Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in Connecticut

[kahljorn]

I'm not scrolling up and reading anything for fear that I may shit my brains out through my eyeballs from your typing.

U DONT TYPE GUD. What's with dipshits on the internet talking about spelling and typing? I notice it's always people of mediocre intelligence who attack spelling and typing -- probably because they have no other route of attack. Also I'm on a brand new laptop so I haven't adjusted to this keyboard.

Now you tell me it was a joke and not some crazy attempt at an argument. How am I supposed to tell when you're serious or not?

Cause I put LOLs in the middle of them? What are you, retarded? And you know, one of the most important philosophical principles is the principle of CHARITY. You could try exercising it. Otherwise you look like a jackoff. I mean jesus I said that whenever racist people see an interracial couple they BEAT THEIR WIVES. Oh yea and I put exclaimation points out of place.
The principle of charity and really of arguing in general is to attack the most crucial and strongest element of a person's argument.

also when you asked me if i was saying that interracial marriages should not be allowed my response was, "...yes."

Originally Posted by kahljorn

...yes

and man why do you pick on such stupid arguments when i posted several actual thoughtful things.

HOW CAN YOU TELL JEANETTE HOW CAN YOU TELL I DUNNO JEANETTE I DUNNO.

I don't know either. That's why I asked you.

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of. I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.
You can't say it devalued the institution of education or military when the purpose of those insutitutions has nothing to do with race or gender.

No, but you certainly have to be consistent, and you aren't.

I've been consistent in this thread. Consistency doesn't mean sticking by one broad argument with no exceptions.

How was I supposed to realize what your real views were next to all that bullshit about race?

Um cause I said it before everything else: before I started playing devil's advocate and making hypothetical arguments of people who are against gay marriage? And also I asked you like two or three times and even tried to draw your attention back to it? hmmMMMMmmmMMMmmmMMM'
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT JEANETTE HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT.

ok this is seriously the last time im justifying myself. it's so tiring. Now we are arguing about ME. That's what always happens when jackasses can't defend their views.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

U DONT TYPE GUD. What's with dipshits on the internet talking about spelling and typing? I notice it's always people of mediocre intelligence who attack spelling and typing -- probably because they have no other route of attack. Also I'm on a brand new laptop so I haven't adjusted to this keyboard.

How hard is it to type properly? Jeez, I asked for proper spelling, not a kidney.

I mean jesus I said that whenever racist people see an interracial couple they BEAT THEIR WIVES. Oh yea and I put exclaimation points out of place.
The principle of charity and really of arguing in general is to attack the most crucial and strongest element of a person's argument.

also when you asked me if i was saying that interracial marriages should not be allowed my response was, "...yes."

HOW CAN YOU TELL JEANETTE HOW CAN YOU TELL I DUNNO JEANETTE I DUNNO.

Well given the fact that your other arguements were pretty stupid, the fact that I barely know you, and the fact that people have said far stranger things on this forum in all seriousness, I think my confusion was justified.

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of.

You made the statement, I asked you to back it up with solid arguements, and then you inform me that I have to figure out your arguements for you? No darling, it doesn't work that way.

I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.

Now why didn't you just make this arguement before instead of telling me to figure it out for myself?

I've been consistent in this thread.

You could have fooled me.

Um cause I said it before everything else: before I started playing devil's advocate and making hypothetical arguments of people who are against gay marriage?

Oh, I'm supposed to intuitively understand that those aren't your real views and are merely hypothetical because you said them first! Silly me.

ok this is seriously the last time im justifying myself. it's so tiring. Now we are arguing about ME. That's what always happens when jackasses can't defend their views.

I merely expressed my confusion and asked for clarification, you freaked out and became extremely defensive. Sure, I broke your balls a bit, but I haven't been nearly as vitriolic as you have.

Does you need a diaper change?

[kahljorn]

Oh, I'm supposed to intuitively understand that those aren't your real views and are merely hypothetical because you said them first! Silly me.

I already answered this question. this is i-mockery, you should at least be able to tell when something's a joke. And again, you should practice the principle of charity.
And i said things like, "...yes." It should've been obvious. But i guess you're oblivious.

How hard is it to type properly? Jeez, I asked for proper spelling, not a kidney.

My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.

Well given the fact that your other arguements were pretty stupid, the fact that I barely know you, and the fact that people have said far stranger things on this forum in all seriousness, I think my confusion was justified.

They weren't stupid. your arguments were stupid. You can't even apply stock arguments properly: THAT'S PRETTY STUPID.

You made the statement, I asked you to back it up with solid arguements, and then you inform me that I have to figure out your arguements for you? No darling, it doesn't work that way.

I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.
Then I clarify my arguments and you have nothing to say. I did clarify, almost immediately after you asked me to do so. You're so dumb you can't even think of an effective criticism for things you haven't heard before.

Now why didn't you just make this arguement before instead of telling me to figure it out for myself?

I did, kind of (remember I gave you like five examples of arguments that could've been made against it). I also told you that race was irrelevant to the whole thing. I didn't make this argument because really it wasn't essential to anything I was saying and it was an unnecessary side-tracking (see red herring) of all the other arguments which you lost. You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.
The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Well, for one, because race is irrelevant to this entire issue (which I pointed out in my first p ost but you guys kept arguing over) and like 80% of the shit I said about racial marriages was an obvious joke that idiots like yo u and dimnos couldn't pick up on and continued to argue over because you knew you couldn't counter any of the other arguments.

and I'm sure if I thought about it a while I could figure out why they are different. I could probably just point out that they are different institutions which serve different purposes, and that education isn't as much of an umbrella institution as marriage.. Or I could point out that there wasn't any long-term effect on school attendance (even though I'm sure there was one at some point). Or that there was still a lot of segregation. Or that black people aren't fucking white people with books. I don't know.

And for fucks sake:

Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of. I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.
You can't say it devalued the institution of education or military when the purpose of those insutitutions has nothing to do with race or gender.

I ToLD YOU TO USE YOUR BRAIN TO THINK UP IDEAS THE SAME TIME I TOLD YOU WHAT YOU QUOTED AND YOU SAID, "WHY DIDNT YOU JUST TELL ME THIS FIRST INSTEAD OF TELLING ME TO THINK IT UP ON My OWN. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS." I TOLD YOU THOSE TWO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU"RE FUCKING RETARDED. SHuT THE FUCK UP.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man you're a classy fucking arguer.

You could have fooled me.

Obviously, it's pretty easy to fool you. I don't even have to TRY to fool you and you get all confused and fall apart.

Sure, I broke your balls a bit, but I haven't been nearly as vitriolic as you have.

I was pretty polite to you the first 3/4s of this thread, considering how stupid you were being.
but then i realized it was IMOCKERY so I should call you stupid every chance I get.
stupid.

I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.

I at least make an effort.

I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.

If you didn't want me to argue the weaker arguements, why did you present them in first place? Besides, I see nothing wrong with attacking the weak points first. If you're in a fist fight with a guy, where do you punch first, his chest, or his testicles?

You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.

I've slogged through prose in sociology books that would make your head explode. The difference between you and someone like Roland Barthes (attempting to read his work is like trying to inhale a Buick) is that he presented a point in what he wrote. You presented me with no central thesis, no point, no core values, deliberately made arguments to that clashed with previous ones, and then you expect me to sift through this mountain of rhetoric and find the hidden meanings like a Kabbalist studying Torah.

The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.

Don't project your vindictive tendencies onto me. I'm doing this because its a lot of fun, not because I'm petty the way you are.

I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!

I certainly is. I'm quite amused.

Originally Posted by ZeldaQueen

I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once.

I think this sums it up:

[Tadao]

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

I think this sums it up:

Or asian women have mule breath