Your donations pay for the CIH Forum hosting and software.
Please help the CIH Forums by disabling AdBlock Plus on this page.
Forum Home Forum Home :: The Message Board :: Internet Ads
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Youtube does it again! - Aziz Ansari
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Youtube does it again! - Aziz Ansari

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:47pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I agree that polygamy's probably not an issue that will surface any time soon...but there's no reason for it not to.  One of the main arguments that Christians use against gay marriage is that marriage is for procreation.  Right there, there's an argument that can't be used against polygamy.

But just the fact that the concept of "what marriage is" has been challenged and nearly won, tells me that it will be challenged again.  Once again, it's not the most pressing issue of the day, but to argue that once marriage has been changed to accomodate one group, it will never be challenged again, is most likely untrue.


Sure, it may be "challenged" again, but it's doubtful the challenge will ever be mounted by anyone but a small cadre that will never have the popular support to be taken seriously or considered anything other than a kook fringe group.

 
It's not that long ago that gays were considered just that.  It's probably why gay marriage never gained any momentum until the past 10 or 15 years.
 
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links



Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 45546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 3:55pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

He pretty much said what I said. The only point he made that I didn't, is that "marriage equality" means federal recognition. But he basically said that the terminology was changed to soften the idea of gay marriage.

I don't think that's done to change the mind of opponents. I think it's done to make the issue more palatable to people on the fence. It's an effective tactic but, as the writer points out, it's not accurate.


What he said that you didn't say, or the differentiation that he made which you didn't, is that "marriage equality" refers to the desired goal or outcome, not to the thing itself.

I agree that the change in terminology was made to make it sound more acceptable. My main problem with your original premise, was the part about it opening the door to more outlandish things.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 45546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

It's not that long ago that gays were considered just that. It's probably why gay marriage never gained any momentum until the past 10 or 15 years.


Maybe, but there has ALWAYS been a much more prevalent incidence of homosexuality lying just below the surface of society than there has been or ever will be of people with the urge to commit incest or have multiple spouses.

Having homo-erotic thoughts or being "closet gay" is something that has always existed amongst a much larger percentage of the world's population at any given time throughout history than has ever been admitted to.

Not by me, of course.

No way!!!

But you.....
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Another one is the attempt to change "global warming" to "climate change" in order to cover the global cooling theories of the 1970s.  How can one argue that there are changes in the climate?


Just can't stop with the little false "digs", can ya?

It must be in the rightwing blood & ingrained in the mind.

The switch from "global warming" to "climate change" has nothing to do with the global cooling theories of the 70's, nor is it meant to "cover" anything.

It was meant to end the confusion brought about by the fact that, one of the effects or consequences of global warming is that some areas will actually experience cooler temperatures than in the past, even though the mean or average aggregate temperature worldwide is increasing.

Nice try, though.

 
What "climate change" does is to relieve the global warmers from accountability for their previous  fear-mongering.  Like I said, how can one argue with "climate change"?  The climate's been changing forever.
 
If there's global warming, just call it that.
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 45546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

What "climate change" does is to relieve the global warmers from accountability for their previous fear-mongering. Like I said, how can one argue with "climate change"? The climate's been changing forever.



If there's global warming, just call it that.


Global warming is what's happening. But because many people are too obtuse to understand that abnormal weather patterns, including cooler temperatures in certain areas, is one of the consequences of global warming, as well as the rightwing propaganda machine seizing upon that confusion to further muddy the waters, they decided to change the term to something that more accurately reflects the results of global warming rather then the underlying cause, as was the original case.

Global warming was coined by the scientific community who understood it's connotation. Climate change was put into use in order to clarify the results of it for the easily mislead masses.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56453
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 5:21pm
 
Rightwingers are simply not buying into the fear-mongering that the global warmers have pushed.  Nor are they falling for the draconian economic "fixes" that have been proposed by the likes of George Soros. 
 
As I recall from the Copenhagen Summit a few years back, Soros and other global financiers wanted the industrialized world to fund their efforts to industrialize third-world nations.  Of course, these third-world industries would have to be "green".
 
Also, one of the proposals was to have the US borrow money from China in order to help make industries in China decrease their CO2 emissions, which would be monitored over the next 20 years.
 
Then you see things like the US loaning Al Gore hundreds of millions of dollars to help finance his luxury "green" sports car company, which, I believe, is no longer in operation.  I guess 20mpg on fuel with a total of 32 miles on an electrical charge wasn't such a great idea.
 
Rightwingers simply think that global warming science became too intertwined too fast with the global warming industry to take it all that seriously.
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 45546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 6:18pm
^ Just more of the usual pro-industry propaganda.

They would rather use half-truths to obfuscate the issue rather than admit the left is correct & that there really is a problem.

Then, after they've successfully stood in the way & blocked action that likely would've helped solve the issue & it's too late, the right wingers of that era will deny culpability.

Never ends.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
DKS View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive


Joined: 22 May 2012
Location: Crowley
Status: Offline
Points: 2070
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DKS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 6:49am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:


But on a more fundamental level, there are practical arguments that can be made against polygamy & incest.

Polygamy could potentially create complicated legal situations that would be too cumbersome & entangled for the courts' capacity to resolve. Incest can create dangerous medical conditions that could manifest themselves in serious health problems in any offspring produced later in life.

Voila.
"I see the sadness in their eyes
Melancholy in their cries
Devoid of all the passion
The human spirit cannot die"
Back to Top
Ken 1802 View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive


Joined: 19 Jul 2013
Location: Miami Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 986
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ken 1802 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 7:01am
Madawee, a brother and sister marriage is just nasty, which is why it hasn't been put into US legal law yet....  One of the only times family to family marriages worked was in the bible times, and that was most likely because they plain didn't know any better in the bible times, and plus, basically everyone was related in the early bible times, and people wanted to procreate, so they only had their family members to procreate with. The Leah-Rachel-Jacob love triangle was a prime example.  Two sisters ended up marrying and having kids with their biological cousin, Jacob(Though I saw something like this on the Jerry Springer Show one day, go figure) Nowadays, there are many people to procreate with that aren't part of your family, so there is no excuse to marry and procreate with family members)...
Back to Top
Papa Lazarou View Drop Down
Ad Exec
Ad Exec
Avatar
Formerly Codtaro

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 7720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Papa Lazarou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 7:17am
^Well, there you go.

Who cares about love, morals, understanding, etc.

"It's just nasty"

Sounds like good solid reasoning to me.
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 45546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 1:44pm
^ When Ken is right, he's right.

Having sex with any immediate family member is just nasty.

Sick nasty.

Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
musicman View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Formerly 0000

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: Greater Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 7561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote musicman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2013 at 5:12am
I don't have any sisters.  I wonder though.  Imagine the brother of the most attractive woman you can think of.  
Do you think he looks at her and says to himself, 'Ah, that's just my smelly o'l sister.'?  LOL


Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 37128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2013 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by Ken 1802 Ken 1802 wrote:

Madawee, a brother and sister marriage is just nasty, which is why it hasn't been put into US legal law yet....  One of the only times family to family marriages worked was in the bible times, and that was most likely because they plain didn't know any better in the bible times, and plus, basically everyone was related in the early bible times, and people wanted to procreate, so they only had their family members to procreate with.)...
WinkCorrect - and don't forget Lot's daughters ("...let's get daddy drunk and make babies!"). They tricked him over and over and over again...talk about 'keeping it all in the family'.
~~~
In ancient times it was very common to create little inbred retards - especially if you were royalty. Nobody else outside the royal family would be good enough...so, after a few generations of this, we ended up with the likes of King Tut, or in the middle ages, the hunchback, worm-infested King Richard III. Considering this, sometimes it amazes me we aren't all sitting nekkid in mudpuddles, drooling, grunting, and leering at each other, tossing buggers, and picking our butts.
 
 
 
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.



"CANDIE!"