1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#252 Mar 09 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

Here's the part that makes you an idiot. There's nothing stopping any single mother from realizing that she's **** and wanting to marry a female lover.


You're correct. And if the stated case for the TANF benefits is to encourage her to marry so as to reduce the likelihood of her producing yet another child out of wedlock, that reason no longer applies to her, right?

My argument has always been that the benefits for entering into a state marriage is to encourage heterosexual couples who might otherwise produce children outside of a marriage to get married, and thus increase the likelihood that any children they do produce will be produced within a marriage.

This is exactly the stated reason, in the source you provided for marriage benefits for TANF recipients. What more do you need?

Quote:
The same goes for a single father (which although more rare, does exist) who decides he's **** and wants to marry a male lover.


Yes. The state also no longer has any interest in him getting married since the states interest here is to reduce the rate of children born outside of marriage. I got that the first time.

Quote:
The same could even be said for an already **** couple who wishes to adopt a child.


Not a whole lot of TANF recipients are qualifying for adoption.

Quote:
In all three cases, there's no legitimate reason to deny the same benefits to such a couple should they fall on hard times.


No. You're not getting it. The stated reason isn't to reward people who have children for marrying. The stated reason is to reduce the likelihood of someone already on TANF from producing more children out of wedlock by providing benefits for marrying. You quoted and even bolded text that said precisely this. Let me requote it for you:

Quote:
Therefore, in light of this demonstration of the crisis in our Nation, it is the sense of the Congress that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very important Government interests and the policy contained in part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as amended by section 103(a) of this Act) is intended to address the crisis


Note, they said "out of wedlock pregnancy" and "out of wedlock birth". They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact". The source very clearly and directly states that the goal is to get people to marry each other so that their future children will be born within a legally defined marriage.

That does not apply to **** couples. Hence, there's no state reason to extend this benefit to **** couples.


Quote:
This does not justify your argument that marriage is only for heterosexual child-bearing couples, nor does it preempt the legitimacy of any homosexual marriage at all.


Stick to the point. I'm not talking about "legitimacy". I'm talking about whether a given couple's relationship should qualify for state issued benefits. And the stated reason for the benefits in this law absolutely preclude granting them to non-child bearing couples.


Quote:
This particular benefit has everything to do with providing for children, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the marriage of two people who love each other, except to say that marriage increases the likelihood that a child will have the benefit of two parents, regardless of the **** of each parent.


Ok. But the whole point of this exercise wasn't to look at *what* the law does, but *why* it was passed. My claim is that the state creates benefits for marriage out of a desire to encourage couples who might otherwise produce children outside of wedlock to get married so that their children are produced inside wedlock. The stated reason for this particular law, as quoted by you, absolutely and perfectly supports my position.




Quote:
Try again.


I'm not surprised, but still somewhat disappointed that even in the face of absolute proof that my position is valid, you're still going to try to spin it away. Again, read the quoted part. It nearly exactly says the same positions I've been saying for years now, and which most posters on this forum have insisted isn't true. Well, there it is. And you can't refute the source because *you* provided it (thanks for that btw).


Just can't admit anything, can you?


Edited, Mar 9th 2012 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#253 Mar 09 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Quote:
They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact".

But they do reward those people.

Reward. Ha. So **** funny.
#254 Mar 09 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I just realized something, that many of gbaji's paragraphs have two, three or more CRs between them. That's a whole lot of wasted space. Hell, I even make sure I take out the extra line after a quote since it adds a line itself.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#255Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2012 at 11:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Exactly. That's why you shouldn't vote for someone you don't support. That single vote makes it that much harder for someone else to win.
#256Almalieque, Posted: Mar 09 2012 at 11:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: dubious
#257 Mar 09 2012 at 11:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
But didn't you just say it was pointless to waste a vote on someone who couldn't win. You do realize that you can actually SUPPORT those people, right? I could do a write in for Senator Gretchen Whitmer, who I might very well like to see as president, and there's no chance in **** that she'd actually get elected.

I still wouldn't see that as a wasted vote. Maybe she wouldn't win, but if enough people were to do write-ins, it would increase the chance of her running in the future.

And even if she doesn't, at least I spent the vote the way I wanted to spend it.

And that's not to say that the only reason I could want to vote was because I actually wanted to see a specific person as president. I don't particularly care for Obama, but I sure as f*ck don't want Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney in office. So I will likely be voting for Obama. Not because he's the candidate I like best, but because he's the best opposition to the candidates I like least.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#258 Mar 10 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Didn't the Reform Party run in 1992 without any hope of winning, rather just getting enough votes to secure a slot on the next election's ballots or something?



Am I just making shit up? It's a bit foggy now.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#259 Mar 10 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I dunno but the Illinois Green Party got enough votes a couple elections ago to secure a default slot on the state ballots. Which saves considerable time and expense in signature gathering each cycle.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#260 Mar 10 2012 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I dunno but the Illinois Green Party got enough votes a couple elections ago to secure a default slot on the state ballots. Which saves considerable time and expense in signature gathering each cycle.
Rhode Island has the Cool Moose Party.
____________________________
Banh
#261 Mar 11 2012 at 5:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
A bit late, but here goes:
someone on reddit wrote:
Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#262 Mar 11 2012 at 6:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
A bit late, but here goes:
someone on reddit wrote:
Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#263 Mar 12 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Quote:
They did not say "we want to reward people who already have children and who marry after the fact".

But they do reward those people.


Well, this is part of TANF, so we're already dealing with a subset of people who've already reproduced. Their stated reason for providing that reward is to encourage people to marry so that they can reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. In the same way you might send someone ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt to a "buckle up for safety" class so as to increase the likelihood he'll wear one in the future. We can't undo the mistakes people have made in the past, but we can encourage them to not repeat them in the future. That's what this part of the law is trying to do.


The larger point is that this is *exactly* the rationale I've given in the past. The state's interest for creating a marriage benefit is clearly for encouraging future procreation to occur within a state recognized and enforced marriage contract. That state interest does not apply to **** couples since **** couples don't procreate. Pretty darn straightforward IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#264 Mar 12 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry. Picking a single example about welfare doesn't provide evidence that any other benefit is for the same purpose, much less that benefits in general are primarily for that purpose.

I realize you were providing an example as asked and don't fault you for it. It's not just evidence of anything as a whole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#265 Mar 12 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry.


You've inserted the word "exclusively" yourself. My argument has been that the primary reason for the creation of a state issued marriage license and the attendant benefits has always been to encourage couples who might produce children to do so within the bounds of a marriage contract.

Quote:
Picking a single example about welfare doesn't provide evidence that any other benefit is for the same purpose, much less that benefits in general are primarily for that purpose.


I was asked to provide "a primary source" giving this reason for the creation of the benefits. So what now? We have to go through every single one of the several thousand federal benefits for marriage as well? How about someone provide an alternative rationale? I'll point out that no one has yet done this, despite me asking for it numerous times.

Quote:
I realize you were providing an example as asked and don't fault you for it. It's not just evidence of anything as a whole.


It should be sufficient for folks to not just dismiss the rationale I've given out of hand though, right? I mean if one set of benefits is directly created for that reason, it stands to reason that others have as well. While I'll freely admit to having picked that law for non-random reasons, it would seem to me that if someone wanted to argue that this can't be the primary (much less only) reason, that said person could go find some other marriage law and find a similarly worded explanation to provide us with an alternative.

I'll point out (again) that I've met a standard of proof here that no one else has come close to. If you're going to demand a given level of proof for a position, you really ought to provide the same standard to your own, countering, position. Yet, no one seems willing or able to do so. At the very least, can we acknowledge that this is the reason for even "some" of the benefits, and that providing those benefits to a set of people for whom they do not apply is wasteful? Doubly so if there's an easier way to provide the things that **** couples want?

I think so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Mar 12 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You failed to show it was primarily the reason if you want to use that word instead. And, no, one bit of legislation out of thousands isn't enough to take it seriously.

I personally don't think "some", in this case "one", is reason enough to deny someone their fundamental rights but I suppose you have a far different threshold than I do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Mar 12 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You failed to show it was primarily the reason if you want to use that word instead.


I have, however, supported my argument that it is the primary reason. I have, at the very least, countered arguments that it can't be the reason because no-one says that's the reason, or no acceptable source lists that as the reason, etc.

Quote:
And, no, one bit of legislation out of thousands isn't enough to take it seriously.


It's called an example Joph. If I say "I think that giraffes have long necks", and someone says I'm wrong and demands that I show him a picture of a giraffe with a long neck, and I do exactly that, isn't a follow up of "well, that's just one picture" basically just petty? It would seem to me that if the other guy wants to counter my claim, then it's up to him to provide a picture of a giraffe that *doesn't* have a long neck, right?

Quote:
I personally don't think "some", in this case "one", is reason enough to deny someone their fundamental rights but I suppose you have a far different threshold than I do.


You're leaping about 5 steps there. I disagree that there are fundamental rights involved at all. We're not denying anyone any rights. We're denying a set of benefits to a group for whom those benefits do not apply and for whom they were not intended when they were created. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take at all. Quite the contrary, it should be the burden of the folks arguing that we should expand some legal status to include a never-before-included group that the benefits and requirements associated with that status make sense to expand to that group as well.


But no one wants to do that, do they? Instead they fall back to rhetoric about denying someone their rights or some other appeal to emotion argument. Look at the actual legal effects uniquely affecting those who are in the legal status of "married". Examine those effects and determine if it makes sense to extend them to a larger group. I don't believe that they do. Even absent the "primary source" demand, a basic logical assessment of most of those benefits supports that position. But if you want to make the argument that **** couples have something about them different than any random pair of roommates which might make it worth the state's while to provide the whole assortment of benefits which go with that legal status, then make that case.


While you keep moving the bar on me, I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to provide *any* rational argument for inclusion of **** couples into that legal status. And to me a "rational" argument requires an examination of the benefits, the purpose of those benefits, and an argument that justifies why the state has an interest in extending them to **** couples. No one has come close to such an argument though. I'd love to hear it. But I wont hold my breath.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 Mar 12 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not moving any bar. I'm explaining why your argument is lacking. I'm still not really looking to get into a debate about it since, as I pointed out, we've been around this carousel and I don't expect a different outcome after another fifteen pages. Go read all the previous threads and pretend I said that.

PS Your giraffe example was hysterically poor for at least several different reasons.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 7:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#269 Mar 12 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.


Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically). I've made essentially the exact same argument with regards to **** marriage for years now. In the past, the argument against me has primarily been that my argument isn't the one made by others, and that I'm somehow making it up or something. I've been challenged to show that other conservatives hold this same position and use the same argument that I do. So I've provided links to other conservatives making the same arguments and using the same reasoning I do. But when I did that, suddenly the counter shifted to "but those are just opinions off random folks on the interwebs". So now, it's not good enough to show that the argument I use is the same argument used by many other conservatives, but I must show that there's some kind of "official" position regarding **** marriage. So I endeavor to produce links to sources that are less blog and more published paper, or that are from some recognizable conservative organization. And when I do that the counter shifts yet again to providing a "primary source", since apparently a whole bunch of people saying why they think marriage benefits exist isn't sufficient.

Now, we have a primary source that says exactly what I said was the rationale for creating those benefits, and what is the response? That's just one primary source for one specific set of marriage benefits.


That's a textbook example of moving the bar Joph. If I dig out another, you'll say that's just two. If I dig up 5, you'll still say it's not enough. The odds of me *ever* finding a number of acceptable "primary sources" supporting my argument which you (or most of the regular forum posters) will accept is more or less zero. You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.

You will keep finding reasons to insist that my argument isn't sufficiently founded, while ignoring the actual argument itself. It's abundantly obvious that no amount of proof I provide will be acceptable to you, so why should I bother? IMO, my argument is sound all on its own. I posit a reason for the creation of the legal status and the benefits it grants that is consistent with the benefits and requirements for that status. That's a valid approach all by itself, and should be given some weight at least, doubly so in the absence of any counter explanation.


And I'm still waiting for someone to produce a counter explanation for those benefits. Why'd we create them? Just felt like it?

Quote:
I'm explaining why your argument is lacking.


Not really. More like you'll keep insisting that it's lacking no matter how much more evidence and support I provide, all the while providing *zero* support for your own position. Again, what's the counter rationale for the creation of the status and the benefits? Do you have one? If you can't produce one, then why so quick to dismiss mine?


Quote:
I'm still not really looking to get into a debate about it ...


That's obvious. You'd have to actually maybe take a position and defend it then. But absence of debate doesn't mean absence of a position on the issue, does it? And you sure as heck make that well known.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Mar 12 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.
Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically)

Yeah, I'm talking me specifically. If you want to cry about someone else, go cry to them.
Quote:
That's obvious. You'd have to actually maybe take a position and defend it then.

That would sting with the sensation of a thousand nettles if not for the many, many, many previous threads where I've done just that. Nice try though Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Mar 12 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not moving any bar.
Of course you are (you collectively in this case, not you specifically)

Yeah, I'm talking me specifically. If you want to cry about someone else, go cry to them.


/shrug

You're the one who jumped in with the whole "That's not sufficient proof" bit right after I provided someone else with exactly the proof they asked for . If you don't want to take some responsibility for the train of events leading up to that point, then don't jump in like that. I'm absolutely correct to say that you (collectively) are moving the bar, when one person demands a level of proof, I provide it, and then someone else jumps in and insists that's not sufficient and demands yet another level of proof. The effect is to move the bar.

Your claim that "you" aren't moving the bar would be a lot stronger if you had posted that BD's request for proof was insufficient *before* I met it. But you didn't, did you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Mar 12 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Naughty me for not posting the way you want Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Mar 12 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Naughty me for not posting the way you want Smiley: laugh


Not about being naughty, it's about being inconsistent. You hold yourself and your own positions to much much lower standards of proof than you hold mine. Note, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a counter reason for why the state would create benefits for married couples. Still, no one seems to be able to produce one, much less subject their reason to the same level of scrutiny that mine is.


I'm still going to say that failing to provide your own argument makes any criticism of mine pretty darn weak. I at least have one and am willing to defend it. Everyone else wants to jump right past the argument and to the conclusion and resulting course of action. I can only assume this is done because if you don't have an argument, then you don't have to defend it. But if you don't have an argument, then doesn't your conclusion automatically "lose"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#274 Mar 12 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Been done. Read old threads.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#275 Mar 12 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.
#276 Mar 12 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Majivo wrote:
No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.
They do when it gives them a reason to argue against something they don't personally like without having to give the real reason they're against it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#277 Mar 12 2012 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a counter reason for why the state would create benefits for married couples.


I am confused by this. I thought your argument was Marriage Laws apply because of Children, Gays can't have children so they shouldn't apply.

Gbaji wrote:
These benefits exist for no other reason than that child rearing presents an unfair burden on the spouse who gives up a career to raise them. Why do you think they exist? Seriously.




Yep that's what I thought you said...

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#278 Mar 12 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry.
You've inserted the word "exclusively" yourself. My argument has been that the primary reason for the creation of a state issued marriage license and the attendant benefits has always been to encourage couples who might produce children to do so within the bounds of a marriage contract.
gbaji wrote:
These benefits exist for no other reason than that child rearing presents an unfair burden on the spouse who gives up a career to raise them. Why do you think they exist? Seriously.

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#279 Mar 13 2012 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
gbaji wrote:
You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.


Majivo wrote:
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.


Lolpredictable! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#280 Mar 13 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a counter reason for why the state would create benefits for married couples.


I am confused by this. I thought your argument was Marriage Laws apply because of Children, Gays can't have children so they shouldn't apply.

Gbaji wrote:
These benefits exist for no other reason than that child rearing presents an unfair burden on the spouse who gives up a career to raise them. Why do you think they exist? Seriously.




Yep that's what I thought you said...


Yes. That's what I said. That's my explanation for the purpose of those laws (part of it anyway). What I'm waiting for is someone to provide an alternative explanation. Because if you can't provide an alternative, then the insistence that my explanation is wrong becomes pretty weak.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Mar 13 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Without bothering to argue the TANF bit, my comment has always been your suggestion that benefits were exclusively as an incentive to marry.
You've inserted the word "exclusively" yourself. My argument has been that the primary reason for the creation of a state issued marriage license and the attendant benefits has always been to encourage couples who might produce children to do so within the bounds of a marriage contract.
gbaji wrote:
These benefits exist for no other reason than that child rearing presents an unfair burden on the spouse who gives up a career to raise them. Why do you think they exist? Seriously.

Heh.


Two different cases. In the first, we were talking about marriage benefits as a whole. If you insert the word "exclusively" in there, and I agree, then you'll follow by finding one case of a benefit which doesn't appear to serve that purpose and insist that this means my entire argument is wrong. You're laying a trap by framing my argument in an absolute context so as to make it easier to attack.

In the second case, I was speaking of a specific set of marriage benefits. Social security, inclusion on pre-tax health benefits, and pensions IIRC. Maybe tax brackets as well.

There are a few layers to this. There's the state interest, the objective, and the method(s) to achieve that objective. We start with a recognition that children born within wedlock have better odds of being productive members of society than those who are born out of wedlock. This creates a state interest in the problem since the social effects of this can be significant. Then, the objective of trying to increase the number of children born within wedlock appears. That's what the state is attempting to accomplish. Finally, we have the method used. This takes the form of benefits to couples who marry so as to encourage them to marry prior to producing children. Some of those benefits are straight benefits, but many of them are specifically designed to offset possible negative economic effects of marriage so as to make it a more attractive choice. Basically, the state asks "what things would make people want to marry?" and "what things would make people not want to marry?", and it attempts to enhance the first group while minimizing the second.


It's a process of things, not one single thing. Oversimplifying it to "it's about children", or "it's about incentives", without addressing the entire flow of the argument is dishonest IMO. Saying it's about rewarding people who marry without thinking about *why* those rewards exist is not going to give you the right answer. If you think the entire process through though, it makes complete sense.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#282 Mar 13 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.


Majivo wrote:
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.


Lolpredictable! Smiley: laugh

Lolpredictable! that you would take a perfectly legitimate question and try and turn it into a joke, instead of answering it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#283 Mar 13 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, you've tried the same line in the other umpteen threads. It wasn't a good argument then either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#284 Mar 13 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.


Majivo wrote:
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.


Lolpredictable! Smiley: laugh

Lolpredictable! that you would take a perfectly legitimate question and try and turn it into a joke, instead of answering it.


Is it a perfectly legitimate question though? Or is it just an attempt to further move the bar? So even if I adequately support the position that our marriage laws and the attendant benefits were created to encourage heterosexual couples to marry so as to minimize the number of children born out of wedlock, it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in society is different today anyway, right? So while one argument demands that I find older and older sources to support the "original purpose" of the creation of those laws and benefits, the very fact that those purposes are old means that they no longer apply.


If Majivo wants to argue that the purpose of marriage, and thus the utility of marriage laws and benefits has changed, he needs to actually make that argument. But he hasn't. He asks a semi-rhetorical question instead. He's ignoring pages (and multiple threads) of long and drawn out explanation of why the marriage laws were created, what purpose they serve, and how the conditions and requirements of those law serve that purpose and pretending that by just asking "why does that still matter?", he's made some kind of cogent observation.

Tell me why you think marriage has changed. Then tell me how the laws should change to reflect that. Because IMO, there is still just as much (if not more) need to encourage sexually active heterosexual couples to marry so as to reduce the number of out of wedlock births today then there was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. The rise in out of wedlock births should make us want to strengthen those incentives and focus them even more on the target population (and perhaps look at eliminating other government programs that act as disincentives to marriage). By attempting to expand those benefits to couples for whom the state has no interest or need to benefit (for that purpose), you further weaken the value of marriage as a state status in the first place. IMO, that's the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#285 Mar 13 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Yes, I think it's an extremely legitimate request, and its a question I want answered in every case scenario, not just this one. It's not being asked to try and obfuscate the issue, it's being asked because it's the justification for the argument. If we don't question it, we aren't doing our jobs.

This might be news to you, given the fact that you don't seem to believe that assumptions need justification, but all arguments are made up of 2 different types of premises--assumptions and deductions (plus inferences, which fall somewhere between the two). For an argument to be sound, your assumptions must be true and your deductions logically valid. Both are fundamentally important, and BOTH must be defended for an argument to be convincing.

When political thinkers or philosophers make arguments, they take the time to add justification for every single piece of their argument. Even if something appears obvious to them, they still take the time to flesh it out. Why? Because it's the only way to treat your argument with respect, to let it speak for itself. If you don't bother to defend your own argument, why is anyone else going to bother trying to convince themselves it is true. And, to be clear, I mean that an argument like "Eric is a bachelor", even when given in a fully hypothetical situation, will have a line or two after it stating specifically what they mean by that assumption. Is it overkill? Quite often, yes. But there are always wise asses who try and transliterate the word to try and break the argument.

Being clear and concise is considered a sign of respect, for yourself, your argument, and your reader. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence or justification, when asked, but instead try and attack the question is a joke. It turns you into the screaming kid in a candy isle, and earns you about the same level of respect.

When we ask you to prove that marriage laws are created for the reasons you state, we are asking you to justify your assumptions (because you haven't bothered to do so, see above). When we ask you why we should consider intent of creation a valid objection when considering modern needs, we are questioning the assumption that they are.

It's not a separate attack on your arguments, plural. It's an additional problem with the same one.

So stop dodging the question and do your argument the respect you think it deserves. Answer the **** questions, explain the logical process of your argument, and justify your premises.

Evading just makes you pathetic.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#286 Mar 13 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You will find another reason why it's not enough, or once that argument becomes too weak, you'll shift to saying that it doesn't matter because the purpose of marriage in our society has changed, so those old rationales aren't important.


Majivo wrote:
Why are these threads always so focused on what the original intent of the legislation was? It ought to be about the impact and implication of the legislation today. No one cares what people 50 or 100 or 200 years ago thought about marriage.


Lolpredictable! Smiley: laugh

Are you really so fucking dumb that you can't even tell who you're arguing with these days?

Hint: It wasn't me.

Also: Seriously, no one cares what the writers of these bills thought. You're as bad as constitutionalists.
#287 Mar 13 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yes, I think it's an extremely legitimate request, and its a question I want answered in every case scenario, not just this one. It's not being asked to try and obfuscate the issue, it's being asked because it's the justification for the argument. If we don't question it, we aren't doing our jobs.


I'd accept that a bit more if you didn't add the "in every case scenario, not just this one" bit. There's a pretty long list of possible scenarios we could discuss. I have to make my case for every single one of them? That seems to me more of a delaying tactic than anything else.

Meanwhile, no one is ever required to provide a single counter explanation, yet alone a single case where it applies? And you don't think that's a bit unreasonable?

Quote:
For an argument to be sound, your assumptions must be true and your deductions logically valid. Both are fundamentally important, and BOTH must be defended for an argument to be convincing.


Uh huh. Thanks for the intro to logic 101 cliff notes. But for an argument to be sound, the person proposing the argument does not have to come up with list of every possible scenario and prove that his logic works in every single one, and be eternally subject to others saying "but what about this case?".

If you disagree with the argument *you* must come up with a case which disproves it.


I think you're also missing a bigger point here. There is no one perfect argument or solution. Logic is a tool, but absolutely rigid application of logic would preclude any action because you can't ever absolutely prove anything beyond very basic things. Arguing that a proposed course of action is wrong because you can't prove absolutely that it's the right course under every possible situation is technically correct from a strict logical perspective, but it's also useless.

In the real world we deal with the "best" course of action. And to derive that, we don't just look at a proposed course and reject it if we can't prove that it's perfect (we'd never do anything). We look at two or more proposed courses and determine the best one. So if every proposed course has the same risk or flaw, then that doesn't discount them as being the "best" course. To argue against a proposed course of action you *must* provide an alternative and show that it is a better proposal.


This is why I keep saying that in the absence of an alternative explanation for why our marriage laws and benefits were written the way they were, my argument wins by default. Assuming we accept that there must be a reason, then we should accept the reason that most fits the facts. So far, that's my reason since no one has proposed an alternative. In this case, we don't have a choice between X and nothing. We have a choice between X and "something else". If you can't define what "something else" is, then any attack on X is meaningless. We can't know if the same attack works just as well on the alternative, or if that alternative has other problems that make it a worse choice.

Quote:
Being clear and concise is considered a sign of respect, for yourself, your argument, and your reader. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence or justification, when asked, but instead try and attack the question is a joke. It turns you into the screaming kid in a candy isle, and earns you about the same level of respect.


I have provided lots of evidence and justification. But no matter how much I provide you (or others) insist that I must provide more. Meanwhile, no one has even proposed an alternative explanation, let alone provided anything close to an argument, let alone supported that argument with evidence or justification. I'm literally three steps father than anyone else, yet you attack *me* for failing to provide a good argument.


Can you provide an alternative explanation as to why we created those marriage laws and the attendant benefits? Can you support your explanation with better evidence and justification than I have? If you can't, or wont, then doesn't your statement above apply doubly to you?

Quote:
When we ask you why we should consider intent of creation a valid objection when considering modern needs, we are questioning the assumption that they are.


You're actually arguing that the intent of a law isn't important when considering whether to change the law? I'm sorry, but that seems utterly irrational. It's like not thinking about why planes have wings when considering a redesign to decrease weight. It's likely to end badly.

Quote:
So stop dodging the question and do your argument the respect you think it deserves. Answer the **** questions, explain the logical process of your argument, and justify your premises.


I have already done this. Repeatedly. Hell. I just did it a couple posts ago. Shall I repeat it?

gbaji wrote:
There are a few layers to this. There's the state interest, the objective, and the method(s) to achieve that objective. We start with a recognition that children born within wedlock have better odds of being productive members of society than those who are born out of wedlock. This creates a state interest in the problem since the social effects of this can be significant. Then, the objective of trying to increase the number of children born within wedlock appears. That's what the state is attempting to accomplish. Finally, we have the method used. This takes the form of benefits to couples who marry so as to encourage them to marry prior to producing children. Some of those benefits are straight benefits, but many of them are specifically designed to offset possible negative economic effects of marriage so as to make it a more attractive choice. Basically, the state asks "what things would make people want to marry?" and "what things would make people not want to marry?", and it attempts to enhance the first group while minimizing the second.



That statement progresses logically from the observation of a social negative, the interest of the state to address that problem, and the creation of marriage benefits as a means to do so. It's admittedly bare bones, but I've written at great length on this many times already, and I've linked to several other sites which repeat the same argument (more or less) in greater detail. What more is really needed here? Children born to single mothers is a bad thing. Thus, the state has an interest in reducing that event. If more women are married to men, fewer of them will be single when their children are born. Thus, encouraging women to marry men is in the state interest. Having the state provide marriage benefits creates an incentive and acts towards that interest. It's not a complicated argument. It's incredibly straightforward in fact.


Is there some part of that argument you don't get or that you think isn't well explained? Is there some specific problem with it that you want to point out? We've already seen a primary source confirming that the state created at least one set of marriage benefits for this exact reason. So at the least, we can say that there is a confirmed state interest to reduce out of wedlock births *and* that encouraging men and women to marry is a means to accomplish that *and* that creating benefits for marriage is the specific method by which the state might encourage men and women to marry.

That alone confirms that the logic of my argument is "valid". Now whether you believe it applies to all cases or not is obviously another issue, but as I explained above, I don't have to prove that my explanation is "perfect", but only that it is a legitimate explanation. Now, it's up to you to provide an alternative explanation and show that it's a better match for our marriage laws.

Quote:
Evading just makes you pathetic.


I'm not evading. You, and everyone arguing against me are. Why wont anyone provide an alternative? The funny thing is that you can't even prove me "wrong". You just demand endlessly that I provide more and more proof that I'm "right". But I only have to show that my explanation matches the facts of our marriage laws sufficiently well. In the absence of a counter explanation, I "win". You haven't even showed up.

Will you stop evading my question? Will you provide an alternative rationale for our marriage laws and the benefits they provide?

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 7:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#288 Mar 13 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Will you stop evading my question? Will you provide an alternative rationale for our marriage laws and the benefits they provide?

Joph has provided you rationale countless times before, relating to the reality of how laws are made (lobbying by interested groups). This is the point where you always duck out of the thread.
#289 Mar 13 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Majivo wrote:
Also: Seriously, no one cares what the writers of these bills thought. You're as bad as constitutionalists.


Honestly, I started by looking at what the laws do, and what effect they have on society today, and argued that they serve as an incentive to get heterosexual couples to marry. The response? "Prove that's why the laws were written". "Provide a primary source from someone who wrote the law". Blah blah blah.

I'd be happy to argue this by just looking at the laws themselves, but others don't want to do that. And frankly, I do think it is a fair question to ask "why was this law created", the considering whether to change it. Obviously, I also think "what does this law do today" is a legitimate question as well. The problem is that those I'm arguing against don't seem to want to pick something to argue "for", they just want to keep shifting the argument around so that they don't have to acknowledge that they don't have a freaking leg to stand on.


For all the demands that I provide endless amounts of proof for every freaking detail of my argument, no one has even proposed an argument about why marriage benefits should be extended to **** couples, how this affects existing marriage laws, and why the result would be positive. And they certainly haven't provided any proof of anything. How could they? They haven't made a case yet! They just demand that I provide more and more proof, and insist that's not good enough, and assume that they're right as long as they can avoid admitting that I'm right.


Again though, we're not proving something is absolutely correct in a vacuum. We're making a choice between two actions: Keep our marriage benefits restricted to heterosexual couples, or extend them to include **** couples. To make that choice, we need to assess both sides of things and determine the best course of action. My argument does this (well, one of them does, the whole "purpose of marriage" is really just a side issue). Where's the alternative course of action? Where's the argument for it? Where's the proof of the assumptions that argument rests on?


My argument rests on the assumption that our marriage laws and benefits serve a specific purpose in society. I've proved that assumption correct (or at least correct in the case we examined earlier). Presenting a case where that assumption doesn't work would at least be a start towards attacking my case, but no one seems willing to even do that. Instead, it's all about me having to provide a complete set of all possible cases and prove that the same assumption works in every one of them. Sorry, but that's an unreasonable level of proof IMO.

I've done more than enough to show my argument has merit. It's up to the guys disagreeing with me to actually find evidence that both refutes my argument *and* supports an alternative argument of their own. I'm still waiting for someone to even make an attempt at that. Again though, I'm not going to hold my breath. In years of having this debate, no one has seen fit to do so, so why do it now? It's a lot easier for the brainwashed masses to just call me names, pat themselves on the back for how smart and educated they are, and call it a day.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#290 Mar 13 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
no one has even proposed an argument about why marriage benefits should be extended to **** couples, how this affects existing marriage laws, and why the result would be positive. And they certainly haven't provided any proof of anything. How could they? They haven't made a case yet!

If this proves anything, it's that people shouldn't bother talking to you. You've obviously ignored the umpteen other threads where this has all be laid out. If each time you just come back with "No one has ever done it!", why should anyone take you seriously? Dudes who habitually drink mouthwash and aftershave have an easier time keeping up with a debate than you do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#291 Mar 13 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Will you stop evading my question? Will you provide an alternative rationale for our marriage laws and the benefits they provide?

Joph has provided you rationale countless times before, relating to the reality of how laws are made (lobbying by interested groups).


Not one of which has *ever* disproved my argument though. Showing that some group of people lobbied to extend pension benefits for married workers doesn't say anything about *why* it was important to them to provide those benefits. But the fact that they did this at a time when same **** couples were not an issue speaks volumes. Think about it. If the objective was to simply allow anyone to extend pension benefits to another person regardless of **** or relationship, why not just change the law so that anyone could designate one other person to be the beneficiary? If it was just about demanding more benefits, why not demand benefits which would apply to all workers and not just a subset of them?


They chose to extend those pension benefits only to couples who at that point were married men and women. What could possibly have motivated the entire group to do this? Even the unmarried workers. Do you think they would have limited the benefits to just spouses if at the time a spouse could be someone of the same sex? Or do you think they would have demanded a different law without a benefit just for married couples. Think about it. Actually engage your brain and think about it.

Quote:
This is the point where you always duck out of the thread.


I don't duck out of these threads. They usually die off after several pages of me providing every answer to every question I'm asked, no one else providing *any* answers for their own positions, and at some point the questions circle around. People start asking the same questions I answered 5 pages earlier. They actually run out and then forget or pretend that I never answered the questions. Well, and that's when they don't just ignore that I provided exactly what they're asking for just a few posts up the page.

Most people argue this issue with lots of passion, but not a whole lot of thought. No argument, no matter how well thought, or how clearly written, will penetrate their minds. But that's ok. I don't write these posts to sway those people. I write them to present an alternative viewpoint to other readers who might never have heard them otherwise. And I'll keep doing this no matter how many times the thread comes up, and no matter how many times the usual suspects say "we've already argued this a dozen times". There's always someone for whom this may be the first time they've heard someone other than a liberal (or strawman conservative) argue this issue.


That's why I do it. No other reason. I mean, it'd be great if people who've already made up their minds could be swayed by reason, but experience says that's not likely to happen. So I go after people who haven't yet been completely mindwashed by the liberal media machine. Fair enough?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Mar 13 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
no one has even proposed an argument about why marriage benefits should be extended to **** couples, how this affects existing marriage laws, and why the result would be positive. And they certainly haven't provided any proof of anything. How could they? They haven't made a case yet!

If this proves anything, it's that people shouldn't bother talking to you. You've obviously ignored the umpteen other threads where this has all be laid out. If each time you just come back with "No one has ever done it!", why should anyone take you seriously? Dudes who habitually drink mouthwash and aftershave have an easier time keeping up with a debate than you do.


Funny. You say this every time, and yet you never repeat this supposed argument and proof that you keep referring to. I've been good enough to rehash my argument in every single **** marriage thread (usually multiple times).

Why not repeat the argument? If it's been repeated so often, as you claim, it should be easy to do from memory. Because while I do recall a whole lot of attacks on my argument, I don't remember anyone proposing a counter argument. Certainly not one that could stand up to even the most basic logical testing. But by all means, repeat it for us!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Mar 13 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not one of which has *ever* disproved my argument though. Showing that some group of people lobbied to extend pension benefits for married workers doesn't say anything about *why* it was important to them to provide those benefits.

Right. So you just stamp your foot each time, stick out your lip and say "But it was REALLY about providing incentives to get married before having children!"

Actually this point has been addressed before but, again, you find it easier to ignore it and come back in four months and pretend everyone was too scared so you must be right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Mar 13 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Funny. You say this every time, and yet you never repeat this supposed argument and proof that you keep referring to. I've been good enough to rehash my argument in every single **** marriage thread (usually multiple times).

Why not repeat the argument?

Because you say this every time as well. You just keep denying, denying, denying and pretending no one ever said anything so you win.

Who am I proving this to? Everyone else who cares is well aware of how worn this road is. I'm not worried that Majivo is going to say "Wow, Joph didn't play along for the 145th time... he must not have an answer!". The only person I'd be playing along for is you and you're the nut who keeps refusing to admit that it's been answered Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#295 Mar 13 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not repeat the argument? If it's been repeated so often, as you claim, it should be easy to do from memory.
Just because you argue like a two year old doesn't mean other people have to put up with it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#296 Mar 13 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Do you think less of me for not answering, Lolgaxe? I bet you do. Smiley: frown

and what the **** is a "lolgaxe" anyway?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Mar 13 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not worried that Majivo is going to say "Wow, Joph didn't play along for the 145th time... he must not have an answer!".

Joph said my name! Smiley: inlove

This pleases the liberal hivemind.
#298 Mar 13 2012 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
no one has even proposed an argument about why marriage benefits should be extended to **** couples, how this affects existing marriage laws, and why the result would be positive. And they certainly haven't provided any proof of anything. How could they? They haven't made a case yet!

If this proves anything, it's that people shouldn't bother talking to you. You've obviously ignored the umpteen other threads where this has all be laid out. If each time you just come back with "No one has ever done it!", why should anyone take you seriously? Dudes who habitually drink mouthwash and aftershave have an easier time keeping up with a debate than you do.


Yeah, to suggest I haven't done any of those is actually bordering on insane. I'm a little worried that there might be something much worse wrong with gbaji than having his head up his ass...

Majivo wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not worried that Majivo is going to say "Wow, Joph didn't play along for the 145th time... he must not have an answer!".

Joph said my name! Smiley: inlove

This pleases the liberal hivemind.


Stop it Majivo! If you give us away, he's going to shock us again.


Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:09pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#299 Mar 13 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
I know I went and came up with reasons once. I believe Gbaji's response was, well those aren't the real reasons.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#300 Mar 13 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Jophiel wrote:
and what the **** is a "lolgaxe" anyway?
An olde Final Fantasy XI meme.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 11:20pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#301 Mar 13 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Ah, I remember when I was just a wee Warrior foolish enough to think I was supposed to use a sword. Good times.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Anonymous Guests (71)