5/15/2013 4:34 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 4:31:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I really don't care about SSM.

Maybe half of what I post is what I believe, the other half is what I know BL would hate. 
Which half does "leads to polygamous marriage" go to?
5/15/2013 4:42 PM
I think it's hilarious that MikeT23 is far closer to being a troll than I ever could be.

Yet I'm called a troll simply because people hold strong opinions for which I have an effective counterargument they can't reason effectively against.

I've proven my point: None of you want your opinions challenged UNLESS it is done in a way as to make it easy for you to defend yourself. You can't handle a real challenge, which is what I gave many of you.

5/15/2013 4:42 PM
That's actually about half of both.    Changing the definition of marriage, well, changes the definition of marriage.    It's been one man/one woman for quite some time.   If you can change the "man/woman" part, I don't see why you can't change the "one" part.    But I can't imagine much clamoring for that change.   At least not in the near future.
5/15/2013 4:44 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 4:31:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I really don't care about SSM.

Maybe half of what I post is what I believe, the other half is what I know BL would hate. 
The lady doth protest too much.
5/15/2013 4:46 PM
No protest.   Just telling you the facts.

Nonetheless, even after you know what I'm doing, you have to respond.   
5/15/2013 4:48 PM
So?

Clearly we're both entertained by this situation.
5/15/2013 4:50 PM
So what?

I'm here to aggravate you(and burnsy on occasion).   You seem to have a passionate viewpoint on right/wrong wrt SSM.     I'd say our situation are quite different.
5/15/2013 4:53 PM
Posted by bistiza on 5/15/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
I think it's hilarious that MikeT23 is far closer to being a troll than I ever could be.

Yet I'm called a troll simply because people hold strong opinions for which I have an effective counterargument they can't reason effectively against.

I've proven my point: None of you want your opinions challenged UNLESS it is done in a way as to make it easy for you to defend yourself. You can't handle a real challenge, which is what I gave many of you.

You're an attention-whoring troll because you have yet to offer a single good-faith argument on any topic/debate you participate in.

You make preposterous claims, fail to back them up with rational argument or evidence, defend yourself by referring to alleged previously supplied  argument and/or evidence ("go back and read the thread") that nobody can find (because it doesn't exist), and then claim "victory" over any challenger due to your superior mastery of argument and debating skills that nobody can come close to.

You're a joke.
 

5/15/2013 4:55 PM

I know what a troll is, as you can see, I do it from time to time.

biz is a troll.   I'm not sure if he's good or bad at it because he spends so much time with his posts.   Seems like there are more efficient ways to draw a reaction.
 

5/15/2013 6:01 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 4:50:00 PM (view original):
So what?

I'm here to aggravate you(and burnsy on occasion).   You seem to have a passionate viewpoint on right/wrong wrt SSM.     I'd say our situation are quite different.
I also think it's fun to get you all riled up which, despite what you say, happens often, including several times in this thread.

You can keep saying that we're different, but we aren't.
5/15/2013 7:32 PM
We're very different.   How can the all-knowing badluck tell when one is riled up?

ALL CAPS????!?!?!?

MOTHEFUCKING CURSE WORDS!??!?!?!?!

5/15/2013 8:25 PM
And yet you think you've somehow aggravated me?
5/16/2013 7:45 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 5/15/2013 9:13:00 AM (view original):
<<bad_luck doesn't care about or respect history and tradition.  He feels that institutions like marriage should be freely redefined to fit whatever the whim of the moment may be.>>

So, like slavery? Are you sure you want to hinge your argument on "history and tradition?"
Another dumbass comparing the ability to marry to the ability to oh, I don't know, not get a beating for failure to work hard enough.
the dumbass is you for failing to follow logic. I am not comparing this issue to slavery. I was critiquing the  validity of "history and tradition" of arguments by pointing out a specific example where "history and tradition" was used to advance an argument...in that particular case slavery. Learn how to think critically and comprehend what you read before tossing "dumbass" around.

Are you a graduate of the swamphawk22#RIP  school of reading comprehension?

5/16/2013 8:25 AM

Have you mentioned this comparison, in any manner you wish to present it, to an angry black man?   A black man who believes white America is keeping him down?

I assume not because you're posting.     So, if you would, please do it.

5/16/2013 9:13 AM
You're an attention-whoring troll because you have yet to offer a single good-faith argument on any topic/debate you participate in.

 

I've offered a good-faith argument on  EACH AND EVERY debate I've participated in. You simply want to act like the argument is somehow not in good faith because it presents an incredibly challenge to your strongly held majority opinion.

So few of you have an open mind to anything at all. It doesn't matter who challenges you or how, if they're effective you'll find a way to dismiss them because you simply cannot have someone tell you that you're wrong and back it up in a way you can't argue against.

You make preposterous claims, fail to back them up with rational argument or evidence,


I back up EVERY claim I make with rational argument and most with evidence as well. I've done that in this very topic and have shown how repeatedly.

defend yourself by referring to alleged previously supplied  argument and/or evidence ("go back and read the thread") that nobody can find (because it doesn't exist),


You can't find it? Really? Because I even repeated a large portion of it for you when I suggested you go back and read the thread. It is there, it does exist, and you simply don't WANT to find it because you can't argue against it.

Your ability to dodge the evidence is simply astounding. When I find time I'm going to go back and link to what I'm referring to and shove it right in your face because you're trying to deny it exists when you **** well know better.

Stop ****ing dodging the evidence and claiming it doesn't exist.

and then claim "victory" over any challenger due to your superior mastery of argument and debating skills that nobody can come close to.


No. I simply state the truth of the matter. If you can't handle that, perhaps debating isn't for you.

You're a joke.


The joke is that you can't articulate a single effective argument against me, yet you make all of these preposterous claims. No evidence? Bull****. It's all there in this thread and it completely ****ing shreds your concept of sexuality. So your defense is to pretend it doesn't exist? 

YOU are the joke. I've given you every chance to provide a legitimate defense to your opinion when I've challenged it successfully, and you have nothing in response but attack me personally.

I'll challenge you to do it again right now, and anyone else if they wish: Give me one shred of REAL evidence - just one - that sexuality is somehow not based upon your choices, which is the way we define virtually everything else about people.

Anyone can try this, including you. But you won't, and neither will they, because it doesn't ****ing exist.

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.