-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
If you look at their polices on taxation and spending it is a false paradigm. Social issues, on the other hand, is where the difference exists.
The social issues don’t matter at all when the economy collapses.
Why exactly?
Are you familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Gay marriage and birth control rank below (in importance, above on the pyramid) housing and food and, yes, jobs.
One, I’m not sure why you’re throwing out such a non-sequitur argument. What’s the relevance?
What’s the argument you are making?
I really don’t want to follow your red herring here, but you know social issues don’t just disappear when the economy collapses. If anything social inequality is magnified. Look at the Great Depression.
I’m making an assumption here that you didn’t like my initial statement and you’re just throwing some tangential garbage out and acting like it a rebuttal. I am assuming of course. I could be wrong.
Exactly. Social issues won’t disappear, but I predict that, when you’re standing in line at the soup kitchen, you won’t be thinking “Welp, at least the gays can marry now.” The right to visit your gay partner in the hospital doesn’t matter much when you can’t get medical treatment in the first place because the economy is all fucked to hell.
Step ONE: Fix economy.
Step TWO: Legalize weed / Ban abortions. (whichever is your thing)
People should stop caring about the gays and the ‘bortions until we have arrived at step 2.
Tell me more about what I will think.
What’s the relevance to my initial argument anyway? I can say the straw man argument you’re building has very strict parameters.
Let’s see if I can imitate Luminary’s debate tactics.
Economic issues won’t matter if an asteroid hits the earth. I bet you wouldn’t be so worried about getting a sandwich in line if a chunk of rock the size of Texas was about to be deposited on your continent.
Let me see if I can imitate Anonymous’ debate tactics:
“Who cares about the economy, that only tangentially affects a handful of people anyway. Gay marriage is where it’s at, that has a profound influence on everybody’s life and will totally keep you warm at night.”
Nice straw man, Loser.
Grow up and be a man before you argue with me.
Seriously, you’re a disingenuous cunt. You’re only fun to humiliate. Otherwise you’re just trash.
@Anon: You can’t attack the debater and expect anything else you say to be taken seriously. Luminary gave a very good example with Maslow’s hierarchy and you dismissed it as being irrelevant and a straw argument.
Polls show that the major issue voters are concerned about is repairing the economy.
Social issues are secondary to this.
Still a strawman, Guy. You can’t change that.
Actually, I can:
Definition of Straw Man Fallacy:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
In this case:
Luminary has a position, you disregarded key points of that position, and call his argument a straw man.
Your argument is a lot closer to fitting the definition of a straw man, his is based on fact.
Can you dispute Maslowe’s Hierarchy with reputable evidence?
If you can do that, you’d not only prove Luminary wrong (I’m not saying that he is, in fact, I agree with him) You’d be responsible for a massive change in a basic tenant of Psychology.
I had a position first, Jackass.
Luminary disregarded key points of that position and presented another argument.
Further driving a nail in the coffin was the fact that I humored Luminary and he continued to make straw man arguments.
If you have any integrity you can take your disingenuous arguments and go stand in a corner.
One more thing.
While you two are busy being argumentative pseudo intellectuals, maybe you should consider that Luminary conceded the only real point I made.
Quote:Exactly. Social issues won’t disappear, but I predict that, when you’re standing in line at the soup kitchen, you won’t be thinking “Welp, at least the gays can marry now.”
I haven’t taken any other positions on the subject. I have criticized him for making straw man arguments, but it’s valid criticism.
However you two keep demanding that I defend positions that I haven’t taken. Are you even reading what I write?
the fuck is this shit?
the sheep should have 2 or 5 stars
The progeny shall have 7.
Divide and conquer, nothing new. Religion, politics, it’s all the same shit, used to provide the illusion of choice, freedom, etc., while dividing people into smaller numbers, and playing all sides against the middle.
The idea that Gay marriage and the economy collapsing have anything to do with each other is laughable.
Gay people will still fall in love and want to make lives and have families, even on a bread line. And since gay marriage generates revenue and costs nothing to the general public, there would be no reason not to implement it even in hard economic times.
Thank you for having common sense.
Except it deters international investors and actually is severely damaging to America’s economy.
This man has no sense common or otherwise. Do not encourage the troll.
Investors look at numbers. The numbers show that a gay couple has more disposable income then the average couple. This is due (primarily) to them not having to save for children or children’s education.
They tend to spend big on life events (homes, cars, etc). Can you image how much money the average gay wedding would put into the economy? The wedding industry is resistant to recession (nothing seems recession proof anymore, look at housing) since it’s part of the life cycle. Imagine what a 30% PERMANENT boost would do to this segment? And that would eventually trickle to other parts of the economy.