Originally posted by Master Han
The "pretend that I was joking" bluffing tactic is older than dirt.That must mean that it's right, though. Since it's old. #conservativelogic
Lol think that buddy. This is coming from the guy who supports gun control and believes ALL poor people are gooda dn opposing gay marriage is the same as opposing slavery. Why don't you go beat off to your MSNBC somemore.
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
Lol think that buddy. This is coming from the guy who supports gun control and believes ALL poor people are gooda dn opposing gay marriage is the same as opposing slavery. Why don't you go beat off to your MSNBC somemore.
Aren't you going to lecture me on the sins of masturbation?
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
1.My family IS RICH.
🙄 Assuming I believed you for the sake of argument, does this have anything to do with your abilities?
2.I get good grades, have a good job.
Post your credentials, then.
3.Am more successful then you will ever be.
I can just hear your orgasmic moans reverberating across the internet.
Why don't you go pick up your obamaphone already, its waiting for you in the mail LMAO.
😉
OK, why am I even bothering with you?
1.My family is rich. Yes. Im on that road aswell.
2.Nah, I don't need to prove myself to people I dislike over the internet.
3.I don't even.......
4.Because your a loser LOL. Why don't you go collect your obamaphone already LOL. And the fact you actually responded to my openly fake gay marriage argument(well i am against gay marriage, that was simply to see if you would take the bait. And you did which has lowered my opinion of you tremendously).
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
ur a loser LOL. Why don't you go collect your obamaphone already LOL. And the fact you actually responded to my openly fake gay marriage argument(well i am against gay marriage, that was simply to see if you would take the bait. And you did which has lowered my opinion of you tremendously).
Buddy, the fact that you can cleverly "troll" a forum by posting retarded arguments doesn't establish your ability to actually present a non-retarded argument should you so desire. I can tell when you're genuinely trying; your logic still falls pathetically flat. It's less outright retarded and more sophistic, with a minor degree of coherency so that an eight year old may initially find reason to support it...but it's still not at all impressive.
But congratulations, it looks like everybody's laughing at with you! 😆
Originally posted by Master Han
Buddy, the fact that you can cleverly "troll" a forum by posting retarded arguments doesn't establish your ability to actually present a non-retarded argument should you so desire. I can tell when you're genuinely trying; and your logic still falls pathetically flat. It's less outright retarded and more sophistic, with a minor degree of coherency so that an eight year old may initially find reason to support it...but it's still not at all impressive.But congratulations, it looks like everybody's laughing
atwith you! 😆
1.I was trolling you, then got bored. IF you want to have a real argument, go AHEAD LOL.
2.Your argument is that of a classic liberal involving "minority syndrum"(ie america is evil its the fault of racism) without looking at the actual issue.
3.A 5year old has more sense then you.
4.I could care less what people who I've never meet IRL(or ever will) think about me.
The balls in your court BRO.
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
1.I was trolling you, then got bored. IF you want to have a real argument, go AHEAD LOL.
I'd be more than happy to.
Present a rational basis for why the institution of marriage should be closed to homosexuals:
1. Without using naturalistic fallacies.
2. Without using appeals to tradition or popularity.
3. Without using circular logic.
4. Without applying double standards and cherry picking criteria.
2.Your argument is that of a classic liberal involving "minority syndrum"(ie america is evil its the fault of racism) without looking at the actual issue.
Nice attempt at writing a coherent sentence. Too bad it's still pure sophistry; that gay people should be allowed to marry has nothing to do with any anti-american sentiment and everything to do with the principles of liberty and equal rights. The government should only have the power to forbid what is potentially harmful, not what rotjvader dictates to be "disgusting".
I'd be more than happy to.Present a logical argument justifying why the institution of marriage should be closed to homosexuals:
1. Without using naturalistic fallacies.
2. Without using appeals to tradition or popularity.
3. Without using circular logic.
4. Without applying double standards and cherry picking criteria.
Alright, make a topic on it on one of the sections here then send me the link and we can have a debate.
Nice attempt at a coherent sentence. Too bad it's still pure sophistry; that gay people should be allowed to marry has nothing to do with any anti-american sentiment and everything to do with the principles of liberty and equal rights. The government should only have the power to forbid what is potentially harmful, not what rotjvader dictates to be "disgusting".
LIBERTY AND EQUAL RIGHTS LOL. America wasint FOUNDED SO HOMOSEXUALS COULD MARRY. Liberty and Equal rights are freedom--freedom means freedom from a tyranical government and freedom from opression and big government.
Make a topic. 😆
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
America wasint FOUNDED SO HOMOSEXUALS COULD MARRY.
America wasn't founded specifically so I could sing in the shower either. Should the government bust down my front door and arrest me for anything I do in my own home that they deem "disgusting"? What kind of logic is "America wasn't founded to let gays marry!" anyway? I could switch around a few words and conclude that "America wasn't founded to let you eat hamburgers, so hamburgers should be outlawed". Yet again, your argument is pure sophistry.
You, in all your pages of passionate rhetoric, have failed to conjure a single rational basis as to why gay marriage is immoral or impractical. All your justifications have been:
1. Textbook logical fallacies
2. Circular logic
3. Slippery slopes
4. Red herrings
5. Strawmans
Originally posted by Master Han
1.America wasn't founded specifically so I could sing in the shower either. Should the government bust down my front door and arrest me for anything I do in my own home that they deem "disgusting"? What kind of logic is "America wasn't founded to let gays marry!" anyway? I could switch around a few words and conclude that "America wasn't founded to let you eat hamburgers, so hamburgers should be outlawed". Yet again, your argument is pure sophistry.2.You, in all your pages of passionate rhetoric, have failed to conjure a [b]single rational basis
as to why gay marriage is immoral or impractical. All your justifications have been:1. Textbook logical fallacies
2. Circular logic
3. Slippery slopes
4. Red herrings
5. Strawmans [/B]
1.Gay Marriage is not Freedom of Speech. Marriage is a contract between the state.
2.You havint ether, besides saying its "BIGOTED" against gays to allow them to get married lol. This is incorrect-it WOULD BE bigoted if people were saying "ban all gays" but people are not. There just saying the simple truth that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I will continue this conversation with you ether on another topic or in private messages since this is clogging up this thread.
Last set of replies here, then.
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
1.Gay Marriage is not Freedom of Speech. Marriage is a contract between the state.
And explain what rational basis the state has to arbitrarily discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
And remember the rule about "no circular logic".
2.You havint ether, besides saying its "BIGOTED" against gays to allow them to get married lol. This is incorrect-it WOULD BE bigoted if people were saying "ban all gays" but people are not. There just saying the simple truth that marriage is between a man and a woman.
More circular logic; you continue to spew the notion that marriage is between one man and one woman, but aside from blatant appeals to tradition*, itself a logical fallacy, you've failed to actually justify this opinion/assertion of yours.
*and not necessarily a historically accurate one, either.