Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Dr. Ben Carson will no longer be speaking at Johns Hopkins after comparing gays to NAMBLA and people who want to have sex with turtles   (tv.msnbc.com) divider line 613
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13238 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



613 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 07:45:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage


can I have some of what you are smoking elchip ?
 
2013-03-30 07:46:31 PM  

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


Ah, yes. The notorious gay mecca that is Sudan.
 
2013-03-30 07:49:53 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Approves.
 
2013-03-30 08:12:04 PM  
I don't understand why anyone would pay $5 a month for a troll account.
 
2013-03-30 08:13:27 PM  

Bucky Katt: I don't understand why anyone would pay $5 a month for a troll account.


Well, he did kill a few hours of his boring life. Me, I just killed a few hours of work.
 
2013-03-30 08:18:25 PM  
The razor-sharp wit that Democrats are supposed to be afraid of:

People are afraid to say Merry Christmas at Christmas time. Doesn't matter whether the person you're talking to is Jewish or, you know, whether they're any religion. That's a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. We've got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.

You know, I'm reminded of a very successful young businessman, and he loved to buy his mother these exotic gifts for mother's day. And he ran out of ideas, and then he ran across these birds. These birds were cool, you know? They cost $5,000 apiece. They could dance, they could sing, they could talk. He was so excited, he bought two of of them. Sent them to his mother, couldn't wait to call her up on mother's day, mother, mother, what'd you think of those birds? And she said, they was good. [laughter] He said, no, no, no! Mother, you didn't eat those birds? Those birds cost $5,000 apiece! They could dance, they could sing, they could talk! And she said, well, they should have said something. [laughter] And, you know, that's where we end up, too, if we don't speak up for what we believe. [laughter] And, you know, what we need to do -- [applause] what we need to do in this PC world is forget about unanimity of speech and unanimity of thought, and we need to concentrate on being respectful to those people with whom we disagree.
http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2013/02/full-video-and-text-o f- dr-ben-carsons-speech-at-the-2013-national-prayer-breakfast.html

/It seemed more like a campaign speech than something used for a prayer breakfast; I can see why even a Republican like Cal Thomas would criticize it.
 
2013-03-30 08:19:05 PM  

error 303: One Cuil = One level of abstraction away from the reality of a situation.
Example: You ask me for a Hamburger.
1 Cuil: if you asked me for a hamburger, and I gave you a raccoon.
2 Cuils: If you asked me for a hamburger, but it turns out I don't really exist. Where I was originally standing, a picture of a hamburger rests on the ground.
3 Cuils: You awake as a hamburger. You start screaming only to have special sauce fly from your lips. The world is in sepia.
4 Cuils: Why are we speaking German? A mime cries softly as he cradles a young cow. Your grandfather stares at you as the cow falls apart into patties. You look down only to see me with pickles for eyes, I am singing the song that gives birth to the universe.
5 Cuils: You ask for a hamburger, I give you a hamburger. You raise it to your lips and take a bite. Your eye twitches involuntarily. Across the street a father of three falls down the stairs. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. I give you a hamburger. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. You cannot swallow. There are children at the top of the stairs. A pickle shifts uneasily under the bun. I give you a hamburger. You look at my face, and I am pleading with you. The children are crying now. You raise the hamburger to your lips, tears stream down your face as you take a bite. I give you a hamburger. You are on your knees. You plead with me to go across the street. I hear only children's laughter. I give you a hamburger. You are screaming as you fall down the stairs. I am your child. You cannot see anything. You take a bite of the hamburger. The concrete rushes up to meet you. You awake with a start in your own bed. Your eye twitches involuntarily. I give you a hamburger. As you kill me, I do not make a sound. I give you a hamburger.
6 Cuils: You ask me for a hamburger. My attempt to reciprocate is cut brutally short as my body experiences a sudden lack of electrons. Across a variety of hidden dimensions you are dis ...


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-30 08:36:52 PM  
Is that dumbfark STILL Hindenburging his turnip all to potato??

Holy skizz.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:26 PM  

nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.

Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.


Nobody in the projects pays.  Nobody in trailer parks pays.  Earned income tax credit etc.
 
2013-03-30 09:26:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: "It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."


If they make it illegal to play poker with a minor, that does not change the definition of poker.  It does not make age part of the definition of poker.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.

Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.

Nobody in the projects pays.  Nobody in trailer parks pays.  Earned income tax credit etc.


greenobles.com

...wants his idea back.

/'Cause it sold so well when he pitched it in '96.
//Maybe we'll buy it from a poor, humble neurosurgeon who just wants to make the poor pay their share. . .
 
2013-03-30 09:48:24 PM  

HighOnCraic: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.

Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.

Nobody in the projects pays.  Nobody in trailer parks pays.  Earned income tax credit etc.

[greenobles.com image 300x300]

...wants his idea back.

/'Cause it sold so well when he pitched it in '96.
//Maybe we'll buy it from a poor, humble neurosurgeon who just wants to make the poor pay their share. . .


No, you're right, the top 1% pays the same as the bottom 95% (with half of the bottom 95% paying 0) and that's totally fair.  You are, after all, the party of faaaaaaiiiirrrrrnesss.
 
2013-03-30 09:54:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: HighOnCraic: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.

Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.

Nobody in the projects pays.  Nobody in trailer parks pays.  Earned income tax credit etc.

[greenobles.com image 300x300]

...wants his idea back.

/'Cause it sold so well when he pitched it in '96.
//Maybe we'll buy it from a poor, humble neurosurgeon who just wants to make the poor pay their share. . .

No, you're right, the top 1% pays the same as the bottom 95% (with half of the bottom 95% paying 0) and that's totally fair.  You are, after all, the party of faaaaaaiiiirrrrrnesss.


Hey, if you think trying to push a flat tax is a good idea, I won't try to talk you out of it.  I'm just pointing out that the last guy who tried crashed and burned in the Republican primaries, since even Republicans didn't think it was a good idea, especially with a rich guy who refused to release his tax returns (and show how much he'd save personally under a flat tax) as the spokesman for it.

Proceed!
 
2013-03-30 10:08:39 PM  
This, to me, was the most bewildering quote of the article, and nobody here has brought it up yet:

Carson said he has not told the university that he will not be delivering the commencement address.

"I am waiting for appropriate channels," Carson said. "I don't think television is the appropriate channel."

 So this world-renowned neurosurgeon apparently doesn't know how television works.
 
2013-03-30 10:30:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: "It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."

If they make it illegal to play poker with a minor, that does not change the definition of poker.  It does not make age part of the definition of poker.


Except if the definition of poker includes who can play it. Such as in marriage law.
 
2013-03-30 10:35:09 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: "It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."

If they make it illegal to play poker with a minor, that does not change the definition of poker.  It does not make age part of the definition of poker.


That's just a rephrasing of the NAMBLA-and-turtle-farking argument.  We don't allow minors to gamble for various reasons unrelated to religion, such as who will assume responsibility for their debts due to their inability to enter into contracts.

A better comparison would involve legislation that makes it illegal for homosexuals to play poker.  Even religious zealots would wrinkle their noses at the sheer arbitrariness of that law, no?
 
2013-03-30 11:09:45 PM  

dickfreckle: Britney Spear's Speculum: Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a balance of credentials and character to win presidential elections in this day and age.

Which Obama had in spades, so to speak, His academic prowess combined with his charm is what elected him, not the welfare queens the right wants us to believe ushered him into office. I'm as white as they come (seriously, I'm almost embarrassingly WASP) and I found the man convincing starting with the '04 DNC speech. And I typically decry speeches as huckster BS.

Years into his presidency, I take issue with many of his decisions. But I still like the man, Next week he'll do something that pisses me off, and I'll gripe about it in this tab - but I still admire the man for being self-made and smarter than the average bear.

Obama is far from perfect. But he's what we have in the face of the TeaPublicans of the world. His charm and turn of phrases endear him to the public where the GOP seems hell-bent on alienating huge segments of it. Sure, he's just another politician, but compared to his GOP rivals he's a farking saint.


You are a far left liberal. This is news that you support Obama?
 
2013-03-30 11:45:23 PM  
Most homosexuals think they'll be able to marry foreign orphan boys and keep them in their houses as "spouses". That is the main motivation behind all of this homosexual wedding bullshiat. A friend of mine who is a homo who is attracted to adult males and who opposes homosexual marriage explained this fact to me.
 
2013-03-31 12:15:07 AM  
Oh dayum. ALL the trolls are here now. Yippee!
 
2013-03-31 12:38:05 AM  
Thunderpipes:

Noam Chimpsky:


Hey, it's two more of the proven dipshiats come to contaminate the thread with their nuclear-grade idiocy. Maybe you can give an intelligent, non-religious non-"I think" reason to deny treating homosexuals like equal human being and American citizens.
 
2013-03-31 01:21:44 AM  

Thunderpipes: You are a far left liberal. This is news that you support Obama?


Yes, it is. Because Obama is about as far left as you are an underage Indian boy selling me chickens. Smack yourself with a brick to shake that sand out of your head. Obama is as liberal as I am Kei$ha.
 
2013-03-31 01:23:29 AM  
If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange.

That's not what I'd say at all.

I'd say either "that's not an apple" or "that's an orange" or "what are you, some kind of retard?"

Oh well, more quality product from today's Republican Party.
 
2013-03-31 03:39:58 AM  
He's learned how to give long, confusing, nonsensical responses to a questions he doesn't like the answer to as a way of dodging responsibility.  He's ready for politics.
 
2013-03-31 04:31:42 AM  

zerkalo: LoneWolf343: xen0blue: [i.imgur.com image 850x566]

...What is that last one supposed to be?

Since troll posters post and run, I will chime in and say it's prolly blood relatives


Thank you, I was wondering the same thing..
 
2013-03-31 10:55:53 AM  

Diagonal: Physical skills and mental skills are two very different things that don't often correlate all that well. For some reason, though, too many people think those with M.D. after their names know everything there is to know about everything and accept every word as the immutable Word of Truth(tm).


Funny how little that MD or PhD matters to those same people when the discussion is of how evolution works, how marijuana isn't addictive, how homosexuality is a naturally occurring fact of life, how the Earth revolves around the sun, or the difference between a 2 week old fetus and private citizen.
 
2013-03-31 11:13:13 AM  
I have nothing of use to add here, just wanted to remark that this is the most grey bars I've ever seen in a thread.

/stop feeding the trolls, people!
 
2013-03-31 11:49:38 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough./i>

Valid?
Sex is about closeness, enjoyment, pleasure, eroticism, love, lust and desire. Sometimes it's about manipulation or blackmail, often it's about vulnerability and trust, occasionally dominance and submission, sometimes spirituality, sometimes procreation. What does validity have to do with it?
Has my entire sex life been invalid?

 
2013-03-31 12:12:56 PM  

Dansker: Valid?
Sex is about closeness, enjoyment, pleasure, eroticism, love, lust and desire.


Some would describe chocolate as providing those sensations, that's not an appropriate rationale for a government enforced contract that leads to a stronger nation, however.
 
2013-03-31 12:29:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dansker: Valid?
Sex is about closeness, enjoyment, pleasure, eroticism, love, lust and desire.

Some would describe chocolate as providing those sensations, that's not an appropriate rationale for a government enforced contract that leads to a stronger nation, however.


That's not an answer.
And even if it was, I don't think American homesexuals are asking for government validation of their sexual activities, they're asking for the equality of being able to marry the person they love and with whom they want to share their lives and possibly raise children.

But if you assert sexual validity should determine the right to marry, you must be able to define what makes certain sexual acts valid and others not. If you can't, it's your argument that's invalid.
 
2013-03-31 12:45:22 PM  

Dansker: That's not an answer.


Actually, it was.  And it's certainly more of an answer than "that's not an answer" is a rebuttal.

Dansker: But if you assert sexual validity should determine the right to marry, you must be able to define what makes certain sexual acts valid and others not. If you can't, it's your argument that's invalid.


I can.  Biological imperative. There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce.  By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.  Same sex couples have absolutely no advantage over single people in that regard.  In terms of economic benefit, same sex couples are no different than a man and a woman who have never, and will never meet.  Why should I subsidize that with my taxes?
 
2013-03-31 12:56:12 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dansker: Valid?
Sex is about closeness, enjoyment, pleasure, eroticism, love, lust and desire.

Some would describe chocolate as providing those sensations, that's not an appropriate rationale for a government enforced contract that leads to a stronger nation, however.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-31 01:24:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dansker: That's not an answer.

Actually, it was.


No, I asked what validity has to do with sex.


I can.  Biological imperative.


So the only valid sex, is that which deposits lively semen in a healthy vagina connected to ovulating ovaries? Couples who use birth control are not having valid sex allowing them to marry? What if they're just not into vaginal intercourse and prefer a bit of fingering and handjobs, some oral and a good tit wank?

 There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce.

Egg donors, sperm donors and surrogate moms. What are things that give homosexual couples the ability to reproduce, Alex? I know that there are plenty of American homosexual couples raising kids, and funnily enough, I know a Danish male gay couple, who temporarily moved to the US, just so they could pay for a couple of surrogate moms to bake kids fathered by one of the guys and two eggdonors, so I know it's possible. And those kids would not have been produced, had their dads not been in a commited, long term relationship.
Try again.

But if you really assert that the ability to reproduce should determine the right to marry, and using egg donors, sperm donors and surrogate mothers doesn't count for some reason, you are leaving infertile heterosexual marriages invalid.
I can't wait to hear your argument for why indivual rights and equality requires economic benefit to society.
 
2013-03-31 01:27:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce.

By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.

You wrote this specifically just to get someone to point out that gay people can also reproduce and add to the country's "labour pool", right?
 
2013-03-31 01:53:52 PM  
www.dirtybutton.com

ALL HANDS ABANDON THREAD!! THE TROLLS HAVE BOARDED!!
 
2013-03-31 01:56:01 PM  

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce. By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.

You wrote this specifically just to get someone to point out that gay people can also reproduce and add to the country's "labour pool", right?


I seriously don't understand why people keep indulging an obvious well-poisoner.
 
2013-03-31 01:57:50 PM  

Biological Ali:
You wrote this specifically just to get someone to point out that gay people can also reproduce and add to the country's "labour pool", right?


Yay, finally I'm someone, not just a nobody! I feel validated.
You're someone too, Ali. You're someone too.

/mutual validation
 
2013-03-31 01:57:51 PM  
Though, for sh*ts and giggles, one could always point out the fact that many pedophiles and turtle-f*ckers have wives and children.
 
2013-03-31 02:08:44 PM  

thamike:
I seriously don't understand why people keep indulging an obvious well-poisoner.


Meh. From my point of view he is indulging me. Arguing on the internet is both a hobby and a pastime, I think of playing with trolls as a form of retarded chess with words, and sometimes you just have to put up with the available quality of opponent and their predictable moves. I'm sure Bravenewwotsit feels the same way.
Also, we're at the sad and pathetic end of a days old, hundreds of posts long thread. This well is dry and filled in. There is nothing to poison here.
 
2013-03-31 02:18:24 PM  

Dansker: So the only valid sex, is that which deposits lively semen in a healthy vagina connected to ovulating ovaries? Couples who use birth control are not having valid sex allowing them to marry? What if they're just not into vaginal intercourse and prefer a bit of fingering and handjobs, some oral and a good tit wank?


Anything beyond recognizing their being a male and a female would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy, don't you think?

Dansker: Egg donors, sperm donors and surrogate moms. What are things that give homosexual couples the ability to reproduce, Alex?


So how is that different than single individuals.  You do realize you don't have to be married to get those services, right?

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce. By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.

You wrote this specifically just to get someone to point out that gay people can also reproduce and add to the country's "labour pool", right?


they cannot unless they recruit an outside party, so no, yet again, you're stunningly wrong.
 
2013-03-31 02:29:56 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce. By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.

You wrote this specifically just to get someone to point out that gay people can also reproduce and add to the country's "labour pool", right?

they cannot unless they recruit an outside party, so no, yet again, you're stunningly wrong.


Look, I get that you're a gay marriage supporter trying to discredit the bigots by posting exaggerated parodies of their flawed logic and general inability to think abstractly; that in and of itself isn't a bad goal. The only problem is that the arguments you're lampooning here are so out there that even the bigots stopped making most of them long ago (at least when defending their bigotry in public).

If you really want to write effective satire, you need to keep current. A good place to start would be by following these Supreme Court hearings and taking note of the arguments that the Prop. 8/DOMA lawyers are presenting.
 
2013-03-31 02:38:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld:
Dansker: Egg donors, sperm donors and surrogate moms. What are things that give homosexual couples the ability to reproduce, Alex?

So how is that different than single individuals.  You do realize you don't have to be married to get those services, right?


You said the right to marry should require the theoretical ability to reproduce, so if you agree that gay couples have access to those services, the validity of their sexual activity can't have any bearing on their right to marry.
 
2013-03-31 02:51:39 PM  

Dansker: BraveNewCheneyWorld:
Dansker: Egg donors, sperm donors and surrogate moms. What are things that give homosexual couples the ability to reproduce, Alex?

So how is that different than single individuals.  You do realize you don't have to be married to get those services, right?

You said the right to marry should require the theoretical ability to reproduce, so if you agree that gay couples have access to those services, the validity of their sexual activity can't have any bearing on their right to marry.


Yeah, they can marry the person they're reproducing with.

Biological Ali:

You are not now, nor have you ever been mildly amusing or intelligent.  Put me on your ignore list, and kindly fark off.
 
2013-03-31 03:00:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali:

You are not now, nor have you ever been mildly amusing or intelligent. Put me on your ignore list, and kindly fark off.


You won't get very far in comedy and satire if you're this thin-skinned - you need to be able to handle criticisms of your work. If you can't help but to take every critique so personally, perhaps this isn't the field for you.
 
2013-03-31 03:14:45 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7673599/83341914#c83341914" target="_blank">BraveNewCheneyWorld</a>:</b> <i>Yeah, they can marry the person they're reproducing with.</i>

Straight couples are allowed to marry regardless of fertility and possession of sexual organs. If ability to procreate with their partner isn't a requirement for heterosexual marriage, why should it be so with homosexual?
Besides, with the current state of fertility research and cloning technology it's at the very least theoretically, scientifically possible to produce a fertilized egg carrying genetic material from two male progenitors.
 
2013-03-31 03:49:55 PM  

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali:

You are not now, nor have you ever been mildly amusing or intelligent. Put me on your ignore list, and kindly fark off.

You won't get very far in comedy and satire if you're this thin-skinned - you need to be able to handle criticisms of your work. If you can't help but to take every critique so personally, perhaps this isn't the field for you.


I'm not thin skinned, you're just an annoying, obnoxious, asshole.  You literally follow me around this site repeating the same thing over and over.  It's rare that you actually engage in a meaningful conversation, you just keep repeating your same shtick and scream that anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is a troll.  Quite honestly, it must suck to be you if following me around on fark.com is the best of the options available to you.

Dansker: Straight couples are allowed to marry regardless of fertility and possession of sexual organs. If ability to procreate with their partner isn't a requirement for heterosexual marriage, why should it be so with homosexual?


It's assumed they can reproduce because the vast majority can.  With a homosexual couple, there is never a chance greater than 0%.  That's a pretty staggering difference.  This really shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Dansker: Besides, with the current state of fertility research and cloning technology it's at the very least theoretically, scientifically possible to produce a fertilized egg carrying genetic material from two male progenitors.


It's also theoretically, scientifically possible to produce a fertilized egg carrying genetic material with a human and a monkey.  What's your point?
 
2013-03-31 04:22:55 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld:
Dansker: Straight couples are allowed to marry regardless of fertility and possession of sexual organs. If ability to procreate with their partner isn't a requirement for heterosexual marriage, why should it be so with homosexual?

It's assumed they can reproduce because the vast majority can.


Your assumptions are irrelevant, because the ability to procreate is not even a factor in a heterosexual citizen's right to marry the one they love. Why should it matter for a homesexual citizen?

With a homosexual couple, there is never a chance greater than 0%.

There is at least a theoretical chance, which you said was the justification for heterosexual marriage:
There's a net benefit to society when we give incentive to couples who have at least a theoretical ability to reproduce.  By giving them financial incentive to join, we have a higher likelihood of offspring which is good for the country's labor pool.  Same sex couples have absolutely no advantage over single people in that regard.

That's a pretty staggering difference.  This really shouldn't have to be explained to you.

There is also a much higher probabilty of reproduction (and adoption) by the partners in a gay couple than by single gay people. Very, very few humans want to be single parents. You should know that.

Dansker: Besides, with the current state of fertility research and cloning technology it's at the very least theoretically, scientifically possible to produce a fertilized egg carrying genetic material from two male progenitors.

It's also theoretically, scientifically possible to produce a fertilized egg carrying genetic material with a human and a monkey.  What's your point?


That the theoretical ability of a straight couple to reproduce with eachother, which you posted as the reason for government sanctioned marriage, is equal to the theoretical reproductive abilities of a gay couple.
On a slight tangent, you are talking about handing out rights based on economic benefit to the nation, and denying them to those who you think wont produce labour for the industries.
I toyed with the idea of calling you krypto-fascist, but there's not much krypto about it.
 
2013-03-31 04:52:19 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not thin skinned, you're just an annoying, obnoxious, asshole. You literally follow me around this site repeating the same thing over and over. It's rare that you actually engage in a meaningful conversation, you just keep repeating your same shtick and scream that anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is a troll. Quite honestly, it must suck to be you if following me around on fark.com is the best of the options available to you.


It can't have escaped your notice (assuming you don't have the rest of the thread on ignore) that every single person who's bothered to acknowledge your posts has already concluded that you're a troll. I'm the only one that you, for whatever reason, keep replying to; now, I don't know if that's all part of the act or something (audience engagement or whatever), but there's something that you should keep in mind. When I respond to your posts as though they're satire (and give you advice as such), it's not something I'm doing to attack you - quite the opposite actually. After all, it would be a terrible insult if I were to accuse you of actually believing the things you're posting.
 
2013-03-31 06:39:41 PM  

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not thin skinned, you're just an annoying, obnoxious, asshole. You literally follow me around this site repeating the same thing over and over. It's rare that you actually engage in a meaningful conversation, you just keep repeating your same shtick and scream that anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is a troll. Quite honestly, it must suck to be you if following me around on fark.com is the best of the options available to you.

It can't have escaped your notice (assuming you don't have the rest of the thread on ignore) that every single person who's bothered to acknowledge your posts has already concluded that you're a troll. I'm the only one that you, for whatever reason, keep replying to; now, I don't know if that's all part of the act or something (audience engagement or whatever), but there's something that you should keep in mind. When I respond to your posts as though they're satire (and give you advice as such), it's not something I'm doing to attack you - quite the opposite actually. After all, it would be a terrible insult if I were to accuse you of actually believing the things you're posting.


People are still talking to him, which tickles his dickie to no end. The only reason he ever posts is to blatantly troll. He's using the exact same "logic" and "reasoning" that was laughed out of court last week by the highest judges in the land, and he's pretending to be dead serious about it. There are only two valid explanations: 1) He does it for the sake of trolling and gets off on people responding to him, or 2) He's such a hardcore homophobe that he clings to even the most ridiculous validation for his inanity and he enjoys declaring it every time someone mentions the gay.
 
2013-03-31 08:04:17 PM  

Dansker: That the theoretical ability of a straight couple to reproduce with eachother, which you posted as the reason for government sanctioned marriage, is equal to the theoretical reproductive abilities of a gay couple.
On a slight tangent, you are talking about handing out rights based on economic benefit to the nation, and denying them to those who you think wont produce labour for the industries.
I toyed with the idea of calling you krypto-fascist, but there's not much krypto about it.


Yeah, and subsidizing corn is "fascist" too..

Biological Ali: It can't have escaped your notice (assuming you don't have the rest of the thread on ignore) that every single person who's bothered to acknowledge your posts has already concluded that you're a troll.


And every one of them is coincidentally in the fark circle jerk club that I've long since labeled.  It's not exactly any kind of insult.  I really have zero respect for any of you.  As long as you parrot your logical fallacies and pretend that you're somehow being oppressed, I'll gladly speak against you.

You're no more oppressed than the coke user who claims the government treats him unfairly because the alcoholics are permitted to use alcohol.
 
2013-03-31 08:28:14 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Thunderpipes:

Noam Chimpsky:

 proven dipshiats come to contaminate the thread with their nuclear-grade idiocy. Maybe you can give an intelligent, non-religious non-"I think" reason to deny treating homosexuals like equal human being and American citizens.


What the fark is a "equal human being"? If that concept makes any sort of sense to you, you are incapable of being resuscitated. Your brain is pudding.
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report