SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination since you are onjecting based on sexual orientation. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. Nambla and animals is a sexual orientation. Though that orientation tends to be illegal in today's society. Stopping discrimination against homosexual couples would not change society's views on the ability of minors and/or animals to provide an informed consent. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is the concept of being married to multiple people. It isn't discrimination because polygamy is not restricted based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  2. SkyDekker
    Let me answer by imperfect analogy: what you've argued was pretty much the same argument used in the 1950s & 60s re: racial civil rights in the US, and the use of (in that case, mostly federal) courts to enforce those civil rights. The doom-predicting wasn't borne out then; it won't be now, either. But the courts do now have to give the case a review based on previous rulings and at least polygamy would have a chance at this point. I don't think a ruling on gay marriage has any relevance to rulings on legalizing polygamous marriages.
  3. SkyDekker
    So have you recently gone cockeyed, or have you always been ignorant?
  4. SkyDekker
    Yes society changes. Though I highly doubt there will be a time, soon, where society feels it will be acceptable for minors to freely marry. We as a society have decided that minors are not capable of making informed decisions. Marriage would be one of those. (though clearly many adults, gay or straight fuck it up) Personally I don't see those objecting to gay marriage and those objecting to Nambla as similar. I guess YMMV.
  5. SkyDekker
    I wouldn't call Warren Buffet an Occupy Wall Street type. However, if you understand why Warren Buffet is suggesting the higher taxes on the wealthy, you would also understand why him just voluntarily paying higher taxes by himself wouldn't make any sense.
  6. SkyDekker
    I don't think you are helping your cause with absurd statements.
  7. SkyDekker
    Libel?
  8. SkyDekker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie
  9. SkyDekker
    Next will probably be polygamy, and then emancipated teens wanting to marry their sugar daddies...then it will be all those girls oppressed by evil christian parents who dare discipline their children and keep them locked up to where they may only have that "one chance" to sneak out and embrace the freedom of their sexual maturity... Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, discriminating against two consenting adults who want to be married, because you don't want 5 consenting adults to be able to get married is silly.
  10. SkyDekker
    Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. Thank you for making my point
  11. SkyDekker
    Then you and I agree on that term now. Though I have to say I find it a little odd your definition changed within a couple of posts. What happened? And the definition changed again for you....
  12. SkyDekker
    I can't figure out if you are joking....
  13. SkyDekker
    I think people are asking you to state what you think yourself, in stead of following along with what other people think.
  14. SkyDekker
    Can so. Can confirm. Source: 4th post.
  15. SkyDekker
    By your definition that makes him an alarmist.
  16. SkyDekker
    You win this argument.
  17. SkyDekker
    Well there is your fucking problem, why after 4 years and 100 judgements have the state, the Feds, or whoever has the authority not stepped in and stopped all this? Same reason nobody really looks into the $billion that were given directly to military commanders in Afghanistan that nobody can really account for now. Admitting there is a problem is "bad for business".
  18. SkyDekker
    lol
  19. SkyDekker
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-rough-ride-and-police-culture/391538/ http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
  20. SkyDekker
    you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist Uhmm no. I would think when somebody believes that such influence is going to result in some kind of catastrophy, THAT would make someone an alarmist.
  21. SkyDekker

    Angry

    SkyDekker replied to BIGUN's topic in Speakers Corner

    What, wait, according to the liberals here in SC that behavior is totally acceptable. I thought Christians valued honesty? I mean at least they didn't try to hide the indignity they were causing the flag.
  22. SkyDekker
    Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point. With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?
  23. SkyDekker
    Can you explain why Bill is an alarmist? Other than that he doesn't agree with you? Has he made any specific predictions that called for alarm? Has he agreed with anybody who made predictions cause for alarm? Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me? No because you have specifically stated that you do not believe man has any influence on climate. You usually follow that up, once faced with facts, that maybe if man has some influence it is so tiny it can be completely discarded. Hence, you deny that man has any influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?
  24. SkyDekker
    This is in his second paragraph. SO he has already established that anybody who doesn't agree with him in a debate is ignorant. Clearly debating with him on content isn't worthwhile. He has made up his mind and he has pre-judged his debate partner as ignorant. Why would you counter anybody on content, who has already established that your content means nothing to him?
  25. SkyDekker
    Can you explain why Bill is an alarmist? Other than that he doesn't agree with you? Has he made any specific predictions that called for alarm? Has he agreed with anybody who made predictions cause for alarm?