did implicitly. What I find interesting is how you have totally sidestepped the analogy by just saying 'it's wrong', and then provide no thoughtful counter points to it. I didn't say it's wrong. I said you haven't set up any basis for it nor shown how it connects to your assertion that gay marriage is wrong. (see my next point below) I put the analogy out there for discussion. If you can't refute it, then too bad. this is your problem: I don't give a rats ass about refuting your analogy. As I said in my first reply to you, I'm not trying to argue for gay marriage or refute your agrument. You basically said if you follow the "logic", gay marriage is wrong and I pointed out that there was no logic in your argument. I simply want you to reveal the logic you referred to but you seem incappable of doing that. Don't feel bad, you're not alone. The 'slippery slope' is wrong?? Thanks for letting me in on that little nugget of wisdom. You're welcome. Hopefully you'll avoid it in the future now that you know better. I love you guys... ..all of you... ...even though I don't know any of you;) Don't tell me you want to get married....

Originally posted by rgf I have presented the question. No one has presented anything of substance that rebuts the analogy. If you believe the two items are not connected, tell me why? No. You're the one making the argument, it's your job to support it. An analogy is meant to illustrate a point, not to be the fundamental basis for the argument. You have yet to state plain and simple why gay marriage is wrong, or even put forth any sort of basis for the discussion. This is why nobody can "shoot down" anything. You haven't put anything up there and therefore the "analogy" is completely meaningless. I can't very well claim that "the moon is made of cheese because Robin Williams wore yellow in 'Mork and Mindy', I'm right unless you prove me wrong" and expect that to fly. The 'if it feels good' crowd hasn't faired so well in the past. If you need a history lesson I suggest you read a book. Whatever. It's a subjective judgement that hasn't been setup with any sort of basis or connection for this discussion. I'm sure someone has tried it, even though you 'haven't heard of it'. The points that 'pro gay marriage folk' use to support their argument are the same ones that will be used to justify the next step (whatever that might be). Ah, the "slippery slope" argument That's not a logical argument against gay marriage (or anything for that matter), that's fear mongering. You don't even know what the "next step" is, but you seem to insinuate that it's bad. I'm not sure what the state by state age requirements are for marriage, but that wasn't the point. Well, like I said, I don't know what you're point was. I'm not even going to dignify the 'did you create us' question with a response. One thing is certain. Homosexuals do not procreate. I believe by defintion that probably wouldn't ensure the survival of the species. It is an interesting question though, they might help in some other instance, but it is beyond me That's right, they just might help in someway that's beyond you. I'm glad you admitted that. Your argument up to that point proclaimed that you knew for absolute fact what was best for mankind which is pretty arrogant and even absurd.

Originally posted by rgf Once again no one has shot down the argument. it hasn't even gotten off the ground.

Originally posted by Iceman8.6 If you really believe that then get on a 747 to England and start talking about the bomb you've got hidden on the plane somewhere. Your "free speech" will come with a price. Common argument from those who have no idea what "free speech" means

Originally posted by rgf OK....if there is a problem with the use of cows in the analogy let's use dog's? Ugh, it's not your choice of animal that's the problem. There's no connection being established between homosexuality and beastiality. They're two different things and you haven't presented anything that connects the two. It's the whole 'If it feels good do it' mentality that ruins societies. Are you still trying to be logical? Because that's an opinion stated as if it were fact which doesn't not follow any sort of logic. Everyone always says 'if two men love each other, they should be able to marry' not everyone... .....I would say a dog could love a human and vice versa, so why not let humans marry dogs?? or is that past the limit? It's a different kind of "love". I've never heard of anyone wanting to marry a dog. With the 'if they love each other' mentality then that means that eventually grown men will be marrying boys under 18....I believe that it is possible for a grown man to love a 16 year old and vice versa? Not sure what point you're trying to make here but I believe in some states it's legal to marry at age 16 (I know thats the age of consent in some states, even lower in some). The point is just because 'it feels good' doesn't mean you should do it. There are rules and societal norms that are in place to ensure the survival of the species and men marrying men isn't helping. The "rules and social norms" are what society makes them and this is what is up for debate. You can't use the issue itself to argue the issue. how do you know gay marriage isn't helping the survival of the species? Did you create us?

Originally posted by rgf I have no rapport with cows, but I have castrated them and branded them etc.... Rather than just saying my logic is 'non-existant' could you please expand on that and perhaps provide a valid argument?? Or are we just going to call each other names and post witty zingers?? No, I can't. I can't because you only alluded that there was some logic there, but I didn't see anything resembling logic. There's some cow discussion going on, but there was no basis formed or any connection made between that and why gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed. BTW, feeling pain and thinking are two different things. I'm sure the cow is feeling the pain, but I seriously doubt he's thinking, "damn that hurts, I wish he would stop".

Originally posted by rgf Show me where my logic is flawed. I guess I should correct myself. Your logic is non-existant. Obviously a cow cannot consent the same way a human can, but if it doesn't run away and let's you do whatever and moo's and moan's in ecstasy, then that my friend, is a Consenting Cow:thu: You sound like you're speaking from experience... I personally have no idea what a cow sounds like in ecstasy vs. anything else or what it would do (or not do) if it didn't like what someone was doing to it. As far as I know, they just stand around going moo without much awareness of what's going on around them. Maybe you have a better raport with cows....

Originally posted by rgf Consenting - Hence the reference to the cow coming to you and eating out of your hand.....ie - not running away. A cow eating out of your hand = consenting to sex?? :freak: I suppose you think taking a woman out to dinner (or her simply not "running away" from you) automatically means you're entitled to sex with her... Why is humping a cow any worse or better than humping a man? "humping"?? What are you, 12? If you hump a woman at least you can procreate (although not everyone should exercise this option). For humans, there's more to "humping" than just procreation. It's the logic....just follow it through and you will see it doesn't make sense for men to be with other men. Your logic is seriously flawed. I'm not trying to argue that it is OK, but I have yet to see a logical argument for why it isn't. What it comes down to is personal opinion and belief, not logic.

Originally posted by rgf Spoken like a true intellect.. Just for the sake of argument, and assuming for said argument that the OP is in fact an idiot as redrol claims, what would be the point of getting intellectual with an idiot? You know what they say - never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to there level and then beat you with experience.

Originally posted by flying_high hmm anyone ever try groove tubes in an engl? Don't hijack the thread!

Originally posted by JamesPeters Wrong forum. You're looking for Open Jam. Thank you and have a nice day. not you too...