The Left Loses Ground...

[Skylar]

Some believe so.

"I've had several right wingers tell me now that "Pew Is a left wing thing tank headquartered in DC. They produce polls that tend to support left wing progressive talkling points." What exactly can I say to this?
As for Pew's bias, I trying to think of a thread hear lately. Seemed to me that their questions were biased to the left by asking not about an action, but about an echo of it. I thought the bias was obvious. I felt the pollsters have a vested interest that is forwarded by finding the 'facts' that their customers most likely want to hear. More left leaning customers, more left leaning results."
Credibility of Pew Research - International Skeptics Forum

So to be clear, you are arguing that Pew is not just skewing-left, but is actually engaging in studies deliberately designed to shore up the left, and your only evidence is that on another random internet forum, some random other person claimed that Pew skews left?

What I'm stating is that, in the face of the following...

"...the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength.While it is easy to grow discouraged in the face of events like Brendan Eich’s departure from Mozilla, the wave ofthreats directed at vendorslike Memories Pizza, Republican politicians’ continued timidity on “culture war” issues, andthe climate of intolerance that exists on campuses and in the mainstream media,the Left’s prominent failures are starting to outnumber its recent successes.



§ Cultural conservatives answeredthe Left’s attempted Chick-fil-A boycottwith a “buycott” that swamped stores nationwide, even causing some to run out of food for customers eager to show their support for a beloved restaurant, owned by people who share their moral principles.



§ Leftist pressureagainst Hobby Lobby failed.Customers were either supportive of the owners or indifferent to politics, and boycotts had no effect on Hobby Lobby’s bottom line or its willingness to fight. Not only did Hobby Lobby win its Supreme Court case, its owners are set to open a massive new Museum of the Bible near the National Mall.



§Efforts to drive Phil Robertson—ofDuck Dynastyfame—off the airafter controversial comments on sexual morality failed, giving cultural conservatives a victory in a medium (cable television) seen as almost uniformly hostile to orthodox Christianity. While Robertson has remained a polarizing figure (and often says things that make many of his supporters uncomfortable), there has been no serious repeat effort to remove him from the air.



§ In Houston, leftist government officials were forcedto backtrack within days after issuing subpoenas requiring area pastors to turn over the contents of their sermonsand other communications. The public outcry was so swift and so great that the city capitulated even before a judge could rule on motions to quash.



Even in Indiana, as Republican politicians quickly caved to corporate and media pressure,the grassroots response in support of Memories Pizza soon swamped the Left.A GoFundMe account set up to support the owners raised more than $800,000 in small donations in a matter of days (including over $200,000 in one day), putting the pizza restaurant in a far superior financial position than it had enjoyed before the controversy. The message was clear: Cultural conservatives are not, in fact, culturally isolated but rather have the support of millions of Americans who oppose leftist bullying."Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles"


....it was more than convenient for the Left to claim the Pew Poll as the fact.

This is almost a complete non-sequitor which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What you've done is cherry picked a few examples where the anti-gay side has had some success. How is that at all relevant to answering my question?

Yeah, about that. Political Chic doesnt actually understand any of the arguments she's making. In the most literal sense, she's simply cutting and pasting other websites. She doesn't check to see if its accurate, she can't answer relevant question about what's she's posted nor can defend any of the arguments she parrots.

Its just her thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some believe so.

"I've had several right wingers tell me now that "Pew Is a left wing thing tank headquartered in DC. They produce polls that tend to support left wing progressive talkling points." What exactly can I say to this?
As for Pew's bias, I trying to think of a thread hear lately. Seemed to me that their questions were biased to the left by asking not about an action, but about an echo of it. I thought the bias was obvious. I felt the pollsters have a vested interest that is forwarded by finding the 'facts' that their customers most likely want to hear. More left leaning customers, more left leaning results."
Credibility of Pew Research - International Skeptics Forum

So to be clear, you are arguing that Pew is not just skewing-left, but is actually engaging in studies deliberately designed to shore up the left, and your only evidence is that on another random internet forum, some random other person claimed that Pew skews left?

What I'm stating is that, in the face of the following...

"...the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength.While it is easy to grow discouraged in the face of events like Brendan Eich’s departure from Mozilla, the wave ofthreats directed at vendorslike Memories Pizza, Republican politicians’ continued timidity on “culture war” issues, andthe climate of intolerance that exists on campuses and in the mainstream media,the Left’s prominent failures are starting to outnumber its recent successes.



§ Cultural conservatives answeredthe Left’s attempted Chick-fil-A boycottwith a “buycott” that swamped stores nationwide, even causing some to run out of food for customers eager to show their support for a beloved restaurant, owned by people who share their moral principles.



§ Leftist pressureagainst Hobby Lobby failed.Customers were either supportive of the owners or indifferent to politics, and boycotts had no effect on Hobby Lobby’s bottom line or its willingness to fight. Not only did Hobby Lobby win its Supreme Court case, its owners are set to open a massive new Museum of the Bible near the National Mall.



§Efforts to drive Phil Robertson—ofDuck Dynastyfame—off the airafter controversial comments on sexual morality failed, giving cultural conservatives a victory in a medium (cable television) seen as almost uniformly hostile to orthodox Christianity. While Robertson has remained a polarizing figure (and often says things that make many of his supporters uncomfortable), there has been no serious repeat effort to remove him from the air.



§ In Houston, leftist government officials were forcedto backtrack within days after issuing subpoenas requiring area pastors to turn over the contents of their sermonsand other communications. The public outcry was so swift and so great that the city capitulated even before a judge could rule on motions to quash.



Even in Indiana, as Republican politicians quickly caved to corporate and media pressure,the grassroots response in support of Memories Pizza soon swamped the Left.A GoFundMe account set up to support the owners raised more than $800,000 in small donations in a matter of days (including over $200,000 in one day), putting the pizza restaurant in a far superior financial position than it had enjoyed before the controversy. The message was clear: Cultural conservatives are not, in fact, culturally isolated but rather have the support of millions of Americans who oppose leftist bullying."Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles"


....it was more than convenient for the Left to claim the Pew Poll as the fact.

This is almost a complete non-sequitor which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What you've done is cherry picked a few examples where the anti-gay side has had some success. How is that at all relevant to answering my question?

Yeah, about that. Political Chic doesnt actually understand any of the arguments she's making. In the most literal sense, she's simply cutting and pasting other websites. She doesn't check to see if its accurate, she can't answer relevant question about what's she's posted nor can defend any of the arguments she parrots.

Its just her thing.

Oh, my.

You're still smarting over the way I exposed your ignorance last time, huh?

Would you care to try again?

What is it about 'cut and paste' that you find less appropriate than the 'Liberal plagiarism' that you indulge in....quoting MSNBC, the DNC, the NYTimes....etc., and never giving credit to your sources?

Now,...take your time....and do your best.

You certainly don't want to look as stupid as you did last time, do you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

(Reader, we can now rest assured that Skylar is taking unto herself, the right to define 'run', as her own subjective need requires.

Now, that doesn't mean that she's not being 'objective', because she reserves the right to define objective as normal people define subjective... so don't make THAT mistake.)

And still you won't discuss the flaws in your process. You won't discuss how by your own logic, almost all of the religious faithful are self deluded, misinterpreting their own subjective beliefs, opinions and inventions as 'god'. You won't discuss how you're using the exact same process. And how by your own reasoning, you're almost certainly among the self deluded.

This is the application of your reasoning and your logic. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be both Amaterasu the Sun Goddess and Jesus. If its either, it has to be one or the other.

By your own standards, the application of religious reasoning is almost perfectly invalid. It almost always results in fallacies and fiction. And you're using religious reasoning.

You can't get around that.

Reader: notice how Keyes circles and highlights where he knows his argument is weak by fastidiously avoiding it. He won't discus it. He'll omit any mention of it when replying. If his argument had merit, he wouldn't have had to run. Yet even now....he's fleeing.

If his argument had merit he wouldn't need ten pages to make his point. He lost when he adopted the very same losing arguments from the past.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, my.

You're still smarting over the way I exposed your ignorance last time, huh?

Laughing......you mean where you disappeared from your own thread for 2 days with your tail between your legs and returned to avoid my posts?

Lie to yourself if you want to, Poli. But don't bother lying to me.

Would you care to try again?

I'm right here. I come to your threads and kick your sand castle over on a pretty regular basis. And so far there's been nothing you can do stop me. As I actually understand what I'm arguing. And you, fundamentally, don't.

I mean look at your reply to Josh's question about Pew Research's reliability. Your post was block paste gibberish, having nothing to do with what you were replying to. You spammed randomly in response. And you have no idea what you're posting.

Its what you do.

What is it about 'cut and paste' that you find less appropriate than the 'Liberal plagiarism' that you indulge in....quoting MSNBC, the DNC, the NYTimes....etc., and never giving credit to your sources?

Care to cite an example? Cutting and pasting other people's words is what you're good for. Cut and paste my 'liberal plagiarism'. With links to both my 'plagiarized post' and the source you insist I stole from.

You can't, can you? As usual....you're simply not prepared for a debate. And you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

(Reader, we can now rest assured that Skylar is taking unto herself, the right to define 'run', as her own subjective need requires.

Now, that doesn't mean that she's not being 'objective', because she reserves the right to define objective as normal people define subjective... so don't make THAT mistake.)

And still you won't discuss the flaws in your process. You won't discuss how by your own logic, almost all of the religious faithful are self deluded, misinterpreting their own subjective beliefs, opinions and inventions as 'god'. You won't discuss how you're using the exact same process. And how by your own reasoning, you're almost certainly among the self deluded.

This is the application of your reasoning and your logic. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be both Amaterasu the Sun Goddess and Jesus. If its either, it has to be one or the other.

By your own standards, the application of religious reasoning is almost perfectly invalid. It almost always results in fallacies and fiction. And you're using religious reasoning.

You can't get around that.

Reader: notice how Keyes circles and highlights where he knows his argument is weak by fastidiously avoiding it. He won't discus it. He'll omit any mention of it when replying. If his argument had merit, he wouldn't have had to run. Yet even now....he's fleeing.

If his argument had merit he wouldn't need ten pages to make his point. He lost when he adopted the very same losing arguments from the past.

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy. And when that doesn't work, he tries an Appeal to Authority fallacy. If he runs into trouble there, he tries an all new 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

With occasional babble about how many of 'those people' he's going to 'wipe from the face of the earth'.

Its batshit...all the way down.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If his argument had merit he wouldn't need ten pages to make his point. He lost when he adopted the very same losing arguments from the past.

Point was made in one post... unless you're referring to another, purposefully unstated point.

And ... LOL! ... The purpose for not stating the unstated point is that there is no other point, and you simply need the deceitfully, fraudulently advanced implication, as a hopeful means to influence the ignorant.

Sadly, for you I mean... no one here is ignorant of you, Skylar or the feckless tactics drawn from Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance, common to the lowly Relativists, of this otherwise august board.

But MAN! If there were... wouldn't that be cool for you?

Oh well... another Leftist ruse, bites the proverbial dust.

 

[Skylar]

If his argument had merit he wouldn't need ten pages to make his point. He lost when he adopted the very same losing arguments from the past.

Point was made in one post... unless you're referring to another, purposefully unstated point.

And ... LOL! ... The purpose for not stating the unstated point is that there is no other point, and you simply need the deceitfully, fraudulently advanced implication, as a hopeful means to influence the ignorant.

Sadly, for you I mean... no one here is ignorant of you, Skylar or the feckless tactics drawn from Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance, common to the lowly Relativists, of this otherwise august board.

But MAN! If there were... wouldn't that be cool for you?

Oh well... another Leftist ruse, bites the proverbial dust.

That wasn't my post.

And of course, you're still running from the flaws in your process. You still won't touch the fact that your own logic and standards mandates that almost every person of faith is self deluded, misinterpreting their own subjective beliefs, opinions and inventions as 'god'.

And that you're almost certainly among them.

As usual, you circle the weakest points in your argument with neon and glitter.......by what you desperately avoid, refuse to discuss, and omit any mention of.

Keep running.

 

[GreenBean]

I held up Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf as the baseline for his pretend-Christian propaganda campaign.

All you have shown us is the words he used in crafting that baseline.

Well, we both agree that that words exist on paper.

What we disagree about is whether he disingenuously utilized those words to hoodwink the German people doing what he wanted them to.

I can think that I'm a Republican, and pretend that I'm a Republican, for public consumption, like one or two posters around here, but if my actions or day-to-day postings do not match my pretended affiliation, then nobody is going to believe that, in the final analysis.

Same concept at work here, in our own narrow context.

Hitler could think that he was a Christian, and pretend that he was a Christian, but his actions and policies and strategies in an increasing use of historical pre-Christian German Paganism - tweaked for modern consumption - as a replacement State Religion - screams non-Christian for anyone with a pair of ears and a modicum of common sense.

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And, if you have not done so already, you would do well to read Shirer's "Rise and Fall...", which, although exceedingly long, will serve-up additional insights, in opposition to your silly assertions about Hitler and Christianity.

What part of "I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic." do you need help comprehending?

If you READ Mein Kampf, instead of attacking me, you would be going after PC and her ilk for claiming Hitler was a liberal or a 'leftist'...

Hitler was not a liberal. But he was a progressive. That makes him a leftist.

Hitler's agenda was:
1) Nationalism...ULTRA nationalism. Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.

2) Militarism...Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.

3) Purging Germany of undesirables...
a) Jews
b) homosexuals
c) Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany

PLEASE highlight the 'progressive' agenda pea brain?

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nations goods". - Joseph Goebbels


"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew .. not the Sabbath Jew, .. the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? .. self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". - Marx

"...This collection of capitalist interests on the one hand, Jewish instincts of hatred and the emigrants' lust for revenge, succeeded in increasingly beclouding the world".. Hitler


"They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations" - Hitler

German Philosopher Theodor Adorno, strongly influenced the Left. He devised a scale known as the "F" scale which has been utilized to associate conservative elements of society as fascist. However, as is so frequently the case, his F scale was a twist of reality and a blatant oxymoron. The Adorno F scale is used to frame conservatives, and any opposed to Socialism as Nazis and latent fascists. The fascist label has come to mean anyone the liberal progressive sociofascists seek to defame or discredit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If his argument had merit he wouldn't need ten pages to make his point. He lost when he adopted the very same losing arguments from the past.

Point was made in one post... unless you're referring to another, purposefully unstated point.

And ... LOL! ... The purpose for not stating the unstated point is that there is no other point, and you simply need the deceitfully, fraudulently advanced implication, as a hopeful means to influence the ignorant.

Sadly, for you I mean... no one here is ignorant of you, Skylar or the feckless tactics drawn from Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance, common to the lowly Relativists, of this otherwise august board.

But MAN! If there were... wouldn't that be cool for you?

Oh well... another Leftist ruse, bites the proverbial dust.

Nice circle jerk!
BTW you quoted the wrong poster.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What part of "I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic." do you need help comprehending?

If you READ Mein Kampf, instead of attacking me, you would be going after PC and her ilk for claiming Hitler was a liberal or a 'leftist'...

Hitler was not a liberal. But he was a progressive. That makes him a leftist.

Hitler's agenda was:
1) Nationalism...ULTRA nationalism. Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.

2) Militarism...Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.

3) Purging Germany of undesirables...
a) Jews
b) homosexuals
c) Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany

PLEASE highlight the 'progressive' agenda pea brain?

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nations goods". - Joseph Goebbels


"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew .. not the Sabbath Jew, .. the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? .. self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". - Marx

"...This collection of capitalist interests on the one hand, Jewish instincts of hatred and the emigrants' lust for revenge, succeeded in increasingly beclouding the world".. Hitler


"They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations" - Hitler

German Philosopher Theodor Adorno, strongly influenced the Left. He devised a scale known as the "F" scale which has been utilized to associate conservative elements of society as fascist. However, as is so frequently the case, his F scale was a twist of reality and a blatant oxymoron. The Adorno F scale is used to frame conservatives, and any opposed to Socialism as Nazis and latent fascists. The fascist label has come to mean anyone the liberal progressive sociofascists seek to defame or discredit.

He literally lifted that nonsense from Stalin, who was at war with the fascists, and tended to refer to all political enemies, perceived or otherwise: as fascist; including Leon Trotsky... a lifetime communist... and given the one degree of separation between Histler's fascism and Stalinism, the Left which took most of its cues from Stalinism, Adorno simply used that intellectual bankruptcy as a basis to publish yet another invalid Leftist point.

BTW: It's good to see ya back in the game.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

But she can't rise above her own subjective needs, to understand that appeals... ALL appeals are only fallacious, when the appeal serves as a distraction from the point of the argument, and when the appeal is not substantiated by sound reason and/or facts bearing the relevance of the appeal to the standing point(s) of the argument.

Fact: Nature exist.

Fact: Within Nature there are immutable laws which govern every aspect of nature, from every scope of the geometric/chronological physical universe, in which our human systems are designed to scan, assess and draw conclusions for the purpose of survival through out and down within the quantum dimensions, of which we can barely scratch the surface and; which have absolutely no relevance to our existence, but which our minds must study, due to that ever present need to pursue the truth; to learn, that is written into our operating systems, to insure to the degree possible, our survival.

Fact: Those Natural Laws are observable have been observed, for thousands of years. They can be and have been tested... and those tests provide consistent results. Without regard to their physical or metaphysical applications.

Fact: Ignoring those Laws, like ignoring the laws of the legal code, is no defense from the consequences that come as a result of such.

Fact: Consequences do not always being immediate impact; short circuit an alternating current with one's body may bring anything from an uncomfortable shock, to explosive, instant death... contrasted with the violation of the laws governing promiscuous sex may bring immediate consequences from infectious disease to pregnancy, or the summed effect may gather for decades, until one looks back upon an empty life, full of unfulfilled dreams, broken promises and slow death from incomprehensible demoralization.

Fact: Recognition of these laws requires an objective consideration, which is easily overridden by the subjective need to NOT recognize those laws.

Fact: Skylar and the Cult Advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy openly refuse to recognize those laws.

Fact: Their refusal to recognize those laws is not precluding them from realizing the consequences for such.

Fact: Their unwillingness, or inability to reason objectively, means, as nature requires it must, they they will erroneously blame someone or something else for their problems and as a result of that poor judgment; such will prevent them from ever finding the means to make the corrections necessary, to solve those problems... and in the process, further injure themselves and others.

Fact: THAT is "HOW HOMOSEXUALITY INJURES SOMEONE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

There it is in plain english...

Feel free to dispute any one.

... Go BIG or Stay Home.

 

[Skylar]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'. Its just you citing you.

This is all you do, Keyes. You tell us your subjective opinion. Then you label your opinion. Then based on the label, you insist your subjective opinion is now objective truth.

Nope. Its still just your subjective opinion.

Fact: Within Nature there are immutable laws which govern every aspect of nature, from every scope of the geometric physical world which our human systems are designed to scan, assess and draw conclusions for the purpose of survival out and down through the quantum dimensions, of which we can barely scratch the surface and which have absolutely no relevance to our existence, but which our minds must study, due to that ever present need to learn, written into our operating systems, to insure to the degree possible, our survival.

There is no immutable 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up, pulled sideways out of your ass.

And that's what I'm talking about. You have a subjective opinion that marriage can only one be one man and one woman. You label your opinion 'the natural law of marriage'. You then declare that your subjective opinion is now 'objective immutable law'.

Nope. Its still just your subjective opinion.

Its the same bone stupid series of fallacies with you every single time.

 

[Skylar]

Fact: Their unwillingness, or inability to reason objectively, means, as nature requires it must, they they will erroneously blame someone or something else for their problems and as a result of that poor judgment; such will prevent them from ever finding the means to make the corrections necessary, to solve those problems... and in the process, further injure themselves and others.

Fact: THAT is "HOW HOMOSEXUALITY INJURES SOMEONE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

There it is in plain english...

Nature doesn't require you kill any gay people. It doesn't require wipe 'those people off the face of the earth'. That's just you, your hate, your desires, your subjective beliefs. You want to hurt people. And incredibly, you're trying to blame the gays for you plotting to kill them.

That's ridiculous. Your argument should come with a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a wife beater T-shirt.

Two gay people getting married don't effect you in anyway. You're gloriously irrelevant to the entire process. You define no marriage, nor will we deny gays marriage because you don't like them.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

If you want to argue that there exists sections of I-75 that are posted as low as 50 Mph, fine... I accept semantic responses... for what they are, but your belief that a stated opinion lacks legitimacy because it exists as opinion, is ludicrous.

This is all you do, Keyes. You tell us your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

What's more, there is NOTHING in the laws of nature which in ANY WAY SERVES MY INTERESTS, beyond my desire for a viable culture.

You're like a drunken sorority chick who is standing there with a bucket of gasoline and a flare... laughing at how cool its going to be when you strike that torch... where I watch on Facetime, doing my best to reason with you, posting photos of grotesquely burned human beings who have already played with gasoline and explaining the rapid conversion of the matter that comprises gasoline back into energy. And YOU'RE FECKLESSLY INFORMING ME OF HOW WORTHLESS MY OPINION IS.

Nope. Its still just your subjective opinion.

No Skylar, it's not. You just lack the understanding of the terms. As far as I can tell you believe that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing, one minute and objectivity is an indefinable, or otherwise unobtainable state of chi.

Fact: Within Nature there are immutable laws which govern every aspect of nature, from every scope of the geometric physical world which our human systems are designed to scan, assess and draw conclusions for the purpose of survival out and down through the quantum dimensions, of which we can barely scratch the surface and which have absolutely no relevance to our existence, but which our minds must study, due to that ever present need to learn, written into our operating systems, to insure to the degree possible, our survival.

There is no immutable 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up, pulled sideways out of your ass.

False... Marriage is the metaphysical extension, of human physiology, which provides for two distinct, but complimenting genders, which are each respectively and perfectly designed to join the two distinct genders together, forming one being from two.

It is truly not even a remotely debatable point.

And that's what I'm talking about.

No kidding... I am well aware that THAT is what you're talking about...

You're just wrong. And irretrievably so.

 

[Skylar]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

False... Marriage is the metaphysical extension, of human physiology, which provides for two distinct, but complimenting genders, which are each respectively and perfectly designed to join the two distinct genders together, forming one being from two.

Says you citing yourself. There's no 'metaphysical' requirement. There's no need to procreate to be married. Nothing you've described is an actual requirement of marriage. All of it merely your subjective opinion of what you think marriages should be. Citing yourself.

And you're nobody. You don't define anything objectively. And no else's marriage is subject to your subjective opinion.

You're gloriously irrelevant. Revel in it. As its not going to change.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Fact: Their unwillingness, or inability to reason objectively, means, as nature requires it must, they they will erroneously blame someone or something else for their problems and as a result of that poor judgment; such will prevent them from ever finding the means to make the corrections necessary, to solve those problems... and in the process, further injure themselves and others.

Fact: THAT is "HOW HOMOSEXUALITY INJURES SOMEONE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

There it is in plain english...

Nature doesn't require you kill any gay people.

No one except you allies in Islam has said it does.

It doesn't require wipe 'those people off the face of the earth'. That's just you, your hate,

Not even close. What requires wiping people off the face of the earth is that the earth gets too small for the people that say: "A", and the people who say: "B" to co-exist.

If you'll actually READ what I have said, you'll find that I have never said that I was or am going to harm anyone... . What I have said is that every war in human history begins from the inability of people to co-exist. That one party takes a firm position that is so unreasonable to the other party that one or the other or BOTH, lose all interests in anything other than removing that threat.

For Pete's sake... Your own advocacy has taken the position that the most innocent of all human life is so intolerable, that you have declared as a RIGHT, to strip that innocent, defenseless human life of its full potential and to exercise its OWN RIGHT TO ITS OWN LIFE. THE SAME RIGHT YOU CLAIM FOR YOURSELF, BUT WHICH YOU DENY TO YOUR OWN CHILD DEVELOPING IN YOUR OWN WOMB.

Now, if you'll KILL YOUR OWN CHILDREN IN YOUR OWN WOMB, BECAUSE IT IS AN INCONVENIENCE TO YOU. From where I stand, that strikes at the viability of your camp to be considered 'reasonable'.

I mean come ON! IF Youre' willing to murder your own pre-born baby FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE... what reasoning are you going to use to talk yourself out of killing me, where I become 'inconvenient' ?

Then in your next breath, you start talking about how the gas that I exhale is a threat to the FUCKIN' PLANET... well excuse me all to hell for questioning your intentions, but its a sure bet that I'm about to become something well beyond an inconvenience to you and given your demonstrated intolerance for inconvenience... .

Suffice it to say that I'm... concerned.

Now add ALL THE OTHER NONSENSICAL DRIVEL that you people heap on the plate, every DAY... to the point that you want to DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANY RHYME OR REASON TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY and just STRIP MARRIAGE OF ITS LAST REMAINING STANDARD, so you can 'feel equal'...

I gotta be honest, we're going to probably go to blows at some point right up the road.

I mean, from my perspective, I don't see any sign of you people changing your mind and I am not going to live with that crap. And if you think I'm the only one... you best examine the trend. And Not on Twitter... on the LEGI-TIMATE SCALE... wherein your advocacy has not only lost the last three elections, you lost them in escalating landslides.

And Sis... if the SCOTUS pulls another decision out of its ass like it did on obamaScare. I can't see you having a soul remaining in office anywhere, who will be likely to so much as admit they ever considered homosexuals as people, let alone they ever believed that two men should be married.

I am not threatening you Skylar...

I am pleading with you.

These are not cosmic theories... for Pete's sake, neither of the two World Wars were cranked up over such a profound breach in collective core beliefs.

The Pacific War was cranked up over who could go where for commodity resources and the European theater came and went over border disputes.

What's more, these natural laws overlap from physical to metaphysical... and there is an unimaginable amount of stored energy... on both sides. Not unlike that in the mid 19th century.

We're talking cataclysmic explosive energy... .

Fuck, I'm 54 years old... fat and happy. I did my time doing the cold wet and miserable thing. Had my fill of it. If you think that I am interested in ANY of that shit, you're fully ignorant of knowing anything about me.

But, you can rest assured, that if my ass is shoved back into that nonsense... it's gonna be ugly.

And I am telling YOU that it's comin', if you people do not find a way to shut the fuck up and learn to go along to get along. And this marriage thing, it's a non-starter.

I hope and pray that the SCOTUS does't fuck this up. But if they do... it going to add the mass of two suns upon the wobbly camel's back that is holding this mess up. And when it blows, that is going to be something you idiots are not going to enjoy at all. You're a tiny, insignificant fraction of the population. If everyone of you were to simply disappear tonight, it would likely be in the news for a couple of weeks... maybe.

But in terms of changing anything, it would be meaningless... . So in what world do you think that you've some means to defend yourself from a very real threat, such as you are creating for yourselves.

And any sense you may be working on that the Government is going to protect you, you should forget that right now. The government is going to be protecting itself.

ME AND YOU >BOTH< are going to be on the outside of that tight little circle.

Please: Read the book "The Population Bomb". Takes a day if ya hit it at lunch and after work. It tells the whole story, IF you consider it with an open mind.

And girlfriend... if you think that because you live in Britain, that you're isolated from any of this... you best guess again, because Britain is MUCH closer to going off than the US. And if you think Haji is going to understand your fling... guess again.

Look, the US can put our entire Muslim population into one New Mexico County and likely, 99% of the US wouldn't notice. Britain can't say that... and it's coming much faster than you want to believe.

So, enough of the obtuse bullshit.

If you want to debate it fine, let's go. But this trying to axe argument because its posted under my name... that's over. There's nothing left of that position to stand upon.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

That's simply false. And it's hysterically false. It's also hysterically subjective and it rests upon ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT > OR < REASON.

 

[lake avenue]

and a few loud voices make the right and I seem ever-so foolish. playing the victim game to protect your "precious religion" which isn't in danger in the first place? please.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

and a few loud voices make the right and I seem ever-so foolish. playing the victim game to protect your "precious religion" which isn't in danger in the first place? please.

ROFL! Now how ADORABLE is THAT?

Hysterical... . Truly pitiful.