6/12/2013 7:46 PM
How is knowing that it isn't possible the same as controlling nature?
6/12/2013 8:01 PM
How can you KNOW is isn't possible?
6/12/2013 8:11 PM
THE SON OF A ***** CONTROLS NATURE!!!   THAT'S HOW HE KNOWS!!!!!
6/12/2013 9:42 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2013 8:01:00 PM (view original):
How can you KNOW is isn't possible?
I don't know, but the possibility seems so remote that it isn't worth worrying about. Do you disagree?
6/13/2013 5:56 AM
I think it's equally likely that it is as it is not.  Because I don't get swayed by the propaganda, I have scary good critical thinking skills, and I am a master debater.
6/13/2013 8:19 AM
Are we back to "tiny percentages"?

If so, should we worry about SSM?   I think you said 2% of the population is homosexual.    Surely not all of them are clamoring to get married.   Since SSM affects such a miniscule percentage of the population, maybe it isn't worth worrying about.    Right?
6/13/2013 9:53 AM
6/13/2013 10:04 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 8:19:00 AM (view original):
Are we back to "tiny percentages"?

If so, should we worry about SSM?   I think you said 2% of the population is homosexual.    Surely not all of them are clamoring to get married.   Since SSM affects such a miniscule percentage of the population, maybe it isn't worth worrying about.    Right?
Tiny possibility. Certainly you understand the difference between ensuring that our laws don't discriminate against certain groups without reason and worrying about the extremely remote possibility that hundreds of years from now the entire population will be homosexual.

Especially since the odds of that happening aren't affected in any way by anything we do because sexuality isn't a choice.
6/13/2013 10:06 AM
God bistiza's an idiot.  Any freshman college logic course would tell you your argument on the last page is incorrect and the logic doesn't work, but you just refuse to see it...

BL's reasoning doesn't work because it isn't logical, and that somehow makes ME the idiot?

Is that supposed to be some kind of cute example of the most illogical thing you could possibly say? In that case, LOL.
I give up. You win. Clearly there are other considerations as to whether or not something is ok.

I'm trying to teach you that a line of reasoning CAN be applied to examples other than the ones you personally want to apply it to, and those applications can get results you don't want if your line of reasoning isn't a logical one.

There's no shame in amending your reasoning, and most people do it from time to time. But I know that's too much to expect from you as your pride won't let you admit you were wrong about anything.

Here's hoping you actually learned something and won't do it again, but I doubt it.
6/13/2013 10:40 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 10:06:00 AM (view original):
God bistiza's an idiot.  Any freshman college logic course would tell you your argument on the last page is incorrect and the logic doesn't work, but you just refuse to see it...

BL's reasoning doesn't work because it isn't logical, and that somehow makes ME the idiot?

Is that supposed to be some kind of cute example of the most illogical thing you could possibly say? In that case, LOL.
I give up. You win. Clearly there are other considerations as to whether or not something is ok.

I'm trying to teach you that a line of reasoning CAN be applied to examples other than the ones you personally want to apply it to, and those applications can get results you don't want if your line of reasoning isn't a logical one.

There's no shame in amending your reasoning, and most people do it from time to time. But I know that's too much to expect from you as your pride won't let you admit you were wrong about anything.

Here's hoping you actually learned something and won't do it again, but I doubt it.
Lol. You didn't see it, did you?
6/13/2013 10:50 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 8:19:00 AM (view original):
Are we back to "tiny percentages"?

If so, should we worry about SSM?   I think you said 2% of the population is homosexual.    Surely not all of them are clamoring to get married.   Since SSM affects such a miniscule percentage of the population, maybe it isn't worth worrying about.    Right?
Tiny possibility. Certainly you understand the difference between ensuring that our laws don't discriminate against certain groups without reason and worrying about the extremely remote possibility that hundreds of years from now the entire population will be homosexual.

Especially since the odds of that happening aren't affected in any way by anything we do because sexuality isn't a choice.
This country was built on discriminating against certain groups.  Surely you don't think we're moving towards a "discrimination free" society, do you?
6/13/2013 10:54 AM
?Especially since the odds of that happening aren't affected in any way by anything we do because sexuality isn't a choice.
Except sexuality IS a choice, and by ignoring that since it fits your agenda, you grossly underestimate how those choices could potentially increase the odds of any such scenario.

Lol. You didn't see it, did you?

What, specifically? I've read through every post for the last several pages, so I've seen everything you've written.
6/13/2013 10:57 AM
6/13/2013 10:58 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 8:19:00 AM (view original):
Are we back to "tiny percentages"?

If so, should we worry about SSM?   I think you said 2% of the population is homosexual.    Surely not all of them are clamoring to get married.   Since SSM affects such a miniscule percentage of the population, maybe it isn't worth worrying about.    Right?
Tiny possibility. Certainly you understand the difference between ensuring that our laws don't discriminate against certain groups without reason and worrying about the extremely remote possibility that hundreds of years from now the entire population will be homosexual.

Especially since the odds of that happening aren't affected in any way by anything we do because sexuality isn't a choice.
This country was built on discriminating against certain groups.  Surely you don't think we're moving towards a "discrimination free" society, do you?
Discrimination free society and discrimination free laws are two different things. We can actually do something about the laws.
6/13/2013 11:01 AM
Laws are part of the discrimination.  

Let's just point out a simple one.   I can walk around without a shirt in public pretty much anywhere.   Women cannot.   Wouldn't that be discrimination?   Would we be better off if women's titties were flopping around anywhere they chose?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.