Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
we cant continue this discussion because you are unable to understand very very basic English.
until you take it upon yourself to understand the difference between a right and a freedom; we cant discuss 1, because you're confusing the two, like a dumbass.
no sense thing as free medical attention, how about you pull your head out of your ass, and realise that, painintheass.
"
You are comparing personal, political and civil freedom to the physical freedom of underwear?"
no, i am showing the difference between freedom and rights. obviously you are too dumb to know the difference, so we cant continue this discussion because you are unable to understand very very basic English.
"Yes, greater freedom does equal more rights. Its an obvious comparison, one even the
most basic mathematician will make with the most basic tools of logic.
Do people not have a right to freedom? Liberty? No? Odd. In my country, thats something
that i believe in. Maybe not everyone does, but i do. So i will interchange lack of freedom
with less rights anytime i wish. Try and stop me."
people who wear boxers dont have more rights then someone wearing briefs; despite people wearing boxers having more freedom. dude, dont defend it, you're just afraid of being wrong. its nothing to argue over, just stop interchanging rights and freedom, because they mean two completely different things. until you recognize this simple fact, we cant continue.
in the same way that boxers wearers dont have more rights then brief wearers despite boxers wearers having more freedom; straights dont have more rights then gays, despite having more freedom.
"No, but person B has a freedom that person A doesn't. Which is my point -- person A
therefor has less rights then person B. Gays have less rights, they want equality."
they dont have less rights. greeter freedom does not equal more rights. stop acting like an idiot and interchanging freedom and right, its making any possibility of an intelligent discussion disappear.
"If you take something from person A, and before you do that person has the same as person B, then
obviously afterwards person B has more of that something. So by logics standings, person B who has
more then person A meaning that person A has less then person B."
we havent taken anything from person A that we havent taken from person B.
"Its not about gay rights, its about gay equality."
the law doesnt distinguish between gays and homosexuals, it is only about equality if being gay is inherently worse then being straight, inwhich case, homosexuality is a disease, and there should be steps taken to prevent it, it shouldnt be encouraged and allowed to grow.
i am not using circular arguments; do you even know what circular arguments are? i am arguing that in the US, there is no discrimination against Gays because Gays are treated by the law the same way that Straights are. there is nothing Straights can do, that Gays cant; the law doesnt distinguish between gays and straights.
if this statement is wrong, then prove it; list a single law that distinguishes between gays and straights, in the US.
"
Thats like saying in the 30s (or whenever) blacks and whites were treated the same. They
both had the same rules -- only whites sit at the front of the bus. If a black wanted to sit
at the front of the bus, he should be white..."
that is not the case, because gays are not restricted to anything straight people are not also restricted to. Gays can go anywhere, do anything Straights can. But blacks couldnt go places and do things whites can. we are not restricting gays from doing anything that straight people can do.
see how i showed how your example is wrong, thats what you're supposed to do. how was my example wrong?
"All over your country and mine? To other gays? I think not."
in some cases, to other gays, usually its to someone that is straight that doesnt even know they are gay.
"
It doesn't fit -- hence its wrong."
why doesnt it fit?
"In otherwords, they are trying to find ways NOT to adopt western principles they find morally repugnant and yet still remain open to adopting western principles they think might be successful in their countries. Their most pressing challenge is to attempt doing so within the current climate of a virtual monopoly of global financial markets by the 'west'."
that is westernization. there was no country that whole heartedly copied the west. they take whats best for their country from the west.
Physicist / Engineer Kim Ung-yong
Bouncer Christopher Michael Langan
Engineer Philip Emeagwali
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Sir Isaac Newton
Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Leonardo da Vinci
Actor James Woods
Albert Einstein
ect.
these people were extremely motivated and made impressive works, but these people were not motivated for power or wealth. you know what desires wealth and power at all costs? common black culture in the US. you're just a [..].
(as for any mods stumbling on my use of the n-word; this use is obviously not done with excessive hate, and racist/offensive remarks are allowed in the politics forum when its ontopic, which my remark is)
> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
> > gays and straights have to follow the same regulations for
> marriage; there are lots of legally married gay people.
Then please tell me how Britny Spears can get married and
divorced in 40 minutes, but two gay lovers after 10 years of
being together in a strong, stable and honest relationship can't
get that same status.
To state that gays 'can get married' is absurd.
> basically what gays is asking for
Your analogy is a load of bullshit. Try again.
i plready explained, that Straight people and Gay people face the same regulations for marriage. it is only the gay's reluctance to go by those regulations that prevent the majority of gays from getting married.
it isnt absurd at all, there are plenty of Gays that have gotten married.
what is wrong with my analogy?
> ☭ Fokker wrote:
> > And the various economical and medical benefits. <
Has anyone else noticed how Avogadro is avoiding this part of the discussion like it's a rapist?
because it has nothing to do with what im debating.
> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
> He ignored my point too.
because it was a moot point.
> Justinian I wrote:
> Avo,
Who are these motivated geniuses you're talking about?
answer my question and i'll answer yours.
"The RIGHT to MARRY."
aside to the fact we dont have the right to marry, gays and straights have to follow the same regulations for marriage; there are lots of legally married gay people.
basically what gays is asking for, is the equivalent of women demanding the government pay for their tampons, because men dont need tampons, so they shouldnt be at a disadvantage from needing to buy tampons. you're not asking to stop government from discriminating against you, there is no discrimination from the government, the government is just not treating you special. you want to be treated special and pampered for being different.
> Justinian I wrote:
> Avo,
I'm not sure what your point is about the most intelligent people not being the wealthiest in the world. You seem to presume that all intelligent people have the potential to become wealthy, but since they aren't they must value something else. But if that is your reasoning, it's fallacious.
everyone has the potential to be wealthy, any poor sap can become wealthy, doesnt take incredible drive. if you look at one of the smartest people alive; being intelligent means he would be able to see through all meaningless distractions, such as "being a man"; the geniuses in today's world, the people considered to be the smartest, had to be extremely motivated to accomplish what they did to be considered one of the smartest people alive. So someone is better equipped then anyone else, because they're smarter then everyone else, cant get side-tracked by meaningless shit, and are extremely motivated. what are they lacking, thats needed to become extremely wealthy and powerful? obviously the people that we as a society, consider to be the smartest, dont put the value you do on power and wealth. All the Great minds, of the modern day arent in the millitary, arent politicians, arent people in the top 100 of the fortune 500, if your value of wealth and power was rational, that wouldnt be the case.
"So please, still waiting for a list."
im not the gay activist, i dont have the a list.
"
lol nice twist"
there was no twist; there are no rights that Straight people have that Gays dont, and Gays are asking for special treatment.
> EliteInternetWarrior wrote:
> > avogadro wrote:
> > Justinian I wrote:
> My point being that fulfilling the model of a "man" is not selected for or beneficial in this world. Most of the most powerful people in the world became powerful because they were ruthless in many ways, taking leisure in ethics and law. Their power has made them arrogant and even licentious. If being a "man" had a return, then more powerful men would do it. In fact, more men would be "men," but since it doesn't have a return only fools try to be "men."
the smartest people in the world arent the richest and most powerful men in the world, so obviously your immense value on power and wealth is ill placed. it is brainwashing that has turned you into a consumer that has made you value wealth so highly.
I don't see the problem with that. MIT doesn't have thousands of dollars to throw at its profs every minute they work. Besides, a professional academic career is highly rewarding, writing books to sell to your captive audience, easy hours, good pay. I'd lose my sight beyond that job completely. Its cozy.
my point was that the Smartest, most motivated people in the world are not the richest, they arent the richest or most powerful not because UNI's are ripping them off, but because the smartest, most motivated, people in the world dont value power and wealth as much as Justinian does; they obviously have a different set of values.
" Which is only relevant in this discussion if America stops improving weapons technology for the next... what, decade? And even then, only if someone outside of the USA figures out the secret behind how fantastically accurate American missiles are. And even then only if the present situation continues for that length of time. And even then only if the USA is stupid enough to allow itself to fall behind a third world country.
And now for the questionf that's actually relevant..."
nope, the only part that makes it relevant is if it continues for that length of time. which is very possible. considering it could improve in less then a year if they were able to steal technology from Russia, CHina, or the US.
"They demand equal rights, which means that they don't need to specify them."
The demand the right to marry people of the same sex; no one has that right currently, straight or Gay.
"You haven't answered my question. I want to know what extra rights they want."
activists for Gays rights have demanded for more rights, in societies where there are no rights straights have that Gays dont have. i dont remember them specifically listing the rights they want.
yeah, i didnt say every week was good, i work out every day atm. just comparing the frequency of what i did when i gained 20 lbs in 3 months, and what people do that dont gain weight.
> Justinian I wrote:
> >Naw. In my state people are pretty active on the lakes and they enjoy winter sports like hockey. And food is more important than exercise. If you eat bad, then you better burn it off with exercise. If you eat right, you can be thin without exercise. Although, yes, exercise is important for other health reasons.
it entirely depends on the individual. i know people who eat fast food two times a day 6 days a week, and eats portions two to three times as large as mine, are underweight, and exercise is a bi-monthly affair for them; and cant gain weight for the life of them; on the flip side of the coin, in my freshman year of college i watched what i ate, and exercised every week, gained 20 lbs in 3 months. i have to exercise every day no matter how healthy i eat. some people have naturally high metabolisms some have naturally low, and some people react better to healthier diets, and others react better to strict exercise routines. if there was one way that worked for everyone; we wouldnt be in this situation.
typical childish responses by Fokker.
"[when did I say that? quote me exactly]"
when did he say that you said that?
"
[I'm not saying that homosexuals make better parents just because they're homosexual, and you know it.]"
when did he say that you said that?
"[Again: When did make such a claim?]"
when did he say you said that?
see how easy it is to make those bullshit responses? grow the [banana phone!] up.
> Justinian I wrote:
> My point being that fulfilling the model of a "man" is not selected for or beneficial in this world. Most of the most powerful people in the world became powerful because they were ruthless in many ways, taking leisure in ethics and law. Their power has made them arrogant and even licentious. If being a "man" had a return, then more powerful men would do it. In fact, more men would be "men," but since it doesn't have a return only fools try to be "men."
the smartest people in the world arent the richest and most powerful men in the world, so obviously your immense value on power and wealth is ill placed. it is brainwashing that has turned you into a consumer that has made you value wealth so highly.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.