One Judge vs 7 million votes

Is it my imagination, or did Skybird's argument boil down to "Gay marriage bad because we need to out-breed the third world"?

No you got it wrong, apparently we need to outbreed the third world while at the same time stopping poor western people having children or maybe stop the third world breeding and stop poor westerers tooor maybe its just that certain people must be permitted to breed.

A lot of Skybird's points in this newest argument do indeed make sense from a societal point of view. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions, but they are worthy of honest discussion and not derision.

The problem is that his logic is straight from a ratherdistasteful 1930s european school of social engineering, which is why he gets stuck when pushed on the how to do any of his "civilisation" saving ideas.
His "intellectual" views sound so like Alfred Ploetz that its rather sickening

[frau kaleun]

If there must be more benefits for a couple raising a child in your mind, why not then have a separate clause in the law making it so that marriages, regardless of the sex of those involved, get benefits and protections a, while those married couples who also raise a child get a+1?

I admit I'm ignorant of how the $ works out on this issue, but doesn't the fact that you can claim children as dependents for tax purposes already mean we give extra consideration to someone who is raising a child vs. someone who isn't?

I always thought being able to claim a dependent or dependents translated into some kind of tax break that someone without dependents didn't get (all other considerations being equal).

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yay ban people of a certain religion and stop low class people breeding.
Did Sky by any chance get his superior gymnasium sureness at the same establishments as Herman Aubin or Max Heim.
Everyday in every way sky puts up some more Mein Kampf....

So I wonder what his solution is to low class offspring, forced sterilisation or just mass murder?

No you got it wrong, apparently we need to outbreed the third world while at the same time stopping poor western people having children or maybe stop the third world breeding and stop poor westerers tooor maybe its just that certain people must be permitted to breed.

The problem is that his logic is straight from a ratherdistasteful 1930s european school of social engineering, which is why he gets stuck when pushed on the how to do any of his "civilisation" saving ideas.
His "intellectual" views sound so like Alfred Ploetz that its rather sickening

Sometimes Skybird drives me crazy with his walls of text. Sometimes he drives me crazy with his seeming arrogance. Sometimes he drives me crazy with his single-mindedness.

But in four posts on this thread you have managed to make one statement, an agreement with my observation that marriage started as a social contract, and for that agreement you provided no evidence, just a flat statement.

Your other three posts have all been excruciatingly insulting tirades against Skybird. You don't seem to realize that you seem to be even more single-minded than he is.

Do you have anything to offer to this debate at all?

But in four posts on this thread you have managed to make one statement, an agreement with my observation that marriage started as a social contract, and for that agreement you provided no evidence, just a flat statement.

Thats easy marriage in the western sense is the act of wedding to people together, the act of matrimony refers to the state of wedlock which is also where that word wedding comes from.
So where does that word wedlock come from and what is the meaning of its constituent parts in its earlier form?

Your other three posts have all been excruciatingly insulting tirades against Skybird.

Thats because I find his views identical to those of the racial hygenists and their utopian vision for the preservation of european civilisation which came to reality in the 30s and 40s.

You don't seem to realize that you seem to be even more single-minded than he is.

Thats because there is nothing I find more distasteful than deep seated hatred dressed up as being intellectual.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

This seems like an appropriate place to put this:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/How...00813-585.html

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

This seems like an appropriate place to put this:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/How...00813-585.html

Interesting article so far, but this thread is about the recent overturning of Prop 8 in California.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Interesting article so far, but this thread is about the recent overturning of Prop 8 in California.

Arizona, California. Immigrants, gays. They all look the same to some me.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sometimes Skybird drives me crazy with his walls of text. Sometimes he drives me crazy with his seeming arrogance. Sometimes he drives me crazy with his single-mindedness.

You make it sound like these attributes are a mere coincidence or nuisance. But instead they are pretty much necessary ingredients you need when - or that come with - proposing reckless, inhumane and discriminatory ideas that would throw us back into a status some time before the age of enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

]Thats because there is nothing I find more distasteful than deep seated hatred dressed up as being intellectual.

I can only agree. His obsession with Muslims and Islam, while he demands sole authority over deciding who is and is not a "real Muslim", I find pretty offensive. I do have a few Muslim colleagues in the company I work for and they are fine people I have zero problems with. Now, in Skybird's view, these guys wouldn't be "real Muslims" because they don't run around beheading every non-believer on sight. So, in fact he holds the same view as OBL and his ilk. I ask then: What the hell are you bozos doing, fiddling around in other people's lives, calling them authentic or not?

You know, while Sky would have no problems with my colleagues because all the "real Muslims" are suicidal maniacs, he would still like to oust the Islam religion and burn the Koran. Well, guess what? My colleagues wouldn't like THAT. What? You'd like to keep that illegal book? You must be a "real Muslim" after all. Fall dead! Freedom of religion? Naaaah!

Imagine a world where there are no Osama Bin Ladens and Skybirds. Wow, people could just get along fine and wouldn't give a about other people's business.

I'm not denying we have a problem with radical Islam in the world today. And indeed, when you look around in Europe, integration - especially of those who hold the religion of Islam - has failed badly in too many places. But radicals like Skybird and OBL are not the solution, they are part of the problem. Heck, they are MAKING the problem in the first place.

We have the rule of law here in this country, and we will UPHOLD it, all the time, and we will deal with problems ACCORDING to it. No book burnings, no Verbot of any religion, no mass expulsions or worse. If we fail to live up to that, we are no better than what we try to defend against. Our defense against the monster has failed if we become it.

Sorry for Semi-Off Topic. But I had to support Tribesman here because he's right. And really, Sky's ideas of sociological engineering in this thread are directly related to and motivated by his obsession with fighting of the Islamic Invasion in his head and indeed remind me of other theorists in the past that should better not have seen their ideas realized.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by heartc

Sorry for Semi-Off Topic.

Nicely written.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by heartc

Sorry for Semi-Off Topic. But I had to support Tribesman here because he's right. And really, Sky's ideas of sociological engineering in this thread are directly related to and motivated by his obsession with fighting of the Islamic Invasion in his head and indeed remind me of other theorists in the past that should better not have seen their ideas realized.

And I don't say that you, or Tribesman, are wrong. I just sometimes feel that Tribesman is as obsessed with Skybird as Sky is with Islam. Nothing wrong with objecting to someone's posts, or even with his manner. I just get my back up when the only contibution to a particular thread is "There he goes again" and "He's always like that."

But again it's just my opinion, and that's what forums are for.

[gimpy117]

it was unconstitutional. Its amazing it wasn't overturned sooner.

[CaptainHaplo]

Imagine a world where there are no Osama Bin Ladens and Skybirds. Wow, people could just get along fine and wouldn't give a about other people's business.

Ya know - nowhere has Skybird suggested holy war and wholesale murder against those that don't agree perfectly with him. The comparison is flawed and insulting.

"If all the people that were meanies were gone - we could all sit around the campfire and sing and roast marshmellows and have fun!" Not only is that namby pamby fairytale land never gonna happen, the statement - using your own rhetorical arguement - makes you just as bad as anyone else because it tacitly approves of the removal of anyone (aka - the meanies like OBL and Skybird) that doesn't "want to get along the way YOU think they should".... So does that mean your advocating mass murder in the cause of "peace"?

Instead of trying to just complain about someone else (since you can now see how easy it is to have that turned around on you) - why not argue the merits or flaws of the person's stance on the issue?

[heartc]

You didn't get it.
The point here was not that I was wishing Skybird away because "Momy, Momy, he's the bad guy!".

I'll try to break it down for you:
Bin Laden / Al Quaida are going around killing people, because in their view, a "real Muslim" must behave in a certain way (like hating the infidels), and if he doesn't, he's a traitor / infidel.

Skybird very obviously shares this opinion with Bin Laden. Like him, Skybird is so far out there that he thinks he has any authority to decide who's a real Muslim and who isn't. He has to do that to allow him his tirades against Muslims in the first place. So, anytime someone has the nerve to interrupt him in his visions of a purified Europe, pointing out that there are plenty of Muslims that are pretty normal people, he'll go "Oh, yeah yeah, but these are no real Muslims, you see." Uhm, OK. The problem is that these guys would still think of themselves as Muslims because maybe they didn't get the memo from neither Bin Laden nor Skybird.

->Which was actually a good thing.<- And that is my point when I say imagine a world without: How about NOT simplifying the issue and having the arrogance to decide who is real and who isn't so that we can dwell in hatred against a whole world religion? Skybird's "Yeah, but those are no real Muslims" is nothing but "Don't let the facts get in your way". Maybe we SHOULDN'T insult and exclude all the normal people by deciding that they are no real Muslims? Maybe this is like - totally counter-productive?? What people like Bin Laden fear the most is the erosion of their power from within their religious group, because their sole justification for power is pointing to the Koran. This is why they come down so hard on their own people and blow up market places in Baghdad or slaughter Afghan villagers. And people like Skybird support that by claiming this is the true Islam! God dammit. Oh, and btw, what do you think Skybirds proposals like "banning" the Koran in Europe or other such bull would lead to if NOT massive violence and slaughter? Needless to say, all the normal people in the Muslim community would be up in arms about that, too, and rightfully so.

Btw, the irony of accusing me of insulting a guy who himself is nothing but insulting to a good part of the globe in almost all of his posts since he's discovered his new past time of hating Muslims - is not lost on me.

Ya know - nowhere has Skybird suggested holy war and wholesale murder against those that don't agree perfectly with him. The comparison is flawed and insulting.

He has suggested ideological war and wholesale murder against those who don't fit into his view of society.

why not argue the merits or flaws of the person's stance on the issue?

You mean like pointing out that their views are straight from the textbooks of racial hygiene written by learned scientists and philosophers of Nazi Germany or that their interpretation of Islam is identical to the small modern group of fundamentalist nuts or that they themselves are the very thing that their latest favourite philosopher was warning against?

oh of course Haplo is with Skybird in the land of ignorance so he doesn't even know the flaws that have been raised

[Aramike]

This is rich ... it's now some sort of "Nazi intolerence" to point out that Muslims follow a religion who's primary text is the epitome of intolerent? Really?

All religions aren't created equal and if you can't understand the difference between one which calls for its followers to turn the other cheek and one which calls for its followers to destroy the infidel, that says more about you than it makes Skybird some sort of Nazi supplicant.