Kurto the Clown

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is easily the most pointless thread ever.

You guys don't like each other, you don't agree, and neither of you will convince the other of anything.

Relax boys, to your corners...

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
This could easily be the most pointless thread ever.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, you'll find no argument from me. I half expect most people are skipping it at this point.

I have no point other then 'mental masturbation.'

I am amused by his responses and find it an amusing and harmless game.

Occasionally, it does tangent off into legitimate points, which is why I reposted merely the section on the history of gay marriage, to counter the false notion that it is something new.

I legitimately find it interesting the way Jaxmike tries to define words to fit his prejudices.

I find his inability to construct a logical argument fascinating and fun.

[ QUOTE ]
You guys don't like each other, you don't agree, and neither of you will convince the other of anything.



[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I have read threads that Jax his commented on in areas that I don't know about and I have considered his thoughts. (I almost hate to admit it because I hate to encourage him lol) I expect there are areas which we might agree upon. There are probably areas he knows more about then I do, But I tend to only read threads when I don't know much about it so there has been to much comments in that area.

Anyhoo... I apologize to any who repeatedly wander into our threads. I'm just having fun.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, it is a hoot watching your 4 pea-cells trying to work something out.

if person A acts as the GAY PUBLIC SPOKESMAN for an international company for a decade or so, AND if President Bush runs national Ads mention that person A is gay, and her father talks about it his gay daugther (aka PERSON A) in a debate.... and then PERSON B, after all this has happens, mentions Person A is gay.... He can't out her, because she's already out.

You can't really be this dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I direct you back to the definition of outing. If someone announces something that a repient of the information was not aware out, the person delivering the message has outed the information. I am sure that there are people who watched the debates who weren't aware Cheney's daughter was gay. Hence, I am correct, again. Done.

[ QUOTE ]
Coward? lol How random. Is this another word you misuse? See, I don't call you a coward because It would be arbitrary. I only point out what you demonstrate. For instance, ignorant bigot... small minded moron... etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call you one because you act like one. I have PROVEN my point BEYOND any reasonable doubt, yet you are too cowardly to ADMIT that I am right. You ARE a coward.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's what you said,

"The word means, and has meant for hundreds of years, a union between a man and a woman."

The word does not mean that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


You ignorant buffon. Here is the link AGAIN.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
marriage, n- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

I canont believe someone as stupid as you exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Quit being such a simpleton.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironic coming from someone who says that marriage doesn't mean what it says in the dictionary.
[ QUOTE ]
No one has disputed that marriage wasn't TRADITIONALLY between men and women. "Traditionally" is not absolutely. A more accurate way of saying would be; "Marriage has MOSTLY happened between men and women, though same sex marriages have happened and been recognized for hundreds of years." Notice the difference between that and what the bonehead Jax said.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I said traditionally, and this totally fits with what you just wrote? Or, did I say, never in the history of the world has a man and another man married until recently. You are making a HUGE ass of yourself.

[ QUOTE ]

LOL Oh dear. Just when I think you can't seem any stupider, you prove me wrong. "USUAL" and "NATURAL" as defined by "the natural world" are not synonymous. If 1% of all animals developed a resistance to certain viruses... those 1% of all animals would not be 'unnatural.'

[/ QUOTE ]

You are totally completely IGNORING the definitions of natural that make my statement COMPLETELY correct. "Stupider" should be more stupid by the way. Give it up, you are WRONG. ADMIT IT!

[ QUOTE ]

Note... you did nothing to counter my arguments. I posted definitions of "natural" and why homosexuality fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I posted equally valid arguments that showed that homosexuallity is unnatural.

[ QUOTE ]

That is why you are inept. But let me predict the jaxian reply... you will arbitrarily call me inept, probably without even knowing what the word means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I proved you were inept.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe myself and others have laughed. Right out of the Jax posting guide. Prove nothing, but declare victory. Pat yourself on the back for being the smartest guy on the forum.

Too much fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have proven that I was right, you have failed to prove anything other than the fact that you are a flammer and a troll. I believe they are laughing at us both. You for your incompetence, and me for continuing to acklowledge your existance.

[jaxmike]

Sigh. From your "source".

[ QUOTE ]
One obvious point to make here is that this very characterization of certain things as 'natural' is problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the clip of the text that you posted I can only assume that the author is referring to natural in the sense of "Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. ". This has nothing at all to do with "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death." Clearly a distiction between a natural and unnatural death can be made. Unnatural deaths would be things such as car crashes, gunfights, etc, natural deaths would be age, disease, etc. In the same case the natural state of an object is at rest, just as the natural state of humansexuality is hetero.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
This could easily be the most pointless thread ever.

You guys don't like each other, you don't agree, and neither of you will convince the other of anything.

Relax boys, to your corners...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I will try to refrain from continuing this.

[bholdr]

would it be an unnatural death to be killed and eaten by a tiger? tigers are 'natural' hunting and eating prey is 'natural'

how about to be killed by a man in a competition over limited resources- that is say there's only one parachute in a crashing plane, would it be natural to have to kill in order to survive, or is that unnatural?

how is being killed by a man different than being killed by a tiger? or a virus, for that matter? isn't death natural, peroid?

see the problem with appealing to nature yet?

i'm telling you jax, you're in way over your head trying to argue logic and philosophy without having studied it seriously.


[ QUOTE ]
just as the natural state of humansexuality is hetero.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it's not, at least it's no more natural than homosexuality, dwarfism, having six fingers on a hand, having abnormal lung capacity, etc... all of which are naturaly occuring. if you want to 'argue' (i'm using that term loosely to include what you do) that it's unnatural, you have to prove what the limits of 'natural', or claim that there is intent behind 'nature' (god, etc).

you can reasonably say that homosexuality is not 'normal', but that's a whole 'nother fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
In the same case the natural state of an object is at rest,

[/ QUOTE ]

that particular gem hasn't been considered by physicsts to be true since Newton. c'mon, i thought you said that you went to college.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I direct you back to the definition of outing. If someone announces something that a repient of the information was not aware out, the person delivering the message has outed the information. I am sure that there are people who watched the debates who weren't aware Cheney's daughter was gay. Hence, I am correct, again. Done.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was any doubt in anyone's mind if you're not an idiot, I think you just proved it conclusively. You object to Kerry repeating the information that Cheney's daughter was gay. The ONLY reason it would be wrong is if it was a secret and they were violating her privacy. Clearly, it is not a private matter to her since he has been a public Gay figure for 10 years... since George Bush revealed to the world that she was gay when he used that info in his national ads and because her father discussed it the week before on a nationally televised debate.

You act like Kerry let out some big secret and revealed her big secret to the world... which is what outing is... public revealing the private sexual life of a public figure without their consent. She has already been publicly revealed for over a decade and prominently in the campaign before the debate.

Yet, because you're obstinate and probably technically a moron; you argue that because there may be someone out there who happened to have missed the info, even though Cheney's daughter is outwardly public about her homosexuality, and even though her dad and Edwards talked about it the week before, and even though Bush mentioned it in his campaign ads.... For Kerry to ALSO mention it means he's outing her? Honestly, you are retarded.

From ONE LOOK DICTIONARY - Encyclopedia article-
"Outing is the practice of publicly revealing that a person is not straight without that person's consent. The term is usually used to describe an unwanted revelation about a public figure such as a politician or an entertainer."

Now, once a person has consented to having information released (ie. by acting as a public spokesman due to her sexuality), and the information is in the public domain, the act of being revealed has happened, that person can retract the consent. The information is public knowledge. It is no longer a private matter. No one (except someone as dumb as you, Jax) would argue that repeating knowledge that has been out to the public for a decade, is publicly revealing that information. The cat is already out of the proverbial bag.

Cut your losses. Admit you're grossly wrong and move on.

[ QUOTE ]
I call you one because you act like one. I have PROVEN my point BEYOND any reasonable doubt, yet you are too cowardly to ADMIT that I am right. You ARE a coward.


[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, you fail to prove anything. You have not defined cowardice nor demonstrated an example thereof.

For instance, I can't say "Jax is a child molestor. You are one because you act like one. Child molestor." Yet, that is what you do all the time. Your inability to construct a reasonable argument is why it seems like you don't even know what most words mean.

[ QUOTE ]
You ignorant buffon. Here is the link AGAIN.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you use the word 'buffoon.' You just constantly repeat things you hear smarter people say. Just a dumb parrot.

What does the link prove, chimp? How does printing one definition from one modern dictionary prove that marriage is defined as only having been between a man and a woman AND has always been that way for hundreds of years? What about these:
From ONE LOOK.com "noun: two people who are married to each other "
From Websters:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

From Encarta:
mar·riage [ mérrij ] (plural mar·riages)


noun

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners


2. particular marriage relationship: a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual’s relationship with an individual spouse


3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people


4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock

(NOTICE NO MENTION OF GENDER)

FROM A LEGAL DICTIONARY:
marriage


The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment. Compare common law marriage.


But probably only the dictionary that Jaxmike picks is valid. Cause he's smarter then most people who write dictionaries.

[ QUOTE ]
I call you one because you act like one. I have PROVEN my point BEYOND any reasonable doubt

[/ QUOTE ] Once again, define cowardice and they point to a specific post where you fulfilled the definition of cowardice.

Just saying things doesn't make them true except inside your peabrain.

[ QUOTE ]
That's ironic coming from someone who says that marriage doesn't mean what it says in the dictionary.


[/ QUOTE ]
Odd, I printed several dictionaries that proved my point. Which shows you that a single dictionary doesn't prove anything. Marriage does not require a man and a woman. It is not set in stone. And I showed that marriage between two men has happened and been sanctioned, unlike what Jax the ignorant buffoon stated.

[ QUOTE ]
You are totally completely IGNORING the definitions of natural that make my statement COMPLETELY correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that some madeup definition?

When people typically refer to something being unnatural, in a literal sense, then (from Websters):
being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

Or from ONELOOK: adjective: in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature

EVERT SINGLE DEFINITION from Oxfords:
• adjective 1 existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind. 2 in accordance with nature; normal or to be expected: a natural death. 3 born with a particular skill or quality: a natural leader. 4 relaxed and unaffected. 5 (of a parent or child) related by blood. 6 archaic illegitimate. 7 Music (of a note) not sharpened or flattened.

Hmmm... the ones that apply to your example... homosexuality is COMPLETELY NATURAL.


"And I posted equally valid arguments that showed that homosexuallity is unnatural." No you didn't. you made a logical fallacy. As someone else pointed out, you don't know how to construct a logical argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I have proven that I was right, you have failed to prove anything other than the fact that you are a flammer and a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 'flammer?' Remember how you made a big deal of mispellings earlier. I just mention it to point out how I correctly noted your hypocrisy. But, you didn't prove anything. You constantly say you proved things MERELY because you stated you believe them to be true.

Good stuff.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing at all to do with "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death."

[/ QUOTE ]


You just proved you are wrong. Homosexuality is usual and ordinary.


ordinary- adjective: occurring or encountered or experienced or observed frequently or in accordance with regular practice or procedure

[ QUOTE ]
just as the natural state of humansexuality is hetero.

[/ QUOTE ] you declaring it the natural state does not make it so.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing at all to do with "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death."

[/ QUOTE ]


You just proved you are wrong. Homosexuality is usual and ordinary.


ordinary- adjective: occurring or encountered or experienced or observed frequently or in accordance with regular practice or procedure

[ QUOTE ]
just as the natural state of humansexuality is hetero.

[/ QUOTE ] you declaring it the natural state does not make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. I am done arguing. You refuse to accept the perfectly legitimate definitions I linked to. Fine.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
would it be an unnatural death to be killed and eaten by a tiger? tigers are 'natural' hunting and eating prey is 'natural'

how about to be killed by a man in a competition over limited resources- that is say there's only one parachute in a crashing plane, would it be natural to have to kill in order to survive, or is that unnatural?

how is being killed by a man different than being killed by a tiger? or a virus, for that matter? isn't death natural, peroid?

see the problem with appealing to nature yet?

i'm telling you jax, you're in way over your head trying to argue logic and philosophy without having studied it seriously.


[ QUOTE ]
just as the natural state of humansexuality is hetero.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it's not, at least it's no more natural than homosexuality, dwarfism, having six fingers on a hand, having abnormal lung capacity, etc... all of which are naturaly occuring. if you want to 'argue' (i'm using that term loosely to include what you do) that it's unnatural, you have to prove what the limits of 'natural', or claim that there is intent behind 'nature' (god, etc).

you can reasonably say that homosexuality is not 'normal', but that's a whole 'nother fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
In the same case the natural state of an object is at rest,

[/ QUOTE ]

that particular gem hasn't been considered by physicsts to be true since Newton. c'mon, i thought you said that you went to college.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were able to comprehend that the word natural has appropriate alternate definitions then we can go no further on this issue. You totally ignore the perfectly reasonable definitions of natural, and are incapable of understanding there are different ways to use the term. If you want to debate physics, lets. I was using an overly simplified comparison because I didn't think you could comprehend anything beyond that. I am through arguing with people too obtuse to see anyone elses point of view. Nevermind the fact that, well, the facts are on my side. In the end, everything depends on your point of view, and from mine, this discussion is over.