What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Hopper said:
"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Ya see, it's this kinda statement that puzzles me. You are in effect sayin, it seems, that if you don't know, then the information is irrelevant and/or that if you "don't know," then all decisions are equal in consequence, and should therefore be selected from merely on the basis of what one "feels" like deciding.
Click to expand...

Certainly, not all decisions are equal in consequence. That doesn't mean the actual number is relevant to the decision. What becomes relevant are other factors. If I trust the person asking me to jump or have some way of knowing that my jump will effect some significant effect, I'll jump whether the distance is ten inches or ten stories, because I don't know the difference between ten inches or ten stories, I just know I trust the person or want the effect. If I don't trust the person and have no good reason to jump, I won't jump, whether the distance is ten inches or ten stories. So, again, what is the pragmatic significance concerning the decision to jump (as opposed to the consequences afterward)?
 
The Thriller said:
I had a friend on facebook talk about how if its legalized that people could then one day get married to their dogs. Doesn't the whole Equal Protection Clause kind of prevent that since animals aren't considered citizens or persons? If animals have the rights that citizens have, does that mean that they can vote, take up arms, and then pay taxes?
Click to expand...

Well, good question, I guess. What about MY rights? I wanna marry my dog. Am I prevented from doin that, if I, a citizen, want to? Why should I be discriminated against in my sexual preferences, know what I'm sayin?
 
Who's the bigger moran? Hopper (it goes without saying) or One Brow for being sucked into Hopper's cyclic vacuum of nothingness conversation?
 
Hopper said:
Well, good question, I guess. What about MY rights? I wanna marry my dog. Am I prevented from doin that, if I, a citizen, want to? Why should I be discriminated against in my sexual preferences, know what I'm sayin?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is contained within some legal mumbo jumbo somewhere, but your rights cannot usurp the rights of another. So since the dog cannot voice consent, you ought to err on the side of caution and not risk marrying/raping your dog.
 
One Brow said:
If I don't trust the person and have no good reason to jump, I won't jump, whether the distance is ten inches or ten stories. So, again, what is the pragmatic significance concerning the decision to jump (as opposed to the consequences afterward)?
Click to expand...

Heh, "as opposed to the practical consequences afterward?" That's what I'm callin a "pragmatic concern."

Seems to me that you're just avoiding the question. Let's say you see a hole in the ground, Let's say you like exploring caves. Let's say you can't see how deep the hole is, but from your prior experience you figure it could be anywhere from 6 to 600 feet, if ya wanna just "jump in" and explore the cave. Are you sayin that "not knowin" how deep the whole is won't affect your decision to either (1) just jump or (2) not jump, Eric? It aint a matter of "trustin" someone, and the question never was about "trust."

Nor is the question about ALL the factors that would influence a decision. Or what decision you would make in any PARTICULAR circumstance. The only question is this: Would the distance of the fall be a "pragmatic concern," whether you knew the distance or not?
 
chemdude1232 said:
Not sure if this is contained within some legal mumbo jumbo somewhere, but your rights cannot usurp the rights of another. So since the dog cannot voice consent, you ought to err on the side of caution and not risk marrying/raping your dog.
Click to expand...

It's a damn dog. Who cares what it thinks.
 
Hopper said:
Heh, "as opposed to the practical consequences afterward?" That's what I'm callin a "pragmatic concern."

Seems to me that you're just avoiding the question. Let's say you see a hole in the ground, Let's say you like exploring caves. Let's say you can't see how deep the hole is, but from your prior experience you figure it could be anywhere from 6 to 600 feet, if ya wanna just "jump in" and explore the cave. Are you sayin that "not knowin" how deep the whole is won't affect your decision to either (1) just jump or (2) not jump, Eric? It aint a matter of "trustin" someone, and the question never was about "trust."

Nor is the question about ALL the factors that would influence a decision. Or what decision you would make in any PARTICULAR circumstance. The only question is this: Would the distance of the fall be a "pragmatic concern," whether you knew the distance or not?
Click to expand...


WWHD? Huh?
 
One Brow said:
In that case, I have no reason to jump, so I don't.
Click to expand...

Sure ya do...remember this here:? "Let's say you like exploring caves." But like I said the question aint bout particular decisions or all the factors to begin with.

See, that's part of the problem, eh, Eric? Half the time ya "answer" some question ya aint even been asked, then think you've answered the question.

In fact, I often get the idea that, no matter what question is asked, you will tend to always "answer" the same (different from the one asked) one, i.e., give your answer to the "ultimate question," directly or (usually) indirectly.

That is to say that sometimes you tend to treat every question as though it were "do you think [insert issue here, say "gay marriage"] is right or wrong?"

In this case, after getting several evasive or non-responsive comments in reply, I went out of my way to say what I was NOT asking and what I was asking. What good did it do me? You still chose to answer a question I said I was NOT asking, and ignore the question I said I was asking.
 
Last edited:
Truth be told, I'm contemplatin marryin my Hoover Vaccum Cleaner, ya know? That Baby has some fine-*** *attachments,* and it don't bark or want puppy chow. I probably love it more than my dog, Thelma Lou, even, although I'd like to marry both--more tax deductions, that way, eh?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top