Also, the fact that you are able to type coherent sentences on a keyboard after an entire day of reading Greek text is in itself impressive.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.[/quote]
Why should I accept your arbitrary rule? Simply because, in your view it is necessary for the analogy? That’s a serious question.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.[/quote]
Why should I accept your arbitrary rule? Simply because, in your view it is necessary for the analogy? That’s a serious question.[/quote]
Of course it is necessary for the analogy–it is designed to make the analogy more accurate. If shapes can’t be created or destroyed, then uniqueness is impossible in the same way that objective certainty is unattainable. Without that arbitrary rule, the analogy isn’t an analogy at all because it doesn’t “match” real life.
The question is not whether or not you will accept that arbitrary rule of mine. The question is twofold:
-
Does the analogy, arbitrary rules and all, accurately illustrate the themes–unattainability, measurement, etc.–that we’re discussing (and the relationships between those themes)?
-
Is its conclusion valid?
If the artificial analogy is too much of a distraction, consider this one: it is as impossible for me to be objectively certain of something as it is for a man to jump over the moon (i.e., both are impossible). And yet, when Lebron James jumps, we can say that he’s closer to jumping over the moon than is Chris Christie.
That is, proximity to an unattainable impossibility is a perfectly measurable phenomenon.
Politically the best thing that could ever happen to the Republican party is the Supreme Court to put and end to this nonsense. Keeps them from being on the losing end for the next decade while the states all come in line.
I’ve said this before, but while we will never have a pro gay marriage consensus (after all you still have pro segregation people), the debate is already over in the court of public opinion. It isn’t going to reverse itself. The people staunchly against are already in the minority and dying off. The younger generation simply doesn’t give a fuck. They have gay friends. It’s ALREADY over, the best thing for Republicans would be for someone to take it out of the public debate where they are maintaining a losing position.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you had only one triangle it would be 100% certain that your triangle was unique in the context of that world. Assuming the standard definition of “unique”. [/quote]
Indeed it would, but I’ve created the arbitrary rule that shapes can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the quality of “uniqueness” will never be attained–just like, in our world, the quality of objective and absolute “certainty” will never be attained.
However, in spite of the fact that “uniqueness” is impossible, a triangle is closer to unique than a square or a circle.[/quote]
Why should I accept your arbitrary rule? Simply because, in your view it is necessary for the analogy? That’s a serious question.[/quote]
Of course it is necessary for the analogy–it is designed to make the analogy more accurate. If shapes can’t be created or destroyed, then uniqueness is impossible in the same way that objective certainty is unattainable. Without that arbitrary rule, the analogy isn’t an analogy at all because it doesn’t “match” real life.
The question is not whether or not you will accept that arbitrary rule of mine. The question is twofold:
-
Does the analogy, arbitrary rules and all, accurately illustrate the themes–unattainability, measurement, etc.–that we’re discussing (and the relationships between those themes)?
-
Is its conclusion valid?
If the artificial analogy is too much of a distraction, consider this one: it is as impossible for me to be objectively certain of something as it is for a man to jump over the moon (i.e., both are impossible). And yet, when Lebron James jumps, we can say that he’s closer to jumping over the moon than is Chris Christie.
That is, proximity to an unattainable impossibility is a perfectly measurable phenomenon.[/quote]
I just now saw this. Not bad, but no time now.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Politically the best thing that could ever happen to the Republican party is the Supreme Court to put and end to this nonsense. Keeps them from being on the losing end for the next decade while the states all come in line. [/quote]
When a court intervenes, it doesn’t put an end to it - it inflames the debate and removes it from being compromised upon. Look at abortion for a cautionary tale. Courts rarely resolve problems that are inherently political - they make them worse.
Good - if this is true, then there is absolutely no reason for a court to step in and interrupt this policy shift that is, by your sense, a foregone conclusion. If it is happening in the way you say it is, then let it take its due course in politics.
[quote]H factor wrote:
The people staunchly against are already in the minority and dying off. The younger generation simply doesn’t give a fuck. They have gay friends.[/quote]
The younger generation doesn’t give a fuck about a lot of things. Age certainly doesn’t dispel it, but stupidity is almost a hallmark of youth.
Just as we’re having to fight to fix the policies our parents enacted when we were young, our kids are going to have to clean up many of the messes our generation is making.
Party affiliation isn’t imprinted in our DNA and the party of ‘old rich guys’, with a history of making the hard decisions (not that the other party hasn’t had to make hard decisions), doesn’t gain members by birth. At some point, this country is going to have to stand against some of the inclusion and tolerance that it currently acts like it wants to embrace. Obamacare, ‘tolerant’ immigration and social policies, diminished civil liberties and secret war programs, government safety nets, cheap abundant education, rampant manufacturing with little pollution… can’t have it all without a price tag and some of it can’t be had even with a hefty price tag. I just hope the current voters have to foot the bill and not the one’s I’m raising who didn’t get a vote.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Politically the best thing that could ever happen to the Republican party is the Supreme Court to put and end to this nonsense. Keeps them from being on the losing end for the next decade while the states all come in line. [/quote]
When a court intervenes, it doesn’t put an end to it - it inflames the debate and removes it from being compromised upon. Look at abortion for a cautionary tale. Courts rarely resolve problems that are inherently political - they make them worse.
Good - if this is true, then there is absolutely no reason for a court to step in and interrupt this policy shift that is, by your sense, a foregone conclusion. If it is happening in the way you say it is, then let it take its due course in politics.[/quote]
This is all well and true however, comparing gay marriage to abortion is a really bad comparison. I don’t think pro choice ever had the meteoric rise that support for gay marriage had. Nor do I see gay marriage if allowed going “the other way” where enough people are sick of it to reverse it. It’s WAY different when talking about the life of an unborn than when talking if two dudes should be allowed to say I do.
It is over though and whether the courts do step in or not is irrelevant. It’s clearly a matter of time. I was just saying Republicans should be rooting for it as it gets them out of being on the losing side going forward (which they unquestionably will be, just look at the polling).
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The people staunchly against are already in the minority and dying off. The younger generation simply doesn’t give a fuck. They have gay friends.[/quote]
The younger generation doesn’t give a fuck about a lot of things. Age certainly doesn’t dispel it, but stupidity is almost a hallmark of youth.
Just as we’re having to fight to fix the policies our parents enacted when we were young, our kids are going to have to clean up many of the messes our generation is making.
Party affiliation isn’t imprinted in our DNA and the party of ‘old rich guys’, with a history of making the hard decisions (not that the other party hasn’t had to make hard decisions), doesn’t gain members by birth. At some point, this country is going to have to stand against some of the inclusion and tolerance that it currently acts like it wants to embrace. Obamacare, ‘tolerant’ immigration and social policies, diminished civil liberties and secret war programs, government safety nets, cheap abundant education, rampant manufacturing with little pollution… can’t have it all without a price tag and some of it can’t be had even with a hefty price tag. I just hope the current voters have to foot the bill and not the one’s I’m raising who didn’t get a vote.
[/quote]
I don’t really see what this rant has to do with gay marriage. The people who are staunchly against it are dying. The people who are for it are growing up. THEY will control the debate on this and I’m telling you it’s over. The rest of your post is irrelevant to that fact. I simply don’t see how anyone that looks at the polling data comes to a different conclusion. If you can point out some recent polling data that points to a different conclusion I’d like to see it. Support has been a slow moving but consistent wave. You have one major political party backing it. You have Karl Rove saying the next GOP guy could be for it.
â??This issue has been lost. Itâ??s about time Republicans get over it,â?? says Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official who co-directs the Center for Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. â??Having hung out with Republicans for many years and knowing Republicans who either themselves were gay or had sons or daughters who were gay, Republicans always were very queasy about this issue,â?? he says. â??Republicans think the less said, the better, but thereâ??s a certain amount of relief. Itâ??s hard to be a consistent conservative and be opposed to gay marriage.â??
If someone can point to polling and not just hyperbole about Obamacare or youth or whatever I’d like to see it. Especially the specifics of recent polling and how they compare with past ones. Cause I completely agree it’s over.
^ Agreed.
The polls are moving in a single direction, unanimously. Beginning now and with increasing severity over time, gay marriage will be a political liability for Republicans in national elections for as long as it’s a political issue. But there ain’t no Republican getting through a Mississippi House primary without emphatically opposing it.
Therefore, the best thing that can happen for Republicans, from a countrywide political perspective, is for the court to declare any restrictions on gay marriage unconstitutional. Accept the defeat and resist the temptation to rally around a movement to overturn. Kill the issue and focus on the politics of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, pare the culture war down to its most reasonable dimension: the much more winnable (and much more important) abortion debate.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t really see what this rant has to do with gay marriage. The people who are staunchly against it are dying. The people who are for it are growing up.[/quote]
Saying those opposed are dying is as patently wrong as saying those supporting are just being born. There are core contingencies on either side and a huge swath of idiots in the middle who cast their vote any way the wind blows. The entire claim of ‘poll numbers show…’ is predicated on the flawed assumption that poll numbers mean more than jack shit.
The exact same statement could’ve been made a decade ago against gay marriage. Heightened restrictions on the abortion clinic in Bismark, ND aren’t being relevantly swayed by the public opinion that surrounded Row v. Wade. Shit, the central tenet to the argument today was penned in 1868.
‘Separate but equal’ is inactionable unless you happen to be a student at Harvey Milk H.S. When the time comes for Chicago (which just announced school closures) or Detroit or Bismarck to open it’s equivalent Harvey Milk (in the name of equal protection) you better believe the issue will be revisited and revisited with different political winds and ‘poll numbers’.
You don’t believe it if it’s not a poll number? What a waste of a brain. If polling data were 100% rock-solid evidence, Prop 8 wouldn’t be in the situation it’s in. When changing the question from ‘homosexuals’ to ‘gays and lesbians’ changes the approval ratings in the polls (like it did for DADT), you’ve got some political action that you should take to the bank.
I’m sure the next time we find an unpopular president in the White House, the whole ‘President instructing the DOJ to ignore X’ bit won’t seem as popular or enlightened.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t really see what this rant has to do with gay marriage. The people who are staunchly against it are dying. The people who are for it are growing up.[/quote]
Saying those opposed are dying is as patently wrong as saying those supporting are just being born. There are core contingencies on either side and a huge swath of idiots in the middle who cast their vote any way the wind blows. The entire claim of ‘poll numbers show…’ is predicated on the flawed assumption that poll numbers mean more than jack shit.
The exact same statement could’ve been made a decade ago against gay marriage. Heightened restrictions on the abortion clinic in Bismark, ND aren’t being relevantly swayed by the public opinion that surrounded Row v. Wade. Shit, the central tenet to the argument today was penned in 1868.
‘Separate but equal’ is inactionable unless you happen to be a student at Harvey Milk H.S. When the time comes for Chicago (which just announced school closures) or Detroit or Bismarck to open it’s equivalent Harvey Milk (in the name of equal protection) you better believe the issue will be revisited and revisited with different political winds and ‘poll numbers’.
You don’t believe it if it’s not a poll number? What a waste of a brain. If polling data were 100% rock-solid evidence, Prop 8 wouldn’t be in the situation it’s in. When changing the question from ‘homosexuals’ to ‘gays and lesbians’ changes the approval ratings in the polls (like it did for DADT), you’ve got some political action that you should take to the bank.
I’m sure the next time we find an unpopular president in the White House, the whole ‘President instructing the DOJ to ignore X’ bit won’t seem as popular or enlightened.
[/quote]
He’s making a point about trends in public opinion.
You find a better way to measure trends in public opinion than a deep and time-consistent pool of public polling and I’ll be all ears.
In the meantime, this-- LGBT redirect --means a hell of a lot more than “jack shit.”
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t really see what this rant has to do with gay marriage. The people who are staunchly against it are dying. The people who are for it are growing up.[/quote]
Saying those opposed are dying is as patently wrong as saying those supporting are just being born. There are core contingencies on either side and a huge swath of idiots in the middle who cast their vote any way the wind blows. The entire claim of ‘poll numbers show…’ is predicated on the flawed assumption that poll numbers mean more than jack shit.
The exact same statement could’ve been made a decade ago against gay marriage. Heightened restrictions on the abortion clinic in Bismark, ND aren’t being relevantly swayed by the public opinion that surrounded Row v. Wade. Shit, the central tenet to the argument today was penned in 1868.
‘Separate but equal’ is inactionable unless you happen to be a student at Harvey Milk H.S. When the time comes for Chicago (which just announced school closures) or Detroit or Bismarck to open it’s equivalent Harvey Milk (in the name of equal protection) you better believe the issue will be revisited and revisited with different political winds and ‘poll numbers’.
You don’t believe it if it’s not a poll number? What a waste of a brain. If polling data were 100% rock-solid evidence, Prop 8 wouldn’t be in the situation it’s in. When changing the question from ‘homosexuals’ to ‘gays and lesbians’ changes the approval ratings in the polls (like it did for DADT), you’ve got some political action that you should take to the bank.
I’m sure the next time we find an unpopular president in the White House, the whole ‘President instructing the DOJ to ignore X’ bit won’t seem as popular or enlightened.
[/quote]
I believe in data more than I believe in the heartfelt words of someone who is arguing via emotion. In fact I specifically asked to see something with data in it and not another rant. A rant was what we got and you’re upset that I find it not very convincing? I’m sorry I guess, I just don’t know what to tell you.
Maximus wanted to believe 300,000 Californians paid all income taxes. It fit into what he wanted to believe. It was proven to be demonstrably false. PROVEN. BY DATA.
Like SMH said if you have something better than public opinion polls go ahead. That’s all I asked for. Instead we get Harvey Milk H.S.
Knock yourself out with that stuff. Meanwhile you aren’t changing my mind until you can show me with some actual data and not just shit you want to believe.
Conservatives are looking a bit hypocritical when they say they want government out of their lives, except when it comes to gay marriage. Come on fellas, you don’t want government to ban your soda or salt, but they should dictate who can marry and who cannot ? Wake up.
When it comes to religion, why should any book dictate a decision on marriage ? I understand books like the Bible speaks about homosexuality, but who says that is my book ? And what about those who don’t live their lives according to any book ?
The best way to make sure no religion is put above or below any other when it comes to this issue, is to remove religion from it altogether.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Conservatives are looking a bit hypocritical when they say they want government out of their lives, except when it comes to gay marriage. Come on fellas, you don’t want government to ban your soda or salt, but they should dictate who can marry and who cannot ? Wake up.
[/quote]
I don’t think that is it. It should be a choice of the people of each state. In Roe v Wade the Federal Government IMO stepped over it bounds and took control of the situation. The Federal Government should have allowed the states to make a decision that it’s people wanted. In this case for Gay Marriage if Mass whats gay marriage then so be it, but if you move to Texas and gay marriage is not recognized then you do not get the same benefits. You have a choice where you live, so do not force your values on a state that does not want them.
I am against Gay Marriage. If you want a civil union then by all means get one, or sign a contract. Marriage was formed by God no the US Government. The US Government really does not give a beneficial tax treatment to married individuals especially in this 2 earner families.
Where does it stop? If two homosexual males get approval from the US Government that they are allowed to get married, what keeps Polygamists from being alright, or Man on Animal Marriages. There has to be a line in the sand, and many people believe this is where it should stop. We are talking about 5-10% of the population telling the other 95-90% of the population that their way of living is just fine. I think the percentages given by many Media stations are too high. I think it is more in the 2-5% range of the population are homosexual.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
You find a better way to measure trends in public opinion than a deep and time-consistent pool of public polling and I’ll be all ears.[/quote]
How about everyone’s opinion agrees with mine, and the ones who disagree are wrong so they don’t count anyway. This requires no public polling.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Therefore, the best thing that can happen for Republicans, from a countrywide political perspective, is for the court to declare any restrictions on gay marriage unconstitutional. Accept the defeat and resist the temptation to rally around a movement to overturn. Kill the issue and focus on the politics of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, pare the culture war down to its most reasonable dimension: the much more winnable (and much more important) abortion debate.[/quote]
Huh?
There’s been waffling on the 14th (esp. Equal Protection) since it’s inception and, again, polling is one of the shittiest forms of data collection available.
I bet if you phrased the polls ‘Should the federal gov’t be able to reverse or ignore popular opinion within a state regarding social issues like homosexuality?’ you’d get a very different answer. Let alone the sticky situation a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ leaves you in.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Conservatives are looking a bit hypocritical when they say they want government out of their lives, except when it comes to gay marriage. Come on fellas, you don’t want government to ban your soda or salt, but they should dictate who can marry and who cannot ? Wake up.
[/quote]
I don’t think that is it. It should be a choice of the people of each state. In Roe v Wade the Federal Government IMO stepped over it bounds and took control of the situation. The Federal Government should have allowed the states to make a decision that it’s people wanted. In this case for Gay Marriage if Mass whats gay marriage then so be it, but if you move to Texas and gay marriage is not recognized then you do not get the same benefits. You have a choice where you live, so do not force your values on a state that does not want them.
[/quote]
Bad comparison, and if your going to do a bad comparison at least pick something that is a little more closely related.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The best way to make sure no religion is put above or below any other when it comes to this issue, is to remove religion from it altogether. [/quote]
Agreed. And even when you distill religion away from it ‘gay marriage’ isn’t that unequal to other alternative forms of marriage.
“Marriage” (however it ends up defined) for any quasi-random group of people (from a husband, wife, and au pair to a 12-member armed forces unit) or no State recognition of marriage at all. I mean, we sanction thousand+ member corporations formed around work and profit (even being declared as people), why not multi-member marriages formed around love and family?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Therefore, the best thing that can happen for Republicans, from a countrywide political perspective, is for the court to declare any restrictions on gay marriage unconstitutional. Accept the defeat and resist the temptation to rally around a movement to overturn. Kill the issue and focus on the politics of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, pare the culture war down to its most reasonable dimension: the much more winnable (and much more important) abortion debate.[/quote]
Huh?
There’s been waffling on the 14th (esp. Equal Protection) since it’s inception and, again, polling is one of the shittiest forms of data collection available.
I bet if you phrased the polls ‘Should the federal gov’t be able to reverse or ignore popular opinion within a state regarding social issues like homosexuality?’ you’d get a very different answer. Let alone the sticky situation a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ leaves you in.
[/quote]
This isn’t rocket science, we know the way a question is phrased greatly impacts the answers. However, POINTING TO SPECIFIC DATA, can you show that support for gay marriage is not at an all time high? POINTING TO SPECIFIC DATA, can you show that support for gay marriage should NOT increase in the coming years?
You aren’t going to use data to argue because data sucks and I bet you could get different answers when asked in a different manner which everyone already knows is the case on every question ever.
Let’s just take your word for how people feel. How about that?