pres man's page

pres man wrote:

*sigh*
In 3.5, you couldn't use Monkey Grip to wield two two-handed weapons. First off, Monkey Grip didn't work in your off-hand (in less you were also using your on-hand to two-hand a weapon). Secondly, Monkey Grip allowed you to wield weapons one size category larger than you with the same effort a correctly sized creature could wield it. So a medium character with Monkey Grip could wield a large sized longsword one-handed, but still couldn't wield a medium sized greatsword one-handed.

*sigh*

and that's why the druids wildshaped into large ape men.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. If you polymorphed into a large roughly humanoid shape, then you could wield two medium two-handed weapon as two one-handed weapons without monkey grip. Monkey grip did nothing to help you wield smaller sized objects. In large form and having monkey grip, you still couldn't wield large two-handed weapons in one hand because monkey grip didn't do anything to help wield weapons your size. Now if you were large and have monkey grip, it would you allow you to wield huge one-handed weapons, but again we are not talking about one-handed weapons are we?

Frankly, most people's problems with monkey grip in 3.5 was because they didn't understand how the feat worked. Yes if you allow it to work in a way it was never suppose to work, then sure you'll run into messed up situations.

Have Galadriel show up and tell them they are making elfdom look bad with their assine behavior and the hand the dwarf three locks of hair and leave.

wraithstrike wrote:

Monkey Grip was a trap feat. It is really awesome until you do the math.

Weilding two two-handed weapons one-handed was just representative of the crazy explosion of nonsense that plagued 3.5. The explosion of ape-men wildshaped druids wearing +5 armor and monkey-gripping dual greatswords just made me shake my head....

I put that in the same category as the rogues polymorphed into bizarre creatures and getting 12 sneak attacks in one round...

I am very worried about PF succumbing to the same fate. Double barrel shotguns are not a good sign. (Although I'm not sure if those are Paizo content).

*sigh*

In 3.5, you couldn't use Monkey Grip to wield two two-handed weapons. First off, Monkey Grip didn't work in your off-hand (in less you were also using your on-hand to two-hand a weapon). Secondly, Monkey Grip allowed you to wield weapons one size category larger than you with the same effort a correctly sized creature could wield it. So a medium character with Monkey Grip could wield a large sized longsword one-handed, but still couldn't wield a medium sized greatsword one-handed.

Kthulhu wrote:

Of course, it's been my experience that, in general, liberals are MUCH quicker to enter "Attack Mode".

We're also quick to eat babies and violate puppies.

Well that goes without saying. Of course since you said it, I guess it goes with saying as well.

I also think it goes with Worcestershire sauce, but I'm guess at that point.

"On every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between those of the same race has been the social norm."

Again, welcome to the wrong side of history.

Of course it is the norm, I mean if 99.999% of the people in your area are the same race as you, you are very likely to marry a person of your race. Durrrr.

Now if the implication you were going for was that marriage was culturally/legally restricted to only people of the same race, well I don't think it has actually be as institutionalized as all that. Hell, one of the earliest stories of the founding of this country specifically involves a native woman involved with white settlers and ultimately marrying one. The idea that people of different races couldn't or shouldn't marry isn't as nearly universal as the idea that people of the same sex shouldn't marry.

Again, that doesn't mean we can't change it or that we should stick to it. But let's at least give an intellectually honest argument.

@Aretas: Nobody is "taking fathers away" (or mothers). We are talking about families that never had a parent of that gender. Yes, there are statistics showing children raised in single parent households, most often without the father out of the picture, have severe challenges they have to face. Money and education of the parents are often extremely strong indicators for these children. Homosexuals on average are more wealth and better educated than the average heterosexual. Motivating multi-parent households can only help children rather than allowing homosexuals to set up households with children that have a higher chance to end up with a single parent due to not putting place a marriage/union option.

@thejeff: Yes, religious groups of people tend to be the most vocal. Of course people that think ideas are "icky" don't tend to form groups about opposing the "icky"ness.

@Finn K: Actually, it is more that it must have a "reasonable" ... reason, than "rational". It is not unreasonable for someone like Aretas to believe that human history shows that mixed-sex couples are the best way to set up marriages/unions. Due to the convergence in similar styles across wide areas and wide groups of people with very different social and (un-)religious mores.

@Winterthorn: There is a difference between child-rearing and child-bearing. Yes, there is no need for government support of children being born, but there might be a need for government support in creating stable homes for those children to be raised. Of course same-sex couples can provide that as well, but I don't think there is no reason to think child-rearing and marriage don't have any relation (how many negatives were there in that sentence? well whatever).

@thejeff: So the only way I can show that religion is not an influence on some people's oppression of same-sex couples is to find a society of humans who have never had a religion or mythology and that oppress same-sex couples. LOL, yeah that is a rational threshold to set. Reminds of David Chapelle's skit about "reasonable doubt" when it came to R. Kelly. LOL.

Beside that, our constitution creates a separation between church and state. Religious reasons aren't valid in the US.

That is a very crude and inaccurate statement. Religious reasons are perfectly fine for people in the US to decide things. If someone's religion teaches them that all people should be treated fairly, then they can use those religious reasons to support policies that treat people fairly. The constitution does not require people to shed their religion at the church/mosque/temple/whatever door. The constitutional issue is more about having the government come in and force religions to teach specific policies, not about forcing people to abandon their faith when discussing social policy. You can't have a state religion, but that doesn't stop individuals from using their own religious beliefs to decide what they can and can not support policy wise.

EDIT: Reminds me of people that think that Paizo shouldn't be able to delete their posts because they have the freedom of speech.

pres man wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.

I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.

Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.

Good thing we don't live in a communist state then, huh? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything either Ion Raven or I posted?

You're reaching now, bub. If you think I'm a communist, you're even more dense that I think and haven't been paying much attention.

Let's see if I can connect the dots for you.

Claim: The only reason anyone has to be against same-sex marriages is because of religion.
Fact: Most communist countries aren't religious and many are actively anti-religion.
Fact: Most communist countries don't recognize recognize same-sex marriages.
Conclusion: Some groups of people that are not religious are still unaccepting of same-sex marriage. Thus religion can't be the only reason people may be against same-sex marriage.

Now maybe those reasons may not be "legitimate" in our eyes, but the claim that the only reason to be against it is because of religion is factually false.

EDIT: And if you think Comrade Goblin's communist overthrow is likely to support same-sex couples, I think you'd be even more disappointed.

houstonderek wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.

I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.

Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.

pres man wrote:

TOZ wrote:

pres man wrote:

So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.

Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)

More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."

*Opens a can of worms: "Well there is always abortion..."

*Hides behind a bomb shelter.

Well I figure that was covered in the bolded section. ;)

pres man wrote:

So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.

Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)

More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."

Quote:

I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.

Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.

And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.

So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.

pres man wrote:

I specifically said, more than once, that I thought all couples (and perhaps larger groups in the future) same-sex or mixed-sex should be called civil unions. Nobody should get to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense. I am not suggesting letting mixed-sex couples use the word legally and same-sex couples have to "settle" for "civil unions". Everybody should have to use civil unions for all legal matters. "In a civil union and filing jointly?"

I fully agree with you on this point. However, once you've removed marriage as a term used in civil law at all, it will doubtless still be a term used by various religious groups. Some of them approve of homosexual marriages, and will probably continue to conduct homosexual marriages under the auspices of their faith. So, part of my point was, whether you like them doing that or not, once "marriage" is out of civil law, you still will not have the right to interfere with their freedom of religion, so you have no right to tell them they cannot use "marriage" as the descriptive term for their religious rite and status.

No-one says you have to agree with them or acknowledge their religious rites if you do not share their faith though.

And I have in no way suggested that I think people should somehow stop religions from using the term or any term in any way they see fit. It doesn't mean I have to think they are using the terms appropriately. I mean if someone's religion wants say that all dogs are actually cats. More power to them. I'll still think they are dumb for doing so, but I am not going to worry about stopping people from being dumb.

So clearly a marriage between a person and a person is kind of dumb, because you know, those are two like things...

Yup, you got me there. In fact, I think we agree that the word marriage does not really exist.

pres man wrote:

EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman.

I don't think your distaste for other person's definitions of the word is enough reason to justify restricting people's civil rights. If marriage were removed from civil law and given entirely to religious groups as part of religious sacraments but not part of civil law-- you still would not have sufficient justification to interfere with the religious freedom of groups that approve of gay marriage and want to conduct such ceremonies and confer such statuses within the constrains of their faith.

*sigh*

Look man, I said I didn't like the word "marriage" being used to describe combine two similar things, such as a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I think that using that WORD to describe that relation is very dumb. This is just my personal opinion, I respect that others do not have this problem with using the word that way. I see it as related to the idea of "marriage of form and function" (combining two different things), where is they see it as related to "civil relationship between two people [or more]". I understand that, I just think there is probably a better word for that idea than "marriage". Again, that is just my personal preference.

Just because I feel the word "marriage" should be reserved for pairing two unlike things together does not mean (1)I think the word should be reserved only for religious unions or (2)that same sex couples shouldn't be given all the same benefits and responsibilities as mixed sex couples.

I specifically said, more than once, that I thought all couples (and perhaps larger groups in the future) same-sex or mixed-sex should be called civil unions. Nobody should get to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense. I am not suggesting letting mixed-sex couples use the word legally and same-sex couples have to "settle" for "civil unions". Everybody should have to use civil unions for all legal matters. "In a civil union and filing jointly?"

Pres man, you're just being silly. Art with art and science with science sounds silly because they are the same entity. It's not a man getting married to himself, that just doesn't make sense. It's two different people, two different entities who wish to be joined together.

LOL, believe me, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I know it is silly! I said it wasn't a serious issue. This isn't really issue for "logic", you can't really convince me that something that just sounds stupid to me doesn't sound stupid. It is like trying to convince me that chocolate cake is the best flavor for cake, despite me not thinking so. It is totally a personal preference issue. I just think using the word "marriage" in that way sounds dumb. You certainly don't have to agree with me, I'd be surprised if anyone did. I just think we'd all be better off using a more neutral term like civil union for everyone.

pres man wrote:

EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.

Do you believe that your desire for the word "marriage" to mean a particular thing (which, mind you, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would negatively impact your life in any significant way at all) is as important a desire as the desire of those in same-sex relationships to feel the same level of societal (and, in some cases, legal) validation that heterosexual couples feel in marriage?

In other words, do you believe that keeping the word's meaning (as you, personally, understand it) intact is worth a huge segment of the population continuing to feel marginalized?

It strikes me as difficult for a person to claim a rational, non-religious basis for this decision, with full knowledge of the huge number of people whose lives would be dramatically improved and whose happiness would soar were they able to marry each other. A mature, rational individual would say, "Hey, letting them marry is no skin off my nose, and I should celebrate their good fortune and happiness," rather than say, "You can't get married because I don't want the...

Scott, I don't think you really read my post carefully. I said that I would prefer that a different term, such as civil unions be used for everyone, same-sex and mixed-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should have all the same rights. I believe they should be able to have all the same benefits and responsibilities. I just thinking using the word "marriage" sounds to my ear, as dumb.

It is like calling your dog a cat because it is also a pet. I am not saying that you shouldn't get to own a dog and that your dog is less of a family member to you than my cat is. I am saying, let's use a neutral term like pet instead of trying to force a word to mean something that it doesn't.

If you don't like civil unions for everyone, I'd be glad to look at other suggestions for a term. And in the end if we expand the definition of marriage to include combining like things together (function and function), I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I am just trying to explain why I personally dislike the word being used that way. It sounds stupid to my ear. It has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights or religion, using the word in that way just sounds stupid to me.

pres man wrote:

Frankly, people might eventually stop using the word "marriage" describe these legal relationships in that case.

I sorta doubt that.

Oh, I'm not talking about it happening in any kind of near future, but if all legal documents and all references in legal situations was about civil unions (I imagine it will just get shortened to unions, two words tends to be too wordy), then I would imagine most people are just going to talk about their unions. Well maybe not if we there is some confusion with labor unions, so maybe we'll have to find a new word. But I still believe that if all legal use of a term is not marriage, it is likely that marriage may fall out of use just because people are naturally lazy and using two terms for the same thing just will get to be too much work.

I think I personally like the word "alliance", but that is because me and my partner have said that it is ultimately us against the world. The image of us standing back to back with swords facing out against a horde. My partner being my ultimate ally. But I doubt most people think that way. Hmm, how about "bonding"? Too artificial sounding? Maybe not, people might get upset that it seems to imply "holy bonds of ...". I really like "union" for a generic term for joining two people (or perhaps eventually more) together.

I'll have to think about it, maybe there is a better word out there.

Word choice is also why some proponents of same-sex marriage want it called marriage. They want access to the same benefits as those afforded to straight couples, this includes the perceived notion of equality. To come up with a new term for them, or a new term that can include them means they aren't worthy enough to be included in the original term and hence, not equal.

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying why I personally against calling same-sex unions "marriage". To me it sounds like someone saying, "The marriage of function and function." I mean if they are joking, sure, "Our product REALLY gets the job done." But if not, then it just sounds stupid. "Marriage of art and art".

As I said, my reason isn't a big deal, it is just my personal preference why we should just give everyone, same-sex or mixed-sex, civil unions and reserve the word for specifically describing mixed-sex unions, doesn't even have to be religious. Everybody can get a civil union and in official legal documents it is always referred to as civil union. Frankly, people might eventually stop using the word "marriage" describe these legal relationships in that case.

pres man wrote:

I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.

If you want to read the brief yourself, go ahead.

The appellate court's opinion brief.

Oh, I'm sure you correctly summarized their statements. I am just saying, I am not sure if what they said was the reason, was in fact the actual reason.

EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but it may be even less ... serious? ... I don't think the word "marriage" should be used for describing a union of similar things. You hear the word to describe things like "marriage of science and art" or "marriage between form and function" or "marriage of sweet and spicy flavors" (examples from Merriam-Webster online). In all those examples the word is used to describe combining different and even sometimes polar opposite things. That is why I don't support same-sex marriage, I do think words matter and while meanings can and do change, I care about words meaning things and not just want we want them to mean. As I said, my reason isn't really a serious issue, but it is why I support civil unions (for all) and not same-sex marriages.

However, remember that such an argument cannot be simply about having children and raising them in the 'nuclear family'-- because then you would have to explain why we still give benefits to childless couples (especially those never intending to have children),

This has been answered by numerous court briefs, what you are suggesting here is too much of a violation of personal privacy. How do you prove that a couple will never have children? They say so? So if someone forgets to take their pills or changes their mind or a condom breaks, then what? People can claim their intentions, but what ultimately happens may be something totally different.

As for couples that can't have children, again that is a privacy issue, how do you prove they can't have children? Violate doctor-patient confidentiality?

What if they are too old to have kids? What is too old, men can father kids well into the 100s. As for women, more fertility research is going on all the time. I remember reading a story about a woman in menopause taking hormones to carry her daughter's child because her daughter couldn't.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.

That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line.

If that were true, we would never see deadlocks over important issues in Congress. I'm not saying the Democratic party is full of angels. It's not. It's got corrupt people and it's got idiots and it's got corporate interests. But it also has a lot of people like you and like me who actually believe in things and who want to improve the country, and it actually gets some of those things done. That, and the Republican party is terrifying.

You assume that what you view as important is what the people in actually power truly believe is important. Most likely the things that the people in actual power truly believe are important (and not just what they tell their side of the voting public) don't get deadlocked all that often. They want you to be distracted by all the inane crap so you don't see what they are really doing behind the curtain.

Please stop giving those idiots attention. Seriously, ignore them like you would the crazy guy on the corner claiming the end is nigh. You make them more important every time you bring them up. I mean, can't we all do the figurative turn our back to them and never speak of them again. They are outcasts,shun them.

Ok, I see what you're saying here.

The disconnect in my mind, is that on a personal basis that would be fine. However, we live in a country that has religious freedom, so on a grand scale, such as legislation preventing gay marriage, that is not fine. That goes beyond the scope of witnessing and worry for their immortal soul. In my humble opinion, at least.

Just because people vote for a law based on their religious views, doesn't make the law itself religious in nature. I mean, if people thought stealing was wrong merely because their church told them it was, that wouldn't make laws against stealing religious laws. People can use whatever fraked up reasoning they want to vote. The issue isn't why people vote for a law, it is if the law itself is unconstitutional. Voting against gay marriage because your church told you or because you just get grossed out by the idea is a personal issue, but it isn't a legal one.

pres man wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Asphere wrote:

stuff

Ok then...

Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.

Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.

I mean it is not like Jesus ever got violent with some moneychangers or anything. Totally laid back dude. Probably had some nice shrooms he could grow with the touch of his finger.

He threw their tables around and wrecked their stuff, but he never hurt any of them. However, there is this statement from him:

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Luke 19:27

Same point, different example.

Well in John it says he made a whip and drove them out, but whatever.

Asphere wrote:

stuff

Ok then...

Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.

Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.

I mean it is not like Jesus ever got violent with some moneychangers or anything. Totally laid back dude. Probably had some nice shrooms he could grow with the touch of his finger.

pres man wrote:

I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.

You're still ignoring that the law created two classes of people. Teenagers will eventually be 21. There are no more 18 year olds who are grandfathered in.

And I would say that it didn't create two classes of people but of relationships. Those same-sex couples that are legal now, if the people in them had gotten divorced and then tried to get remarried in a same-sex marriage, they would find they couldn't. As for people "aging out". Well, in that case, everyone who is married ends up not being married as well. Some due to divorce and some due to death (either of themselves or their spouse), so ultimately every legal current same-sex marriage will ultimately end at some point. It might take closer to a century than just three years, but if the real issue is that it is only temporary, then so is this issue.

pres man wrote:

And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?

From 2005-2008, same-sex marriage was legal.

The prop 8 amendment did not annul those marriages. People who were married between 2005-2008 would remain married.

Now, same-sex marriage was no longer legal, but people already married would remain married.

You now have two classes of people. Those who were allowed to be married and those who weren't. The appellate court decided that it is federally unconstitutional because this creates two classes of people.

This wouldn't apply to any other state, unless that state had a similar time-line.

I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.

pres man wrote:

I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.

I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?

Not quite.

The court found a couple things.

First, that Proposition 8 had a single purpose: "It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right - the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships." It found that the State had no compelling interest in enacting the law at all, and that the only thing it accomplished was to marginalize a group of people. Because precedence dictates that the Constitution simply does not allow for that kind of law to be enacted - those that harm a group and serve no compelling State interest - the court found it unconstitutional.

And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?

I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.

I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?

Well, some of us scream "First Amendment!"

Interesting, I have honestly never heard an argument against it based on the First Amendment. How would having an official national language (versus the current de facto one) used for government operations interfere with the freedom speech?

Newt's new argument as to why he should be the GOP candidate:
"If I lose, I will demand that the electoral college be distributed proportionally in every state!"
[/sarcasm]

Aretas, if you believe your sources and numbers can be so easily invalidated, why do you trust them so? Better to question them and/or seek things out that you have greater faith in. Or, just say that you know it can't be verified, but you believe what it states to be true. There is nothing wrong with that.

I took his comment not as they would be so easily invalidated, but so easily dismissed. People can dismiss statistics quite easily if they come from a source they don't trust, no matter how accurate or well documented the statistics are.

EDIT: On the topic of immigration, stories such as Mauro Manuel shows that even the more enlightened european countries still struggle with issues of immigration. This is not an issue that the US is the only one seen as the bad guy for trying to deport immigrants who have lived in the country since they were children.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

A lot, believe me. The Nazi´s would never have run out of people to sent to the KZ´s.

As for a starting point: What if German had become the official language of the U.S. ? I read somewhere that it was a very close second, when the question was put to vote.

America doesn't have an official language. English (American) is the unofficial language, but we don't have an official language. Any time suggestions of making English the official language comes up people scream "racism!".

Here's something for the lefties who are hip to revisionist history to ponder and it's meant as a theoretical exercise, not my actual position:

Given that the United States has killed millions of people all over the globe from Vietnam to Iraq;

Given that the British and the French killed a heck of a lot, too, in Africa and the Middle East and who knows where else (I specialize in American crimes);

Given the horrendous state of affairs in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China;

How much worse do you really think the world would have been if the Axis had won World War II?

I would imagine that we would have all ended up with goatees. ... wait a minute ... *looks in the mirror* ... did that already happen?

pres man wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Of course we do realize that Social Security isn't the same as health care spending.

I have a feeling that you decide to be obtuse, which is why I don't bother responding to you normally. There are multiple areas of the economy and society that illegal immigrants are having an effect on. Those are two different things. I put them in different sentences, indeed, I even put them in different paragraphs, to indicate that they were separate concepts. This is a common technique that used in writing.

Just to be clear. You quoted some posts discussing immigration and health care and you responded with a discussion of immigration and health care, but between these two things (the quote and the response), you put a comment about immigration and social security. You are now saying that placement was purposeful (clearly separated, but placed in between the quote and the response to immigration and health care). And you are implying that this is good communication style. I am just a layman, and am not a writer by trade or training, so please understand that I do not always understand the more elite styles of writing. I was not aware that it is now considered good style to place an unrelated topic in between a quote and the direct response to that quote. Thank you for enlightening me.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants contribute $7 billion every year to Social Security, but unless naturalized, they will never be able to draw any of it.

Illegal immigrants account for approximately 2% of health care spending nationally.

Of course we do realize that Social Security isn't the same as health care spending.

ciretose wrote:

WoTC has a dirty little secret.

A Brand is just a word.
..

Okay, memorax and all those that want Wizards to protect 5e because you believe it will maximize their profits. I don't because the D&D brand will reduce in value.

However . . .

If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.

Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.

The OGL makes it so that Paizo will prosper. If Wizards wants to prosper in the long run, they will put their stuff out with the OGL. The two companies prosper and the brand returns to the 800 lb. Gorrilla it should have been (it will take some time), because the fan base builds.

Otherwise, if Wizards doesn't its fan base dwindles. Compare GenCon to that of a Star Wars convention. How many attend GenCon and how many attend a Star Wars convention?

Sorry, but Paizo isn't going to do that. Paizo could have been producing 4e products right now under the GSL. They didn't. Why? Not because the GSL was too strict, though that certainly didn't help. The reason is that Paizo didn't want to dilute their talent by having to try to make products for several different systems. They focus on their own system and ignore the rest.

One of the few companies that tried to go the multiple edition route was Nick Louge's company, and we all saw how well that played out.

You posted some interesting facts about our health care. One fact you left out is the number of people who become bankrupt from medical expenses. 60% of all bankruptcies in this country in fact, or over 1.8 million people every year. The countries who had a lower survival rate of cancer patients all don't have that problem. Health care is great in this country... if you can afford it.

I'm sure you weren't intending to suggest this, but it kind of looks as if you are saying it is better to be dead than bankrupt. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

As for not affording it, let's keep in mind that a large group of people not currently covered are young people working at jobs that do not automatically provide coverage. Often times they are given the option of having coverage if they pay for it from their wages (usually pre-taxes). A good portion of these people choose not to get health care because they are young and (at least superficially) healthy. It is not necessarily the case that they can't afford it, they just choose to not get it. Which if they did, would actually drive down the costs for everyone ultimately, which is why the current law has a requirement for everyone to get healthcare.

Now of course that is not the case of everyone that currently does not have health care, but it is a sizable population. Most of the truly poor are actually covered by government programs already (Medicad?).

pres man wrote:

CunningMongoose wrote:

And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system

Great values? What were they?

A) It's difficult to keep the 1% from running things no matter what system one chooses.

B) Come now, even at the time those values were not shared by all of the founders, notably slavery. In any event, those were not the values that we aspire to, regardless of the problems we've had in attaining them from time to time.

Not shared? Depends on your definition of shared is I guess. I mean if you are able to casually disregard the suffering of others because it is inconvenient for you to attempt to stop it, I guess you can call that not sharing it, but I might not.

SmiloDan wrote:

Just remember, if you are using Rapid Shot, the extra attack from Haste ALSO takes the -2 penalty to attack rolls.

Is this true? The Rapid Shot description says "all attacks" but the haste description says "take this attack at full base attack bonus".

It seems the rules are in conflict. Does the general rapid shot description overrule the specific haste attack? or vice versa?

Has there been an actual ruling on this?

Not at all, you use the full base attack bonus and you add whatever bonuses (such as for a magic weapon or high dex) that would apply as well as any penalties (such as rapid shooting or cover). The base attack used is just the highest, so if you are +6/+1, you use the +6 before any bonuses or penalties.

And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system, and I am sad that the great values your country was founded on are now being used against its own citizen it that way by cheap manipulation tactics equating "freedom" with "neoliberalism", something that did not exist when your founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Great values? What were they? Owning other human beings? Killing people and stealing the lands? Purposefully infecting them with diseases? There is no great values in anything about the US.

ciretose wrote:

The basis for 3.0 is still selling quite well. 3.0 wasn't replaced

Funny, I seem to remember WotC publishing a new PHB, DMG, amd MM. Despite the fact that they had just put out those same books three years prior. They also put out conversion documents for the 3.0 rulebooks that had been published in that time.

3.0 was replaced after 3 years, marking it as a monumental failure, using your logic. You don't get to change the rules of logic when they don't suit your argument. If 4E is a monumental failure because it was replaced within 5 years, then so too is 3.0.

Of course, using that logic, original D&D was also a failure, as was the Holmes Basic Set, and the Moldvay Basic/Expert Set. And even 3.5 itself...it was a month shy of reaching a full five years (July 2003 to June 2008).

Yeah, he's stretching there. I mean, using his logic, the basis for 1ed is still going strong because you used a d20 in it and you know, PF uses d20s. So there's proof.

Err, when the entire point of the method is to give the win to however had more baskets (or rather, whoever is actually *chosen* by more people to be their leader) than yeah, I'd say something is off with the system for allowing this to happen.

But would the other team have "cheated" if they won. Yes the system may be not ideal, but is winning using the rules in place considered cheating?

Imagine if you were playing a fighter, and when you gained a level you somehow became weaker. that's not how things should go. Just as leveling up signifies gaining power in PFRPG, getting votes should directly translate into being elected.

If the US was a democracy, perhaps, but many people forget that it is actually a republic.

Quote:

1)Bush didn't "steal" the election. Dems in the state of Florida wanted to subjectively pick and choose which ballots to keep and to toss, instead of coming up with an impartial standard to go by. The courts said that this was not a valid way of approaching the way to tally up votes.

He unequivocally lost the popular vote, which means at BEST he was the president because of a system based around the idea of how long it took a horse to get from south carolina to new york city.

Well, whether you agree with the system or not, it is the one that is in place. It is irrelevant if you win or lose the popular vote, only the electoral college is important. People who blame Bush for "stealing" the election when he won based on the system in place are silly. You don't like the system start working on a Constitutional assembly and get the constitution changed.

By the way, it is not like this never happened before. I believe it happened with two other presidents as well.

EDIT: Let me give an analogy here. Let's say there is a basketball game. One team makes more baskets (gets the popular vote) but the other team wins because they scored more points (won the electoral college) by making more 3 pointers. Did the winning team cheat by making more points but less baskets?

On Bush.

1)Bush didn't "steal" the election. Dems in the state of Florida wanted to subjectively pick and choose which ballots to keep and to toss, instead of coming up with an impartial standard to go by. The courts said that this was not a valid way of approaching the way to tally up votes.

2)Most Dems agreed with Bush that Sadaam was a threat and had weapons of mass destruction including President Clinton when he was in office. Let's keep in mind that there is a difference between lying and just being wrong. e.g.: A small child that says 5+8=12 isn't necessarily lying, they might just be wrong.

3)Weapons of mass destruction (mostly chemical weapons) were actually found in Iraq. They were old and the effectiveness of them is certainly questionable, but the claim that there weren't any found is actually false. Now there certainly were no nukes found and that was the biggest threat and the main reason for the invasion (if I remember right).

pres man wrote:

Misconceptions like this:

Exactly.

Well if that is what it means to have a leg down, then please give me a leg down.

pres man wrote:

Well considering I was originally replying to the statement:
"If you're white, you absolutely have a leg up on anyone who's not."

Are you suggesting that every single white person has a leg up on 100% of everyone who is not? If not, then I fail to see what you are getting at.

I didn't suggest it, but now that you mention it, I can take your "Asians" argument and use that construct to say that's true. I would, however, be making the same fallacious argument you did, so I won't.

I think your arguments so far stem from a number of misconceptions, but it doesn't surprise me.

Misconceptions like this:

in 2004 median income:
White/European American
Male $31,335
Female $17,648

Asian
Male $32,419
Female $20,618

pres man wrote:

So your claim is that all Asians are only first generation immigrants and all people of Mexican descent in the US are only first generation as well?

Of course not. Stop trying to deflect.

Well considering I was originally replying to the statement:

"If you're white, you absolutely have a leg up on anyone who's not."

Are you suggesting that every single white person has a leg up on 100% of everyone who is not? If not, then I fail to see what you are getting at.