Prop 8?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I know that TK but I wasn't referring to tulips and algea. I was talking about the higher animals with which we have much in common according to the biologists.

Same still applies spendi.

The tiger survival is more credited to it's stripes and not it's claws. A stag can live a tiger in the dust.

Fit not strength governs survival.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slave owners were indeed hypocrites, but they did not comprise the majority nor even 50 percent of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention as you falsely alleged. Again, most convention delegates were deeply opposed to slavery. For example, the chief delegate from the State of New Jersey was Governor Livingston. He was heavily involved in the anti-slavery movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lord first you stated it was only 13 out of 55 delegates was from slave states where in fact it was 25 out of 55!

Around half as I had said period end of subject. Yes it is hypocrites to tell the true in your world view.

The good governor of NJ at the time may or may not had supported slavery however his state was a slave state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate Rand stated the general object of the convention was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. labored. Those evils were traced to the turbulence and follies of democracy. The U. Delegate Rand stated the general object of the convention was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. labored. Those evils were traced to the turbulence and follies of democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Debra for supporting my position that the delegates were elites white men who tend to view the average citizen with contempt and some fear who in fact needed to be control. Not as control as the slaves or the women but control never the less.

I see you do share that view that it is better for the elite to have the real power in society, as long as you are one of the elite that is.

You would had fited in very nicely with the slaveholds of that convention in my opinion.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Oh Debra I know facts are boring when they do not agree with your world veiw however both Madison and Jefferson who was the main driving force at the convention was slaveholders. The very men who took pen to ink and wrote those lovely words in fact.

Of the first four presidents three of them were large scale slaveholders.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh Debra I know facts are boring when they do not agree with your world veiw however both Madison and Jefferson who was the main driving force at the convention was slaveholders. The very men who took pen to ink and wrote those lovely words in fact.

Of the first four presidents three of them were large scale slaveholders.

So what? The fact Madison owned slaves does not render our Constitution nor its principles meaningless. Madison himself acknowledged that slavery was majoritarian oppression of people based solely on their color (race). He made every effort to frame a Constitution that contained sufficient checks and balances to safeguard liberty from majoritarian oppression. He made every effort to frame a government that would soon abolish slavery. He objected to the twenty year delay before the federal government could ban the importation of slaves as too long. Madison and other delegates didn't even want the word "slave" written in the Constitution because slavery was shameful and objectionable and contradicted our founding principles. After all, this was a Constitution that was to endure from generation to generation. Madison "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."

Furthermore, the ensuing Civil War and the Civil War Amendments make all your arguments irrelevant.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

How did the civil war change the fact that the country is base from the very beginning on the desire of the so call self selected elite to maintain control well hidden under lovely wording?

There was never any desire to give power to the majority let alone to groups such as black men or their own women and surely not any sub group such as gays.

All such rights had needed to be fought for and place in the constitution in black and white and even when that did occur as in granting rights to black men it was block for a hundred years or so!

Your argument at least as far as anyone can tell with you all the illogic you added in is that the founders intend was to grant ever-increasing rights to sub groups and protect them from the evil of the majority.

The only sub group I see the founders wishing to grant solid rights to and protect from the evil majority was themselves.

From reading newspapers and the internet news, I do not see that this had change over the generations.

What increasing rights that had come into this society over the generations had been power by your evil majority for the most part not the courts and not the so call elite.

Right now the majority is clearly not on your side and instead of trying to convince them to change their minds and force a change to grant the new and unheard of rights you are turning instead to the elite that had a long and proud history of limiting rights for everyone but themselves.

Amazing stupid way of trying to get your way in my opinion that is not going to work especially as you are doing your best to turn the majority into enemies as they are daring to disagree with you.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Oh if the readers of this thread is of the opinion that I am being way too hard on the founders let me add that they did a wonderful job of creating a very stable form of government that allow a large degree of freedom within it framework compare to other possible forms of governing.

Still they was not demigods and was driven by the same drives and limitations you will find in all ruling classes

I find it highly amusing that Debra clearly picture herself as part of the ruling class with the power to impose her desires and opinions on the rest of us by way of the court system.

By sharing so openly her contempt for the majority of her fellow citizens she seem to be of the opinion that this in some way or manner will open the gates to power for her.

This is hardly likely as all rulings classes in all societies know you can only push so far and then the evil mob will start building guillotines in the public square.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Same still applies spendi.

The tiger survival is more credited to it's stripes and not it's claws. A stag can live a tiger in the dust.

Fit not strength governs survival.

Come on TK. It's about sexual selection. They fight over the females. That's the source of the changes over "unimaginable numbers" of generations. One might trace the financial crisis to that energy source and hence justify it scientifically. Regulation is interference with evolutions laws.

I'm not about to start second guessing tigers.

I thought you claimed to understand evolution. You just want to use it as a club to beat down restrictions on self indulgence. And Media advertising is all in favour of that for obvious reasons.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Same still applies spendi.

The tiger survival is more credited to it's stripes and not it's claws. A stag can live a tiger in the dust.

Fit not strength governs survival.

Come on TK. It's about sexual selection. They fight over the females. That's the source of the changes over "unimaginable numbers" of generations. One might trace the financial crisis to that energy source and hence justify it scientifically. Regulation is interference with evolutions laws.

I'm not about to start second guessing tigers.

I thought you claimed to understand evolution. You just want to use it as a club to beat down restrictions on self indulgence. And Media advertising is all in favour of that for obvious reasons.

It's not all about sexual selection spendi. It's about how functional a organism is in it's environment. Breeding is one of many things that an organism has to do for survival in it's environment. Sure the larger more aggressive tiger may be able to fend off the other males for the female, but if it can't make it to the season when the females are fertile and ready what's the point?

I know you'd love nothing more to derail this thread, but save your useless pub rants for elsewhere. You don't understand a damn thing about evolution as clear by your statements.

Darwin would not have agreed that might makes right.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Don't make evolution too complicated for Spend's beer-fogged head -- of course, strength is one aspect of fittness, but also intelligence, adapting to an environment and defending the species from predators, among many others. I guess that means that eventually all the "lower" animals will develop bullet proof armor. Frankly, it's impossible to discuss evolution with those who are poorly read on the subject and don't keep up with the latest scientific findings, like paleontology. They're just blabbering in mangled grammar and semantics.

An individual or a group (a collective) is not qualified nor, by Christian critiria, not allowed, to pass judgement on another person or group (as God, or Jesus, I would think are given that responsibility). It has required the formation of laws and court systems. Not all law comes from Biblical sources -- our modern law organizations and philosophy comes from the Romans.

Too many conservatives deal with the letter of the law, while totally ignoring the spirit of the law. That's the function of judges and juries to weigh in their minds what decision should be made. The collective as exampled by Propositions passing in California have been just all over the place and overturned by the courts before (like trying to block Pay TV and the more recent "definition of marriage" proposition). Now if the mob thinks they can rewrite the dictionary but they can't. They can influence Merriam Webster to add words and amend definitions, like what happened with the word marriage -- including it to also mean two partners of the same sex. There's nothing sacred with the word to begin with.

One or "the collective" can interpret the Constitution in their own mind, but ultimately if it is wrong and enough public pressure is present, it will go to the courts. Polls after Prop 8 had passed indicate strongly that if it were on the ballot again, it would fail.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

So you are claiming that valid polls show a large enough change in opinion in a matter of weeks that would had stop prop 8 from passing.

Seem very very very unlikely to me. but maybe the gay right movement is correct the way to win ovr hearts and minds is to act like complete assholes.

I know all those threats of boycotts, blacklists and large uncivil protests in front of churches sure cause me to review my position on the subject<not>.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So you are claiming that valid polls show a large enough change in opinion in a matter of weeks that would had stop prop 8 from passing.

Seem very very very unlikely to me.

What's hard to believe? There are some who voted yes on prop8 because they are adamant about the topic, and there are others that voted yes on it because they were indifferent and didn't think they should care. If the later of the two now feels regret because they see how it effected others, they may wish they had voted the other way.

You calling LW a liar?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I know all those threats of boycotts, blacklists and large uncivil protests in front of churches sure cause me to review my position on the subject<not>.

As I've said before: If the majority can use it's large numbers to influence, then the minority can use it's small numbers. Grow a pair.

Besides, nothing you've posted shows that you have the capacity to change your mind. You don't want laws that are right, you want laws that validate your opinion.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Darwin would not have agreed that might makes right.

How could he avoid doing. He would also have agreed that settled homsexual unions would be "selected out" I think.

You're just floundering in the inconsistency of your ideas and you're coming the "pub rant" rubbish as a blustering trick.

If you don't like neat Darwin you had better get religion or tight government.

If an organism doesn't breed it is of no consequence to evolution how well it is adapted for survival in its environment. You can't think of your own convenience and evolution at the same time. You're just piss-balling about in a miasma of confusion.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Darwin would not have agreed that might makes right.

How could he avoid doing. He would also have agreed that settled homsexual unions would be "selected out" I think.

You're just floundering in the inconsistency of your ideas and you're coming the "pub rant" rubbish as a blustering trick.

If you don't like neat Darwin you had better get religion or tight government.

If an organism doesn't breed it is of no consequence to evolution how well it is adapted for survival in its environment. You can't think of your own convenience and evolution at the same time. You're just piss-balling about in a miasma of confusion.

Humans survival, like other social animals that exhibit homosexuality, comes from our fit as well. We form societies, and thus humans survive and flourish because we can adapt to a wide range of environments. That versatility is our evolutionary success.

Evolution is not a goal of any creature, only the product of mutation and environment. A homosexual wolf still lives with the pack and contributes like the others. In your misunderstanding of evolution, it wouldn't matter if that wolf was alive or dead, but in the wolf pack it still serves a purpose to those wolves that are heterosexual and do breed. Older wolves teach the cubs how to hunt and help defend each other. A part of a single wolf's fit is its relationship with it's environment. This includes other wolves both homosexual and heterosexual.

Beyond that, sexuality does not govern if a creature breeds. Homosexuals do often have offspring. To argue this fact is to argue uphill against reality.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You calling LW a liar?

I will. He said I am "beer fogged". I had one and a half pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth (3.8%) last night at about 23.00 hours and not a drop since. That's about half a glass of wine. Perfectly legal to drive and fly a Jumbo jet.

He must think half the population is pissed out of its head if that's "beer fogged."

He needs a stick to beat me with in lieu of argument though and if a few abstemious, prohibitionist puritans are persuaded he's happy. If a drunk told him to look both ways before crossing the road he would dive under the wheels of the traffic. (In areas where he is not constrained for the little green walker to light up and guide him safely to the other side I mean.)

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
You calling LW a liar?

I will. He said I am "beer fogged". I had one and a half pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth (3.8%) last night at about 23.00 hours and not a drop since. That's about half a glass of wine. Perfectly legal to drive and fly a Jumbo jet.

He must think half the population is pissed out of its head if that's "beer fogged."

He needs a stick to beat me with in lieu of argument though and if a few abstemious, prohibitionist puritans are persuaded he's happy. If a drunk told him to look both ways before crossing the road he would dive under the wheels of the traffic. (In areas where he is not constrained for the little green walker to light up and guide him safely to the other side I mean.)

LOL. touche' I'll give you that one. LOL.

(however, I'd still like to hook you up to a machine and see if your are permanently beer fogged)

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

TKO you are right the liklihood that my opinion would be change is small on this issue however the uncivil behavior and the threats of harm direct at anyone who would dare to disagree with them had change an opinion with little emotional overtones to one where I would now crawl with broken legs if need be to cast my vote.

Also I would had never even consider sending funds to anti-gay married groups even in my own state, now I am more then willing to write checks to such groups in othere areas of the country. and send copies to the blacklisters.

Maybe this is not the common reaction to being threaten with harm for daring to exercise rights as citizens and you are indeed winning the heart and mind of voters by such threats and behaviors.

Anything is possible after all this kind of behavior did work in dealing with the APA and there might be enough sheeps in the society sadly for it to work.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You calling LW a liar?
------------------------------

Where are the links to these polls my friend so we can all judge how valid they might be?

As far as lying why would anyone think that a member of any movement that would turn to 1950s type blacklistings might also lie about polls.

That would never be done<LOL>.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

TKO you are right the liklihood that my opinion would be change is small on this issue however the uncivil behavior and the threats of harm direct at anyone who would dare to disagree with them had change an opinion with little emotional overtones to one where I would now crawl with broken legs if need be to cast my vote.

You're so full of **** you define it.

To say that any of these types of things define the pro-gay movement is intellectually dishonest. To say that that they are unique to that group is also dishonest.

This notion that because they will fight for their freedoms you're offended is absurd. Grow a pair.

BillRM wrote:

Also I would had never even consider sending funds to anti-gay married groups even in my own state, now I am more then willing to write checks to such groups in othere areas of the country. and send copies to the blacklisters.

You've been talking big like this for a while. Do it. Cut a check today. Send a copy to GLAD. Tell them how much you disapprove. I'd love to see how truly passionate you are about this. Let's see how much you send.

BillRM wrote:

Maybe this is not the common reaction to being threaten with harm for daring to exercise rights as citizens and you are indeed winning the heart and mind of voters by such threats and behaviors.

You aren't being threatened. You like to pretend you are though.

BillRM wrote:

Anything is possible after all this kind of behavior did work in dealing with the APA and there might be enough sheeps in the society sadly for it to work.

The APA made the right choice and it was based on science.
K
O

1 Reply

Those darn sheeps, gooses, mooses and mouses -- they'll just fall in line with the APA after they reclassify homosexuality. Says one singular sheep, at least.

There's just nothing out of the ordinary with picketing or boycotting for a cause. The Catholic church has boycotted many great films, plays, books and other works of art based on their Victorian morals. There's been so much useless pontification ad nauseum by those against gay marriage and I'm still waiting for them to picket or boycott Disney, Disneyland, DreamWorks, all the advertisers in the Advocate to at least show some interest in how they feel about the subject. Talk about sheep, those religious groups are baaing all the way to the bank.

As far as a "beer-fogged" mind, it's not necessary to curtail abuse of alcohol so one can make it across the street, but an abject ignorance on the mechanisms of evolution is enough for the appearance that one has been imbibing substantial amounts of beer. Or some other drug.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know