• Gay Marriage Repealed in Maine
    896 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;18284243]Okay, you're right there. I know this is a fallacious argument, but I've never seen nor heard tell of a person with a high IQ who was as deluded as those christian voters.[/QUOTE] IQ is a pretty useless measure of intelligence man. Intelligence is way, way more complex than just a number or a ranking. Trying to use a number to "rate" intelligence is dumb as heck. [editline]02:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;18284388]Name plz.[/QUOTE] right click properties location not complicated
[QUOTE=archangel125;18284339]Who might that be?[/QUOTE] Ayn Rand. High IQ, intelligent, completely insane and deluded beyond belief (also a bad writer) but I suppose I could find a better example since she isn't of the religious right, which is the focus of this thread. :effort: e:fb
[QUOTE=archangel125;18284388]Name plz.[/QUOTE] Ayn Rand.
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18284431]Ayn Rand. High IQ, intelligent, completely insane and deluded beyond belief (also a bad writer) [/QUOTE] [i]"Eventually, the question you ask stops being "Who is John Galt?" and becomes "When will John Galt shut up?"[/i]
Let's talk about high levels of intelligence coupled with religious fanaticism. That's what I meant. Religious fanaticism is the worst kind. Political ideologies can be undermined through education - the proof of their functionality can be clearly seen simply by close examination of society. Where some imaginary being is involved, however, the existence of said being and the validity of its will cannot be proven or disproven - If you worshipped a little green man who you saw in your head, and justified atrocities you committed with "the little green man told me to do it," name one way you could be convinced that you were wrong.
[QUOTE=archangel125;18284708]Let's talk about high levels of intelligence coupled with religious fanaticism. That's what I meant. Religious fanaticism is the worst kind. Political ideologies can be undermined through education - the proof of their functionality can be clearly seen simply by close examination of society. Where some imaginary being is involved, however, the existence of said being and the validity of its will cannot be proven or disproven - If you worshipped a little green man who you saw in your head, and justified atrocities you committed with "the little green man told me to do it," name one way you could be convinced that you were wrong.[/QUOTE] stop trying to abstract religion as some silly, straightforward concept. It's a lot more complex than that
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18284824]stop trying to abstract religion as some silly, straightforward concept. It's a lot more complex than that[/QUOTE] Aye, but it really is as simple as my analogy for the blind, devout, zealous fanatics. I can almost guarantee that within twenty years, this kind of fanaticism will be classified as a serious mental illness.
[QUOTE=archangel125;18284853]Aye, but it really is as simple as my analogy for the blind, devout, zealous fanatics.[/QUOTE] no, it's not to say this is purely due to religion is oversimplifying the situation. If it were due strictly to religion, then the anti-same sex marriage protesters would also be protesting Maine's importance as a source of lobster, seeing as how the bible lists eating shellfish as an abomination as well. It's not because these people are religious, it's because their religion is being manipulated and used to rally them into a force that will vote for the Republican Party's financial interests
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18284934]no, it's not to say this is purely due to religion is oversimplifying the situation. If it were due strictly to religion, then the anti-same sex marriage protesters would also be protesting Maine's importance as a source of lobster, seeing as how the bible lists eating shellfish as an abomination as well. It's not because these people are religious, it's because their religion is being manipulated and used to rally them into a force that will vote for the Republican Party's financial interests[/QUOTE] That's just it. The people are just too piggishly stupid to even attempt to understand homosexuals. Yet, they do not want to appear bigoted. And so they use religion as an excuse and end up deluding themselves into actually believing that it is their moral duty to oppress homosexuals. If America truly was that religious, they'd still be burning 'heathens', stoning adulterers, keeping women as slaves with no rights whatsoever, and worse. The problem is not with the religion, but with the people themselves. There is something very, very wrong with the genetic make-up of some of these people. They wouldn't last a week in any 'third-world' country. Islamic terrorists? The true enemy of Freedom is the far-right religious demographic within your own borders. And what's more, there's plenty of evidence to back that up. We in the west bitch and whine about how evil Middle-Eastern Muslim clerics are for brainwashing their followers. Look at what American news media has done to your own people.
there is no genetic propensity towards ignorance, broheim
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18285126]there is no genetic propensity towards ignorance, broheim[/QUOTE] There must be a genetic propensity toward WILFUL ignorance and a tendency to deliberately AVOID learning.
[QUOTE=archangel125;18285158]There must be a genetic propensity toward WILFUL ignorance and a tendency to deliberately AVOID learning.[/QUOTE] nope, it's just psychological conditioning and the oppressive weight of our modern consumerist society :smile:
[QUOTE=archangel125;18285158]There must be a genetic propensity toward WILFUL ignorance and a tendency to deliberately AVOID learning.[/QUOTE] nope. it's nurture, not nature, in regards to this [editline]03:12PM[/editline] what he said
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18285193]nope, it's just psychological conditioning and the oppressive weight of our modern consumerist society :smile:[/QUOTE] Does the government not have a responsibility to encourage its people to think for themselves? Wait, of course not. When people are sheep willing to believe anyone with a title, it works out just fine. Edit: I think that if the new generation was simply encouraged to read books at a young age, and to question EVERYTHING, their levels of intelligence would reach a record high by the time they matured.
[QUOTE=archangel125;18285233]Does the government not have a responsibility to encourage its people to think for themselves? Wait, of course not. When people are sheep willing to believe anyone with a title, it works out just fine.[/QUOTE] the government at least tries sometimes but the result is usually "EDUCATION IS THE DEVIL'S WORK" or whatever
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18285298]the government at least tries sometimes but the result is usually "EDUCATION IS THE DEVIL'S WORK" or whatever[/QUOTE] Sad, really.
gay marriage should be a right for everyone... since straight people can marry, why not homo-sexuals? It's unfair... everyone should have the same rights...
[QUOTE=darkedone02;18285422]gay marriage should be a right for everyone... since straight people can marry, why not homo-sexuals? It's unfair... everyone should have the same rights...[/QUOTE] Which is exactly it. Some states even have charges against sodomy. The government of a country that claims to be a democracy (Ha, ha) has no place in the bedrooms of their citizens.
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18284324][img]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9656/rand3.gif[/img] It's more common than you'd think.[/QUOTE] I hate Ayn Rand [img]http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs39/f/2008/339/0/d/__L4D___Francis___by_skatanic.jpg[/img]
I like how my post went completely unnoticed. [QUOTE=Billiam;18272990]It's a shame morality is subjective and only the extremely stupid would derive their morality from a book way past its due. What if I said: Christianity is morally wrong, so it corrupts society morally? [B] I'm sorry, but at this point I'm not sure if you're being serious or trolling Facepunch, enlighten me.[/B][/QUOTE] He's been pretty serious always. Seriously crazy, but serious. But he could just be trolling, but it's quite possible he isn't. [editline]01:33AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18273848]no u [editline]10:37PM[/editline] I don't agree with most aspects of Christianity, but it does try to morally improve society, so saying it's corrupting is absurd. Gay marriage does nothing good, [B]and adversely affects the moral of a society[/B]. Ask most people, even non-religious, and they'll probably tell you it's wrong.[/QUOTE] [quote]ad·verse (d-vûrs, dvûrs) adj. 1. Acting or serving to oppose; antagonistic: adverse criticism. 2. Contrary to one's interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable: adverse circumstances. 3. Moving in an opposite or opposing direction: adverse currents. 4. Archaic Placed opposite.[/quote] Okay, so. It moves societal values in a different direction. Okay, first, it sounds like you're saying change is bad. If going by the second definition, then it's just contrary to what you want, and you're kinda a bigot if you don't want gays getting married for just because they are gay. It could also mean that it affects society in a harmful way. Now what is harmful about it? Please do enlighten me. Also, I don't understand why everyone was quoting the bible. To use the bible you have to believe that a god exists. The bible can only be used as evidence once you can prove that there is a supernatural power in existence, before that, the bible is completely invalid proof of anything, because the entire bible is based upon it being the word of god, so to even begin to accept it to be the word of god, you have to have evidence for the existence of a god.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18184989]The government isn't taking away anything. The people voted for it. If their legistature had made laws against gay marriage because of religious beliefs, then there would be a 'seperation of church and state' issue.[/QUOTE] I know this is a late response but the government even allowing a vote to repeal gay marriage is, once again, much like if they had allowed a state-wide vote to repeal black people's voting rights. So in a way, yes, they are responsible.
ITT: Gmod_Fan77 trolls Facepunch. [I][B]Hard.[/B][/I] Seriously.
I'm going to get boxes galore for this, bite me. What does ITT stand for? Edit: Thanks.
In This Thread.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;18290513]ITT: Gmod_Fan77 trolls Facepunch. [I][B]Hard.[/B][/I] Seriously.[/QUOTE] Not so much trolling as it is minorly annoying us. He can go fuck right off.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;18290513]ITT: Gmod_Fan77 trolls Facepunch. [I][B]Hard.[/B][/I] Seriously.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because forming one's own opinions is definately trolling.
[IMG]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5236/religion.jpg[/IMG] This.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18291637]Yeah, because forming one's own opinions is definately trolling.[/QUOTE] Opinions? So far you haven't backed a single one of those [i]opinions[/i] up with a logical argument. If you can't prove your point logically and refuse to see the logic in the argument of others, you're one of two things. A tool or a troll. For your satisfaction, here's a short list of words and phrases synonymous with "tool" in the context I'm using it. Sheep. Narcissist. Bigot. Zealot. Self-righteous tard. Yeah, okay. I see the irony of my posts here. The fact is that you can believe what you want to believe so long as you treat homosexuals with the same courtesy and respect you'd show any other person. If your prejudices affect your actions toward them, THEN I've got a huge fucking problem. Get the picture yet?
[QUOTE=archangel125;18285457]Which is exactly it. Some states even have charges against sodomy. The government of a country that claims to be a democracy (Ha, ha) has no place in the bedrooms of their citizens.[/QUOTE] Actually, all sodomy laws were repealed in 2003 after Lawrence v. Texas
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18293348]Actually, all sodomy laws were repealed in 2003 after Lawrence v. Texas[/QUOTE] Not in Virginia. They stand for minors.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.