It’s not at all. It’s an attempt to understand and discuss something other than what I find to be pretty absurd hypotheticals. But I got to go for now wife thinks I’m ignoring her. So this straight guy might disappear if he doesn’t pay her some attention now.
Have a good one Sloth.
Bye man, have a good night.
Did you ever hear of something called logic?
You keep saying replace, but that is just a dumb detail in your dumb hypothetical. It means nothing.
What you are sensing is an incel vibe.
I’m done having my words blatantly lied about here. It’s fucking pathetic. Blocking notifications from this trainwreck of a convo.
Youre ignorant AF. Like genuinely ignorant in the sense youre arguing about a concept you don’t begin to understand.
No wonder it’s felt like I’m talking to a wall
I think you’ve been paraphrased accurately.
Meh, I feel confident.
Anyways I used the sunshine to illustrate that things we seemingly have an endless supply of can still be shown to have have much greater value to society (heck, the species) than some other thing. Which is exactly what my original hypotheticals do.
Minorities have less value to society. Therefore minorities shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Weren’t we using that argument for a long time? We got sad when this passed so we needed something else to blame so hey why not gays? They have no value.
Why should the state recognize two people if they are on welfare and can’t work? They don’t just have less value than people who pay more in taxes they are losing the US government “value.” Why would we want a model of two poor people? Why would we want people who already struggle with money having kids? The state should not justify or give incentive to poor people getting married.
Knowing this we should make some distinctions. How about wealthy white property owners? I’m sure no one ever had that idea.
What if all the white people disappear?! My kids are screwed.
No. He is a millennial alt right meme reader. Oh wait…I meant yes.
No. Your flawed hypotheticals only serve to support your narrative. Which is also flawed. But you wouldn’t understand that because you never learned how to put together a logical argument.
Here’s a hypothetical: all of the heterosexuals are suddenly sterile. Gays will only reproduce if they are allowed to marry. Now what?
You seem angry. We’ll get past this.
Why would I be angry? I’m right; you just told me.
I see. Have a good night, folks!
FWIW I would be interested in your answers to some of my questions but I’m also cool with the discussion dying out.
The fact he won’t answer tells you that it wouldn’t be interesting.
If only those were the only two possibilities. It might be that I’m back on the road driving. And then exhausted when I get to my destination for the night. I appreciate everyone else’s participation, including yours, but I’m a singular person who has been responding to multiple people this entire time. I’ve done more than my fair share of lifting with this conversation.
Breakfast time. Sorry, ended up using some free time responding to Z. In short, I reject that race and sexual orientation are analogous. In a everyday lives, we see evidence of that, and conduct our lives accordingly.
Teenage daughter wants to stay at a slumber party that boys will be staying at…
Now, no boys but some of the girls are brown…
Different repercussions.
Is there a logical reason to react differently? Perhaps a bio based one?
Son says he will never date blacks.
Now he says he will never date boys.
Do you react the same?
They’re different.
Dispite the old psuedo science, all ‘races’ are part of the same species with same reproductive reality.
Can inherently reproduce viable offspring as a rule (not an exception). No ‘mules.’ Same species.
The various races plug right into my inherent reproductive model.
Not similar.
Gotta go. Maybe tonight
Can you answer post 858 and 868 I will respond to these later today.
If not no biggie
Leaving out, but this discussion has never been about removing people. Wheras we would otherwise leave the state blind and inactive, this is about when we should be taking positive government action to icentivize an inerently critical set of circumstances that serves society as a whole. As far as 2 poor people heteros marrying…that is exactly who we to marry! Because it serves society as a whole to soften/reduce/reverse the socio-economic impact and incidence of intergenerational poverty. Yes, we want poor people to have their inevitable sex (the reproductive act) in intact homes. Homes with both parents present. We want this norm seen as often as we can possibly arrange it. Exactly because they are poor.