Lurker > closetjpopfan

He was too busy interrupting Wallace.

Mezcla posted...

"White people? No ive never heard of them. What do you mean im white? This paper, this is white. I'm not white."

That'd be honest! Cuz he's orange.

Sackgurl posted...

these sorts of reactions say a lot about how the overton window has shifted

"democrats must compromise in advance to prove they're not commies, republicans can go full nazi"

Nod. Well at some point I guess the fascism that is so deeply embedded in and masquerading as part of the culture of the country had to come out and be seen for what it is.

What I want to see in the next two debates is why should Joe be elected? Not why I shouldn't vote for Trump. Trump's not presidential we've gotten that.

No double standard here, no sir.

masterpug53 posted...

People vote with their gut, and more often than not the gut is quite literally full of shit.

XD

https://select.solarnet.app/files/gallery/5272/expanded_medium/gallery_model_8Mcytq1oRDdE.jpg

Emily Lee

Okay watched that full video and it makes a point I think even Questionmarktarius will agree with, something that everybody should be fully aware of by now: special interests have hijacked the government.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why are those always assumed to be glued together?

Great question! Because in twisted reality logic, one is the means of the other. They're complementary.

You and I both know that they don't have to be, sure. But good luck explaining that to those people.

It's called fascism. It's a very very simple, stupid simple ideology. You can't have only the parts that you like and not the parts you don't like you see, why, because it doesn't come from reason.

Like Sackgurl, et al say, it's that way because that's the way they've made it. That's the way it works for them. They NEED it that way. It doesn't work otherwise.

In other words, bottom line, yes, it makes absolutely no sense.

Doe posted...

Pffft no. Like I said at the outset of the topic, the free marketplace of ideas doesn't work. People believe what PragerU says because they want to, not because it has more citations or more profound argumentation.

Bingo bingo! We agree.

Something I've understood only in the last decade or so is that for some people "strip social programs and create a white ethnostate" or what have you is a good thing. I know it's disgusting but that's the reality we have.

These people are willing to cut their nose to spite their face or whatever. That's the reality we have. They're willing to do things that are bad for them if it's also bad for others. That's the mentality we're "working" with here.

So they will always support PragerU and its ideology. Because they don't WANT to not support it. They don't want to be right, to put it simply. They want to be wrong. This is something we all have to understand someday. Some people want to be wrong. They like being wrong. Don't ask me how that works, but that's how it is.

I mean we know the exact reason why, of course. Because they don't care about anything or anyone except themselves. They want what they want regardless of reality. Reality, truth, is just some obscure, vague, often inconvenient, sometimes even scary thing beyond their noses. They don't wanna deal with it. So you could show them reality, you could cock slap them with reality, and they wouldn't care.

Damn_Underscore posted...

What?

A left wing version of PragerU is bad. PragerU makes videos that are convincing to those who are uneducated on the subjects. They aren't outright lies but they are heavily biased and spun to fit PragerU's agenda. Leftists are obviously able to do this exact same thing but to push their own agenda.

I'm sure PragerU makes "short, high-quality easy to understand videos presenting right wing ideas and refuting leftist lies"

Nod.

Antifar posted...

What if that agenda is preferable, though?

Yes, but the trick is in showing that, not just presenting it the way PragerU presents it. You have to correct PragerU, not refute it. Specially to the sort of people PragerU has convinced, good luck with that. This of course is more work and a little more complicated work. But it'd be truly praiseworthy if they can do it.

josifrees posted...

damn shes got a hairy chest

Furry.

I think the shift from 2D to 3D is so radical that it completely redefines genres (except perhaps when the dimensionality of a game is mostly a cosmetic thing and has little to nothing to do with gameplay).

NeoShadowhen posted...

Its always going to be hard at this point in the competition, but for this one it came down to who would I finish inside of... for the sake of humanity...

Think of the future generations my brothers. And vote with your dick.

To paraphrase the old Sprite commercial,

Image is nothing!
Your dick is everything!
Vote with your dick!

Polycosm posted...

"If the opposing argument is a problem, strawman it!"

Reminds me of something I read yesterday, "let's get rid of fire extinguishers if we're going to get rid of guns, and just depend on good fire departments same as good police".

Something I didn't expect and certainly didn't want to be reminded of just a day later.

Assuming good quality, easily burgers. Mediocre quality, ice cream.

Please close this terrible thread.

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'm for equal rights for everyone but I would open to a compromise with liberals that women are allowed to carry guns and men aren't.

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever but it's still better than nobody except criminals being armed and women need an equalizer more than men as a rule of thumb. Weaker and in more danger.

The problem is this still puts a lot of guns into circulation that men will use (or rather, misuse).

I understand your concern. Guns are not the solution. It's not that easy.

Rational civilized society doesn't remove rights for it's citizens and put them in danger.

When you "Control" guns all it means is the good well behaved boys and girls don't get them

A gun is not a human right. In fact having a gun is not even a constitutional right, contrary to nutcase interpretation.

CableZL posted...

I need someone to explain to me why:
* Charles Kinsey got shot
* John Crawford III got shot

Before I ever think about owning a gun. If it isn't safe to:
* Lay on the ground with your hands in the air while explaining to the police that a mentally challenged man next to you has a toy truck and not a gun
* Shop for a BB gun in Walmart

Then I just don't want to risk my life. If other people want to own guns, I'm fine with that. But I'm not about to get one until some major shit changes in this country in that regard.

Yeah, this is without even getting started on the other problems that are compounded with this one. The whole situation has reached RIDICULOUSNESS.

Fear has mentally incapacitated huge swaths of the US population. They're unreachable at this point. Too scared.

Foppe posted...

My problem is that you want more guns everywhere instead of trying to fix the social problems that results in this.

Then you got idiots like the serial killer in Wisconsin who thinks because they have the power to end the problems the way they like that means they have the right and the justification to do so.

Yes, I understand perfectly, you want to protect the girl and most likely there's nothing that would do as... thorough a job of that as a gun, sure, and yes that would absolutely be self-defense (unlike said idiot). But surely even you can see that's not the only thing you'd be doing if you give that girl a gun. You can't just handpick and tweak hypothetical scenarios.

Or I don't know, maybe we could make a law that only teenage bisexual girls can carry guns. Hey, maybe we can train them to act as police! I'm sure I've seen that anime.

Or maybe we could be a rational, civilized society and control guns? Nah?

She could be carrying a taser or pepper spray. Something non-lethal.
There could be better law enforcement in the area. You know, the kind that doesn't have to go around shooting people because they might be just as armed as good people like the girl in your hypothetical. Not that that's the only reason why they do it but that's besides the point right now.
How convenient that the two guys don't carry guns. Let me guess, there's legislation against it?

Bottom line, having the girl carry a gun is not the best way to protect her. This is precisely why we want gun control, good example, thank you.

ohiostate124 posted...

yes he would

You gotta take the orange out of the oompa loompa to have a realistic look.

We do agree however that going full bald is a much better way to wear your baldness than that... thing he wears.

coh posted...

Christians already do those things though

Yeah but only when it's convenient, right.

coh posted...

It's not the role of government do any of that

And there it is. Oh no, that's "government", we can't have "government" doing that! Then I wouldn't get any personal credit for it!

Is your friend gay? Then yes, it's gay.

If not, I think it's actually more transsexual than homosexual.

Wow I was expecting it to be a good deal closer.

Objective truth is the only guarantee of sanity, as facts do not take "pro" and "con" sides.

ButteryMales posted...

You ever hear the phrase "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

Clear your ears and open your eyes. Perhaps see a shrink, too, you got a lotta duck in your head.

It's what a homophobe would say so how is it not?

XD However will we solve the mystery!

Eh I'm just being mean, go to sleep or something kid, I'm done with you also.

ButteryMales posted...

You're just saying what a homophobe would say while denying you're a homophobe.

I realize this simple fact may blow your mind but we'll just have to risk it: if someone says the same thing another person says that doesn't mean they would say everything that the other person says.

In fact I'm not even sure a homophobe would make the point I'm making! Because it's not homophobic, so at worst it doesn't help their argument.

Questionmarktarius posted...

just how long have you been here?

Here in CE? You've been in CE your whole Gfaqs life? Wow.

Questionmarktarius posted...

No. It's capitalism, so you're not "free" but instead cost money, just like everything else.
Your skills, labor, and time are yours to sell, to whomever wants to buy it.

This is probably one of the best posts you've ever made, and you don't really make bad posts. I mean what's IN the posts is bad, yes, but that's not really your fault.

Prestoff posted...

Like it would've been very easy for you just to phrase "in my opinion, the reason why homosexual union can't be called marriage because there is no 'natural' reproduction involved unlike heterosexual unions."

No, I've never had any intention to say that, so I don't say it. I've made that very clear. It's not my problem if that's the only way you can understand it.

But no, the way you phrase your shit sounds like something a homophobe would say why gay marriage needs to be illegal. The way you phrase it, it sounds like "reproduction" HAS to be part of the equation in order for it to be objectively called "marriage".

No, I really don't and it really doesn't. I also made that very clear since my very first post.

THAT is the primary reason many people in this topic are having issues with your posts. Like I said, it might be the way you phrase it and I can understand if that is the reason your point is not coming across well because I'll admit that English is not my first language and there was a time when my words and posts would piss people off the wrong way.

If someone has "issues" with my posts it's certainly not because of the way I phrase them because I've tried and been exhaustively clear. Honestly I think at this point anybody who doesn't understand the point simply doesn't want to understand the point because it's not an "opinion" of mine but rather simple and uncontroversial facts I've merely pointed out. I mean there have been valid, important questions but I think they've been pretty much cleared. So I don't think there's any sense in wasting any more time explaining it.

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/09/NINTCHDBPICT000608935008.jpg

What a meme. What a glorious meme.

g0ldie posted...

but you're calling the heterosexual union "marriage" while saying there is no homosexual marriage because such unions lack reproduction in the same way heterosexual unions do, if I'm getting the gist of your argument by skimming your posts, and that's what people are having issue with

Shrug. What I call it or you call it or whoever calls it is not important. I made that point long ago. What matters is that they're not the same thing. It's not that they're two different kinds of the same thing, it's that they're two fundamentally different things, even though they may have some things in common.

Think of it this way. Some heterosexual unions are marriage. Some aren't. Homosexual unions however are just that, sexual unions. They CAN'T be marriage, because it's the very heterosexuality of marriage which makes marriage (because only heterosexuality allows for reproduction, to make the most obvious, most relevant to society distinction).

Marriage is the institutionalization of the heterosexual union, to put it most simply. You can have an institutionalization of the homosexual union, if you want. But that'd be something fundamentally different from marriage.

Prestoff posted...

You're still assigning reproduction to the definition of marriage (even if you think you're not you still are)

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing to the fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions and how this very difference is the essence of the heterosexual union, making it impossible for a homosexual couple to have this union.

Lordgold666 posted...

There isnt a reason besides haters trying to stick it to the gay community

Fuck off, homosexuality is here to stay

No. Nobody is arguing against homosexuality.

I'm not assigning any definitions, I'm just using a label, as I've repeatedly stressed. If even now you fail to understand the point, well, too bad. At this point I'm just repeating myself, so I don't know about you, but I'M done. Unless you actually have a relevant question or comment (not holding my breath on that...)?

California, Tennessee, idiot's still fucking there.

This clown has gotten REALLY boring.

Cobra1010 posted...

Does kendal jenner count?

My exact question.

Still, although Kendall would make me pause, hot Asian girl.

g0ldie posted...

^ where are you getting all of this stuff?

The One and Only Great Book of Truth. I'll put it in the footnotes so everybody can check it for themselves.

Or maybe I pulled it out magically. Straight outta my magical ass. Who can tell?

Not that any of this is supposed to make any sense, but the link goes people to prophets to Jesus to God. So there's no conflict. In other words the prophets aren't pointing directly to God, they're pointing to Jesus. According to Christianity, of course.

Shablagoo posted...

How are they bypassing Jesus when Jesus was there with them?

Guide posted...

I'm not disputing those facts, I'm disputing your definition of marriage. As I had asked: Why must the definition of marriage include the capability for reproduction?

It's not my definition, in fact it's no one's definition. There's no "definition" here. It's not "the definition of marriage" which includes or must include the capability for reproduction (who the fuck cares about "the definition of marriage"), it's heterosexual unions. They just happen to be called marriages. You may call them something else, and you may call other things marriages, too, but that's besides the point.

Yes, but you're the one who said it was "official", so I'm asking who officiated it.

Socially official, which just means the acknowledgement of this very simple, universal fact by (this or that) society in general. Or, again, a society may completely ignore it, in which case there's no such thing as marriage. I don't think such a primitive society has ever been found though. It's really one of the bases of society.

Ruvan22 posted...

If a man was born sterile, should he be allowed to marry a woman? Since he could never have sired children...

I don't know if somebody should be "allowed" to do something or not...

If a person is sterile certain societies may still "allow" them to "marry" another, and acknowledge such a union as a marriage, or perhaps a special kind of marriage, simply by virtue of being a heterosexual union, even if no children are actually expected of such a union. Other societies actually may not allow it, they may be more strict in that respect.

In fact, and you're going to hate me even more for what I'm about to explain, the essence of marriage isn't even the fertility of it, but the very heterosexuality of it. This is why having children and/or raising children is very closely related to it (because it's such a natural consequence of heterosexuality, and the most obvious, practical concern for human society), but not the real essence of the matter.

Notti posted...

But a homosexual couple can have children.

(adoption, in vitro, surrogate mothers.)

Yes but these are not their children, not just both of theirs. You need at least a third person or a third and fourth person for them to have, i.e. raise, children. The issue is not the raising of children. You don't need either a homosexual or a heterosexual couple to raise children, you don't even need a single person of either sex to raise children, you could just raise all children communally or whatever. Which is why all these issues are only indirectly related to marriage. As well as homosexual unions. They're very important of course, but they're not essential.

A homosexual couple isn't a heterosexual couple where one or both happen to be sterile, or simply unwilling to have children, or what have you. In fact oftentimes they're very much NOT sterile and might actually want to have and/or raise children.

[ tangent: Or far flung future science: converting male cells into eggs, or female cells into sperm. https://medium.com/neodotlife/same-sex-reproduction-artificial-gametes-2739206aa4c0 ]

Okay, depending on where this goes, yes, this could change the whole issue. In this case however marriage itself will be changed since people will be able to self-reproduce, that is to say clone themselves.

Notti posted...

Old people are not allowed to get married.

Sterile people either. (no vasectomies for you. If you get 1, you now must divorce.)

TreyFlowers posted...

So what would you call a childless married couple where the woman can't give birth for medical reasons?

Hmm, good question. I would say that even if a couple is unable (or even unwilling) to have children what matters is that they may have or may have had children if circumstances (such as their age) were different. What matters is that heterosexual couples may have children, even if this particular couple can't or won't.

Now you could say that the homosexuality of a gay couple is just such a circumstance, but I don't know if a gay couple would want to say that. Perhaps some would, but I think some wouldn't. A gay couple is not a circumstantially affected heterosexual couple.

Guide posted...

You are trying to make a point here, but it's opaque like frosted glass. Like, your response does not actually answer my question. You are making the insistence that marriage must involve the capability for reproduction, just in the form of a question.

If you want me to rephrase, fine: Why must the definition of marriage include the capability for reproduction?

Also, what governing body officiated the " official social state" of marriage, or what body of work recognized it as such?

I'm not insisting anything, I'm simply pointing to a fact. A heterosexual union allows for reproduction, a homosexual union doesn't. So they're not the same thing, whatever you call them.

The "governing body" differs from society to society. Some societies may not even have the institution of marriage, in which case the whole question is moot.

Guide posted...

Maybe I'm missing something, but where is marriage defined as needing to be capable of having children?

In the exact same place where a heterosexual union allows for reproduction and a homosexual union doesn't. Do you know EXACTLY where that is?

Guide posted...

I'm confused by how you say this, but then also say

Like, you understand the latter; how are you coming to the former conclusion that two people of the same sex getting married isn't... getting married?

Again, simply because they can't have children. It's not hard to understand.

Notice how the union of a gay couple is also primarily a social thing, only incidentally religious or sexual. But not quite the same thing as marriage. Simply because they can't have children.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Marriage was largely about children and keeping stable family lines, which people stopped caring about nowadays anyhow. So it was an outdated thing.

Hmm. I don't know if I'd call that outdated or something that people stopped caring about.

It's placement in the Old Testament is around all of the health stuff like not eating shellfish, stuff that is more likely to make you sick and gay men have a much higher STD contraction rate than the average straight person. Wouldn't be surprised if that is why it is in there.

But that's not just against gay marriage, that's against gay sex.

There's really no such thing as being against gay marriage because there's no such thing as gay marriage. Again, you can call the union of a gay couple whatever you want (or call it marriage and call marriage something else), it's not the same thing.

It's not that sex is supposed to be for reproduction (nor that you need marriage for heterosexual sex for reproduction), it's just that only heterosexual sex allows for it, and marriage is simply the official social state of such a union. It's very much a social thing, only incidentally religious or sexual.

In some societies however there have been different kinds of "marriage" defined. So there's that. But yeah, they're a different kind of (official, social) union.

Yeah, very tough match.

Yeah, it's for the simple reason that only men and women can have children together. It has little to nothing to do with (homo)sexuality, for or against. Yes, gay couples could adopt, but that's just not quite the same thing.

As for the union of a gay couple labeled marriage, I don't know why anybody would care about that one way or the other (I mean other than the gay couple and their friends, family, etc).

The concerns of society would be things like tax breaks, adoption, etc on the positive side, and things like discrimination on the negative side. Those are much more relevant issues. Again, this is legal, social stuff, and has little to nothing to do with marriage, and is even only incidentally related to sexuality.

XxKrazyChaosxX posted...

Hahaha was looking for it.