Conquer Club

I read that whole post -- I don't understand what it has to do with gay marriage, as I haven't followed this thread in a while.

Two things I'd just like to say:

saying things like "vectorize" instead of just "headed" are exactly the reason why I rarely read your long rants

It seemed like all you were saying was that fascism and socialism are the same? I guess I could see what you're trying to say with Communists v Fascists -- but calling socialists fascists as well is a little extreme.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It sounds like you are mistaking Marxism for Lennonism and the later evolutions into Soviet and Maoist style communism. Marxism was, at root, about revolt of the people over the powerful, not subjugation. I am not saying I agree with his thoughts, but one cannot look at only a piece of a person's writings and consider it the whole view, nor can one look just at the various interpretations and consider them necessarily accurate. You have to look at the original source, in their entirety.

Really. And have you read Marx? Or my post, for that matter?

You didn't mention anything about Marx's theory though.

To extend the depth however, socialism* and fascism clearly revolve around the ideal of collectivized and imposed communative power, and the subjugation of the individual to the supra-structural and centralizing authority of the state in order to weld him into a place in a system which englobes him and determines for him a fused identity within a community vectorized towards a predetermined common goal through the plannification of every aspect of the citizennery's life and the involvement of the state at each level of the community's functions.

Also, I can totally dig your teacher here. Your tendency to use fancy words makes your essay horrible to read. It's just entirely incomprehensible for someone reading it casually.

If you want to communicate with others, you have to present your case in a clear manner. Not spice it up with mumbo-jumbo as, contrary to what you might think, it doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look pretentious.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It sounds like you are mistaking Marxism for Lennonism and the later evolutions into Soviet and Maoist style communism. Marxism was, at root, about revolt of the people over the powerful, not subjugation. I am not saying I agree with his thoughts, but one cannot look at only a piece of a person's writings and consider it the whole view, nor can one look just at the various interpretations and consider them necessarily accurate. You have to look at the original source, in their entirety.

Really. And have you read Marx? Or my post, for that matter?

Yes. I studied under a professor who insisted that while common, your thoughts were not really true marxism ... that Lennin took parts of Marx and that folks tend to lump them.

But, I am without proper bibliographical resources in my remote region, and I just don't have the time to track it down in the internet right now. So at this point, will have to leave the discussion lie.

LAST POST!!!
I win!

Nataki Yiro wrote:LAST POST!!!
I win!

For now perhaps, but no matter how dead a topic is, someone somewhere will one day bump it for no particular reason. Oh, and I guess I just posted too.

One could also argue that true Marxism has never been tried because it in fact simply cannot happen. Marx's arguments were always meant to be applied to an industrial capitalistic society. In every case starting with Lennin most communist societies were developed from feudal or agrarian economies. Marx's ideas were supposed to move a society beyond industrialization not into it.

One can also argue that, along the lines of Machiavelli, his ideas were never really meant to be taken literally... but perhaps that is yet another thread topic?

PLAYER57832 wrote:One can also argue that, along the lines of Machiavelli, his ideas were never really meant to be taken literally... but perhaps that is yet another thread topic?

Machiavelli was a dunce.

I think that was quite possibly the best trolling statement ever.

fine with me.

I think it was the late GEORGE KARLIN who said " why not let homosexuals marry, why keep all the misery for the hetorosexuals"

some people have a problem with same sex marriages, i dont understand why, I've meen married 15 years to the same woman, believe me its the same sex all the time.

The outcome of this poll seriously gives me doubts about what century we are living in.

GoVegan wrote:The outcome of this poll seriously gives me doubts about what century we are living in.

Yay America, amirite? We're stuck in the 18th century at the moment. Note all the references to what the founding fathers would have wanted. Never mind that a good deal of the founding father's weren't Christian, were generally against large scale government information, and knew nothing of semi-automatic weaponry. They know what's best for us more than we do.

P.S.: Even if they mattered, the founding father's would have been disgusted with our country's current form, so it still doesn't apply.

GoVegan wrote:The outcome of this poll seriously gives me doubts about what century we are living in.

It's a rather impressive poll, however...

Neoteny wrote:

GoVegan wrote:The outcome of this poll seriously gives me doubts about what century we are living in.

It's a rather impressive poll, however...

No, it is not even necessarily representative of CC, just those who came to this forum and chose to vote on this issue.


Still, this is a tough issue for a lot of people. What it shows me is that there is a lot of "bridge building" and allaying of fears yet to be done.

One ironic note. Ever notice the number of people who are convinced that homosexuality is wrong ... except for those they happen to know? They are often tolerated "exceptions" .. not representative at all!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

GoVegan wrote:The outcome of this poll seriously gives me doubts about what century we are living in.

It's a rather impressive poll, however...

No, it is not even necessarily representative of CC, just those who came to this forum and chose to vote on this issue.


Still, this is a tough issue for a lot of people. What it shows me is that there is a lot of "bridge building" and allaying of fears yet to be done.

One ironic note. Ever notice the number of people who are convinced that homosexuality is wrong ... except for those they happen to know? They are often tolerated "exceptions" .. not representative at all!

Considering how many votes most polls on here get, it's impressive.

first of all, i am heterosexual ( i like pretty women, and non pretty too)

and i think everybody it is free to decide about their body, and married whit they want.
nobody can tell nobody what is right.

Gays and lesbians, in Spain is legalize homosexual married, and here nobody is bounded to marry wiht another man or women.
religion is a lie to control people and earn money with the irracional fear of the people.

Frigidus wrote:Yay America, amirite? We're stuck in the 18th century at the moment. Note all the references to what the founding fathers would have wanted. Never mind that a good deal of the founding father's weren't Christian, were generally against large scale government information, and knew nothing of semi-automatic weaponry. They know what's best for us more than we do.

P.S.: Even if they mattered, the founding father's would have been disgusted with our country's current form, so it still doesn't apply.

I'm going to have to call you on this one. Several weren't Christian, or they were so weak as Christians as to practically be not Christian, but a "good deal" of the Founding Fathers were.

Signers of The Declaration of Independence: Shows a good example of the cross section of the religious faiths of the signers. On that list only DE would really qualify as non Christian and they only come up as three, Old Ben, Young Thomas and James.

I'm not going to say that the Founding Fathers knew of everything, but they had a few good ideas, some borrowed by their neighbors to the North West the Iriquois Confederacy, and based on those ideas they set up a system that more or less worked. It didn't work perfectly, but it had the means within it to repair those faults. I'm pretty much they would have laughed at the attempt to put prohibition in the Constitution, but pretty much I think they would be struck with wonder at the people who complain about the second amendment reminding them of the process by which they can amend the constitution.

I see a lot of question marks in that list. Does that mean anything?

MeDeFe wrote:I see a lot of question marks in that list. Does that mean anything?

I believe it means they weren't exactly sure. But that doesn't mean they should be automatically be considered deists.

This is the stuff legends are made of. We need more threads like this.

To steal from the master:

I am Gay. Hath
not a gay eyes? hath not a gay hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
you are? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Gay wrong a straight,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a straight
wrong a Gay, what should his sufferance be by
Straight example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Skittles! wrote:

the_fatty wrote:1. Because ur posting this, ur gay
2. The bible doesnt lie
3. if everyone was gay, then humans would be extict (no reprodution)
4. Gays are scary
5. Because ur posting this, ur gay


there are some good reasons. choose ur favorite

Wow, I hate you. That is horrible reasoning and the most stupid brainless drivel I've ever witnessed on here, even worse than soundout9's homophobic shit.

The bible doesn't lie, eh, so then.. I guess we should be raping ladies for payment and still be having slaves. Excellent!

You do know we don't need to have sex to reproduce these days.. Science has helped us with that, so actually, if everybody was gay, it wouldn't matter because we would have the technology to keep reproducing whilst keeping everybody's sexual preferences.

You only believe 'gays' are 'scary' because you have never met one and are told via your mummy and daddy that gays are the biggest, meanest, baddest things in the whole universe! Even worse than Muslims and Atheists! Yes, they're so bad that they go against the Bible's wishes, but then, so does everybody at the moment, so hey! it doesn't matter.

Well actually humanity would finally end because it costs so much and if everyone was gay it there wouldn't be enough test tubes and all the artificial reproductive stuff to let everyone have enough children, the population would eventually die out leaving only a few people that would be unable to run the artificial reproductive machines so the conclusion is: we don't have the technology and eventually everyone will die out.

I'll probably get ridiculed for posting to a 11 month old post.

I think there are are enough tubes around to keep humanity going, and if not we could increase production of said tubes. And even if every person on earth spontaneously became homosexual at the same time, sex between men and women could still take place, it would just be for purely utilitic reasons (i.e. making babies instead of for fun).

brooksieb wrote:Well actually humanity would finally end because it costs so much and if everyone was gay it there wouldn't be enough test tubes and all the artificial reproductive stuff to let everyone have enough children, the population would eventually die out leaving only a few people that would be unable to run the artificial reproductive machines so the conclusion is: we don't have the technology and eventually everyone will die out.

I'll probably get ridiculed for posting to a 11 month old post.

Homosexuality will never predominate. That is a ridiculous fear based on ... fear. At issue is whether these human beings deserve the right to decide what care their loved one should get in an emergency, particularly children. and a few other issues.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

brooksieb wrote:Well actually humanity would finally end because it costs so much and if everyone was gay it there wouldn't be enough test tubes and all the artificial reproductive stuff to let everyone have enough children, the population would eventually die out leaving only a few people that would be unable to run the artificial reproductive machines so the conclusion is: we don't have the technology and eventually everyone will die out.

I'll probably get ridiculed for posting to a 11 month old post.

Homosexuality will never predominate. That is a ridiculous fear based on ... fear. At issue is whether these human beings deserve the right to decide what care their loved one should get in an emergency, particularly children. and a few other issues.

I don't think so. I think the issue is mainly based on the fact that homo's want to be recognized in the same way with regards to hetero's in terms of matrimony. In a lot of cases, homo lovers can have power of attorney over their homo lover, but that is only a legal standing. Largely, I think that they want to have homo marriage so that they can say that they are married... so that he can say, "this is my husband" and she can say "this is my wife." They really just want equality, or so I think.

black elk speaks wrote:

I don't think so. I think the issue is mainly based on the fact that homo's want to be recognized in the same way with regards to hetero's in terms of matrimony. In a lot of cases, homo lovers can have power of attorney over their homo lover, but that is only a legal standing. Largely, I think that they want to have homo marriage so that they can say that they are married... so that he can say, "this is my husband" and she can say "this is my wife." They really just want equality, or so I think.

There certainly are some who want to be on equal terms with heterosexuals, but you are wrong about the power of attorney solving things. Most people don't carry their papers with them when traveling, for one. Also, when it comes to child custody issues, states vary considerably on how they deal with this. Florida apparently won't even allow homosexuals to adopt .. at all.

A lot of this was covered in depth pages ago. I won't reiterate, but there are many, many very practical things that married people get without a thought. At some point we just have to ask, if our society is to be free, why NOT?

I don't necessarily "agree with" homosexuality. But, I also don't believe in telling others what to do unless it is necessary for our general protection (or plain practicality .. when it comes to building permits and such).