| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists)
You do not hand Donald Trump the nuclear launch codes over a mere matter of semantics. Something else is going on there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*has a question* Your last name is Terrigan, are you in anyway related to an Inhuman?
No. I am a random byproduct of Adams' Improbability Drive. Any connections/associations/attributions inferred are erroneous. :)
So I'm really a terrible person, a bigot, naive and what not.I don't know. I don't know your opinions at all.
You're apparently conservative, but I don't know what you mean by that.
Related, you've presented little indication from where your ideologies arise, and why they are important to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff on the Supreme Court and Marriage
As a straight white cis male Christian who supports gay marriage (...it's a little complicated, although it probably shouldn't be...), I sometimes wonder what would happen if we legally separated 'Marriage' and 'Civil Unions/Partnerships' further apart than they currently are. That is, marriage would essentially be a religious function (with little/no legal standing outside of churches), while the union would be entirely secular (and have the legal standing, as required for things like making medical decisions, splitting ownership of things, tax advantages, and so on).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a straight white cis male Christian who supports gay marriage (...it's a little complicated, although it probably shouldn't be...), I sometimes wonder what would happen if we legally separated 'Marriage' and 'Civil Unions/Partnerships' further apart than they currently are. That is, marriage would essentially be a religious function (with little/no legal standing outside of churches), while the union would be entirely secular (and have the legal standing, as required for things like making medical decisions, splitting ownership of things, tax advantages, and so on).
Nothing. You're talking about tying the legislature in knots over a matter as important as a scrabble dictionary.
|
Related, you've presented little indication from where your ideologies arise, and why they are important to you.So I'm really a terrible person, a bigot, naive and what not.I don't know. I don't know your opinions at all.
You're apparently conservative, but I don't know what you mean by that.
Why should I, it seems like it would be futile anyway?
In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists)You do not hand Donald Trump the nuclear launch codes over a mere matter of semantics. Something else is going on there.
Perhaps, but i doubt it. When you watch for the hesitations or tics that frequently indicate a put-on, they are markedly absent. This bunch may omit things for the sake of later gossip, but they are not given to dissembling.
Also, let's not discount their certainty of eternal salvation, in the case of the "Christians" -- nuclear war holds little fear for them.
As for the "semantics" crowd, they feel as beset by Trump as many "left-leaners" do by HRC. They'll vote for him by default, just as many will do for HRC.
Again, limited sample size with some heavy demographic skewing.
Perhaps, but i doubt it. When you watch for the hesitations or tics that frequently indicate a put-on, they are markedly absent.
You don't need to bluff when you believe it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should I, it seems like it would be futile anyway?Related, you've presented little indication from where your ideologies arise, and why they are important to you.So I'm really a terrible person, a bigot, naive and what not.I don't know. I don't know your opinions at all.
You're apparently conservative, but I don't know what you mean by that.
Meaning you'd prefer to wail and lament that we don't take your opinions seriously while simultaneously making multiple posts to intimate you're clearly so much smarter than the rest of us.
Okay then.
Stuff on the Supreme Court and MarriageAs a straight white cis male Christian who supports gay marriage (...it's a little complicated, although it probably shouldn't be...), I sometimes wonder what would happen if we legally separated 'Marriage' and 'Civil Unions/Partnerships' further apart than they currently are. That is, marriage would essentially be a religious function (with little/no legal standing outside of churches), while the union would be entirely secular (and have the legal standing, as required for things like making medical decisions, splitting ownership of things, tax advantages, and so on).
The traditionalists might be willing to back that play, but the work to achieve it is, I have found from my homosexual friends, a process they feel is discriminatory. Impasse again.
|
|
Why should I, it seems like it would be futile anyway?Related, you've presented little indication from where your ideologies arise, and why they are important to you.So I'm really a terrible person, a bigot, naive and what not.I don't know. I don't know your opinions at all.
You're apparently conservative, but I don't know what you mean by that.
Meaning you'd prefer to wail and lament that we don't take your opinions seriously while simultaneously making multiple posts to intimate you're clearly so much smarter than the rest of us.
Okay then.
Like I said before, you all do, just with more words.
Perhaps, but i doubt it. When you watch for the hesitations or tics that frequently indicate a put-on, they are markedly absent.You don't need to bluff when you believe it.
First: Stop mucking around with my name, man! I like it the way i made it! :)
Second: To your declaration: quite so. Which is why I am convinced that their first, passionate response is the primary indicator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Touching on one of Greywolf's posts, One of the strongest arguments I have heard made for Hillary from voters on the left is whether they want Trump to nominate conservative judges. So I think Pro-Trump and Pro-Clinton camps are both heavily pushing the supreme court nominations as the most key element of this campaign.
Promising to nominate a conservative justice would not help Hillary Clinton. Those one the right would think it was just more of her "lying", while those on the left, who think she is a democrat in name only, would be mad and not vote for her.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of voters this election, perhaps moreso than the last few, feel they have to hold their nose and vote for a candidate they don't really like. That's pretty much the only single thing that Hillary and Donald are the same on.
*has a question* Your last name is Terrigan, are you in anyway related to an Inhuman?No. I am a random byproduct of Adams' Improbability Drive. Any connections/associations/attributions inferred are erroneous. :)
You say so. *still thinks Syrus might be NuHuman*
*looks at the uneaten cookie* I guess Neko doesn't want it huh?
Rednal --
The "cis" in your brief self-identification: i am unfamiliar with that. What does it mean?
Syrus,
For your edification: cis = is a terms used by those that identify with the gender they were born with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abraham --
Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.
Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.
Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.
Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."
It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
More specifically, cis is an abbreviation of cisgender (as trans is of transgender). The root means 'on the same side'... as opposed to trans meaning 'on the opposite side'.
Of course, some also object to that terminology on the grounds that they are bigendered, ungendered, or otherwise not accurately represented by the common view of a gender dichotomy.
|
|
Abraham --
Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.
Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.
Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.
Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."
It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.
Sounds like being a jerk.
I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. ...Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.
Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.
We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.
I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.
By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.
The tax burden is nasty in this area if you're doing well enough to hit the regional median income. 45% not counting for full price health care premiums and regional cost of living gobbles up nearly all of the rest. Tack on the other day-to-day taxes and I'll be genuinely surprised if the total amount of taxes shelled out-of-pocket don't hit at least 50% of net income. Which is ridiculous.
Personally, I'm more than ready to blow the lid off the tax codes. A brief moment of pain, then we can get better and truly fairer. As you say so wisely, the nation does not seem ready to view such an ugly set of truths.
Sounds like being a jerk.
*hands Nenkota some headphones* *plays some Janet Jackson for him*
You don't seem to be enjoying the thread anymore.
I tried to give him some music to help his mood out. No idea if it worked.
The tax burden is nasty in this area if you're doing well enough to hit the regional median income. 45% not counting for full price health care premiums and regional cost of living gobbles up nearly all of the rest. Tack on the other day-to-day taxes and I'll be genuinely surprised if the total amount of taxes shelled out-of-pocket don't hit at least...I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. ...Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.
Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.
We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.
I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.
By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.
Well it sounds like you are likely including state and local taxes, which are generally used to subsidize carving out tax exemptions for large corporations. However healthcare costs are currently not a tax (many things to be said about holding health as extortion but that's a different discussion).
Also not knowing your region or regional median income or cost of living or the marginal cost of living for that area I can't actually say anything more meaningful than that.
What is/are the root/s of this "cis"? And why do i not recall seeing it before?
EDIT: ninja'd above. I saw it, CBD. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like being a jerk.Abraham --
Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.
Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.
Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.
Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."
It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.
It's a common debate tactic and what's more I owe you no explanations or apologies. If you would like to contribute then I might do so anyways but I won't wait around for it.
What is/are the root/s of this "cis"? And why do i not recall seeing it before?
EDIT: ninja'd above. I saw it, CBD. Thanks!
So you are "on the side of" your gender instead of "trans" or "across of, or beyond" gender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First: Stop mucking around with my name, man! I like it the way i made it! :)
You don't need to bluff when you believe it.
Sorry, bad speller to start with an the earache isn't helping.
Second: To your declaration: quite so. Which is why I am convinced that their first, passionate response is the primary indicator.
Either people take their dictionaries VERY seriously down there... or more than likely people don't like gay marriage, they heard an argument that wasn't "we don't like gay people" and went with it as their rationale for what they wanted.
|
|
It's a common debate tactic and what's more I owe you no explanations or apologies. If you would like to contribute then I might do so anyways but I won't wait around for it.Sounds like being a jerk.Abraham --
Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.
Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.
Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.
Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."
It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.
Yes, it called being a jerk, because you're baiting for a yes to prove you are right. They can't say no, because you load the question to suit your need.
It doesn't, never liked the idea of the thread to begin with.
Is it the thread or my music choices for you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for Janet Jackson eitherIt doesn't, never liked the idea of the thread to begin with.Is it the thread or my music choices for you?
Okay, we'll tolerate trump supporters but :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't lie to yourself, you didn't tolerate both.I don't care for Janet Jackson eitherIt doesn't, never liked the idea of the thread to begin with.Is it the thread or my music choices for you?Okay, we'll tolerate trump supporters but :)
For crying out loud, you're still posting on the thread; It's not the end of the world just because the majority of the posters disagree with you.
I don't care for Janet Jackson eitherIt doesn't, never liked the idea of the thread to begin with.Is it the thread or my music choices for you?
Eurythmics? Maybe the Bangles? How about some George Thorogood?
BNW --
There is a very real difference between prejudice against people/persons and prejudice against said persons' lifestyles. The net result from some perspectives may be the same, and the nuance between the two may be unpalatable to some, as well. There is a chance that part of this group has deliberately misled me in reaponding to my inquiries, but their lies are on their own souls, in such a case. I have only related what i have been told and why i believe those testimonies.
That being said: is it necessary to assume the worst in this case, even through insinuation?
Let's move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nenkota, you don't think this thread should exist, you aren't enjoying the thread, you clearly dislike 75% of the people on it (even I can see BNW is trying to offer an olive branch with that joke), and you aren't even making arguments. All I've gathered is that you're conservative, and you don't like it when people criticize conservatives. That's...sort of the basis of political discourse. I say X, you say Y, and then we argue about why X won't work or why Y is better.
I'm sorry that you don't want to talk about politics on these forums (that's what I assume, as you "never liked the idea of the thread to begin with"). But that's okay. You don't have to talk politics. You don't need to spend five hours on a thread you don't like. It doesn't advance any discourse, and it clearly does not make you happy. We're getting sidetrekked now just trying to work out what you want.
Yes, the majority of us is probably pretty solidly left-wing. I'm sorry about that. It's the makeup of the forums—there are plenty of Republicans and right-wing posters, but I'm pretty sure there's at least a 60-40 split in favor of the left. If you don't like it, that's cool, but there are tons of other threads that aren't political, and there's a big, beautiful Hide option for threads like this.
Also even though I'm a liberal, I keep my politics at home since I'm certain my anaro-communist brother will probably be leading the revolution.
So I thought I'd try to keep this light for everyone.
Clearly I failed this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a limit to what us clowns can accomplish. Sometimes it's just a bad day.
*Throws a pie at Thomas's face*
Oh, wait, that was the acid beetle one. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold --
Please don't forget those of us willing to deny both sides! Acknowledge the snowflake!! :)
In the great war between North America and Europe, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. So all you stinking middle-grounders can toddle off to the Atlantic! ;)
BNW --
There is a very real difference between prejudice against people/persons and prejudice against said persons' lifestyles. The net result from some perspectives may be the same, and the nuance between the two may be unpalatable to some, as well.
Or non existent.
There is a chance that part of this group has deliberately misled me in responding to my inquiries, but their lies are on their own souls, in such a case. I have only related what i have been told and why i believe those testimonies.
I don't think they're misleading you: that's been the point of the last two posts. They're being mislead, they're misleading themselves, and that misleads those around them.
That being said: is it necessary to assume the worst in this case, even through insinuation?
I believe that when the alternative is random nonsense it is necessary to conclude, not assume, the worst because it is the alternative that best explains and predicts reality. Because I do tend to take people at their word, I don't like to do that unless the observations and predictions are a LOT better than the alternative, but we've more than passed that in this case.
*enjoys the acid pie for the fact it came with humor*
Some times we all need a pie in the face.
Even the acid beetle ones.
The tax burden is nasty in this area if you're doing well enough to hit the regional median income. 45% not counting for full price health care premiums and regional cost of living gobbles up nearly all of the rest. Tack on the other day-to-day taxes and I'll be genuinely surprised if the total amount of taxes shelled out-of-pocket don't hit at least 50% of net income. Which is ridiculous.
Personally, I'm more than ready to blow the lid off the tax codes. A brief moment of pain, then we can get better and truly fairer. As you say so wisely, the nation does not seem ready to view such an ugly set of truths.
I'd be absolutely shocked if taxes hit 50%. I don't know where you live or what bracket you're in, but I'm not sure how you even reach 45%.
Or what regional median income has to do with it? Unless you're just saying you live in a really expensive area, so even at median you're in a high bracket?
45% is federal + Social Security + Medicaid + State + County after deductions as a self-employed small business owner. I do live in an expensive area, which results in the bracket unless I have a very bad year. Tack on sales taxes, property taxes, the gaggle of taxes buried in the utility bills, it adds up fast.
I've not done this recently, but the amount of consumption taxes paid is a significant percentage in its own right. They're scattered all over the place, so they're not too bad at a glance. It is when you tally them up that it gets large. Utility bills have a gaggle of fees and taxes attached to them. Sales taxes. Meals taxes. Federal, state and sometimes municipal fuel taxes comprise a surprising chunk of the cost per gallon of fuel. Personal and real property taxes. Tally it all up for a year sometime, it may surprise you. Or it may not. ;)
13,476 average miles driven/year right now in the US. Driving at the current average 28.3 miles/gallon of gas results in purchasing ~476 gallons of gas/year. At 48.18 cents/gallon in taxes (averaged for the US), that's $229.43 purely for fuel taxes per driver. Utilities taxes on some aren't that bad if not near-negligible (electricity), but on others they're terrifically high (telecomm, in-home and mobile).
If you have certain legal vices, those're taxed too (tobacco and booze), but since those are voluntary I don't count those in this exercise.
In the great war between North America and Europe, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. So all you stinking middle-grounders can toddle off to the Atlantic! ;)
Ummmm . . . . I'm not so good at swimming and such. Do we *have* an alternate middle ground?? Or should i just tunnel to Australia?
*enjoys the acid pie for the fact it came with humor*
Some times we all need a pie in the face.
Even the acid beetle ones.
If that stuff's still tickling, you can use it to etch cool stuff in your Zippo lighter!