Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

hodj_sl said:
...

You've literally spent 16 pages arguing against a position I never had because you failed to read what I said originally. Only just now have you noticed what I meant and explicitly said when I said choice. Infact, you constantly like to argue against opinions I don't hold. It's pretty funny to me.

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

No, I didn't. You've literally spent 16 pages trying to convince everyone on this forum that your basal assertions, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, are fact simply because you say so.

Gay people are not gay by "choice", either conscious, subconscious, or in any other way. Quantum mechanics is not an expression of a subconscious choice by particles, and ants do not "choose" between which scent they follow, or which food they seek out in any conscious or unconscious way.

When you get tired of repeating stupid fallacies and basal assertions about topics you have demonstrated a clear and unrelenting inability to grasp even the most basic functional components of, and come up withany evidence at all to support your claimslet me know.

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Gay people are not gay by "choice", either conscious, subconscious, or in any other way.

I've been trying for 15 pages to get you to state your stance on what makes a person gay. Would you mind answering a question so we can enter rational debate?

Is a person born with genetics that either makes them gay certainly or not? If the answer is not, do their genetic give them a chance at being gay?

My answer to this question is Not to the first, and that their genetics give them a chance to be gay from the second. The paper you linked in my estimation supports this view, am I correct in that or not?

General Antony · Apr 9, 2015

The issue is simple.

Most of you seem to believe that the majority has the right to threaten to stick a gun in your face and demand that you perform a service for someone through the force of law. Those of us who are still sane believe in the principles of liberty and that you can choose who you perform services for.

That is what this boils down to. I find those in the first group detestable human beings.

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

Furry_sl said:
I've been trying for 15 pages to get you to state your stance on what makes a person gay.

At this point I can only assume you have some form of mental disorder that makes it impossible for you to comprehend what is being said to you.

I mean I couldn't make it clearer if I tried.

I've already said I'm not going to bother going around and around with you about this, or any science issue, anymore, since you

1. Fail to provide any evidence for your claims
2. Think that trying to poke holes in your opponents claims without offering any evidence for your claims is going to somehow justify yourunsupported basal assertions
3. Continually demonstrate that you have not got even the most basic ability to grasp even the most simple of scientific concepts.

Its really that simple. When you haveany evidence to support your base assertions, at all, let me know.

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

hodj_sl said:
...

And yet again, you refuse to rationally debate or affirm your beliefs or answer questions about them. Why should you expect me to do the same when you do not ever do it yourself?

I'm not going to entertain your one sided debate.

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

Furry_sl said:
And yet again, you refuse to rationally debate or affirm your beliefs or answer questions about them. Why should you expect me to do the same when you do not ever do it yourself?

I'm not going to entertain your one sided debate.

You can't have a rational debate with an irrational person.

You have demonstrated repeatedly your irrationality.

I dunno if you're just trolling for negs out of boredom, or what, but I will say it again:

When you have any evidence for your claims, let me know

Its that simple.

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

hodj_sl said:
...

Sorry hodj is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Pls help

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

I've been trying to help you for like 40 pages worth of writing across three or four threads, Furry.

Its like trying to help a heroin addict. You can't help them, if they don't want to help themselves.

When you have any evidence for your claims, at all, let me know.

Cad · Apr 9, 2015

Brikker · Apr 9, 2015

General Antony_sl said:
The issue is simple.

Most of you seem to believe that the majority has the right to threaten to stick a gun in your face and demand that you perform a service for someone through the force of law. Those of us who are still sane believe in the principles of liberty and that you can choose who you perform services for.

That is what this boils down to. I find those in the first group detestable human beings.

So you're against the civil rights act as a whole and saw nothing wrong with American racial divides?

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

Brikker_sl said:
So you're against the civil rights act as a whole and saw nothing wrong with American racial divides?

The civil rights act removed governmental discrimination. I'm sure he supports that, as its fair to expect the government not discriminate against its people. He probably is against the parts the forced citizens not to discriminate though.

That's my stance on the subject.

khalid · Apr 9, 2015

If the civil rights act had allowed voluntary discrimination, it would have done virtually fuckall. Especially with your definition of the government, where it's literally only people paid directly by the government.

Doctrinaire libertarians are the fucking worst.

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

Furry_sl said:
The civil rights act removed governmental discrimination.

They also removed business discrimination.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace andby facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Itzena_sl · Apr 9, 2015

General Antony_sl said:
The issue is simple.

Most of you seem to believe that the majority has the right to threaten to stick a gun in your face and demand that you perform a service for someone through the force of law. Those of us who are still sane believe in the principles of liberty and that you can choose who you perform services for.

That is what this boils down to. I find those in the first group detestable human beings.

Gay people are a majority? What sort of groups do you socialise in?

AngryGerbil · Apr 9, 2015

Furry_sl said:
Lets use quantum entanglement as an example, since everyone here loves it so much. It's called a quantum choice experiment, because a particle is given two or more options and must choose one. Is this a conscious choice?

That isn't a choice at all, it is an outcome.

This device does not generate choices, it generates outcomes.

Drakurii · Apr 9, 2015

Florida House passes bill to let adoption agencies refuse gay couples on religious grounds | Fox News

The Florida House passed a bill Thursday to let private adoption agencies turn away gay couples based on religious and moral grounds. Conservatives sponsored the measure as a response to a bill that the House passed last month to take an unenforced gay adoption ban out of state law.

The 75-38 vote came after more than an hour of debate, with Republicans saying the measure was needed to protect religious rights.

Republican Rep. Jason Brodeur of Sanford said the measure wasn't about discrimination, and said gay couples would still have dozens of agencies - state agencies and those not faith-based, for example - that didn't object to gay adoptive parents.

Furry · Apr 9, 2015

AngryGerbil_sl said:
..

If you have 10 possibilities and choose one, the one you chose is the outcome. A particle has nearly an infinite number of states in QE until an observer forces it to choose one. So you are correct that it is an outcome, but the outcome doesn't exist until a choice is made.

Take your example of plinko. Where the puck is dropped is the choice. Where it ends up is the outcome.

hodj · Apr 9, 2015

Furry_sl said:
If you have 10 possibilities and choose one, the one you chose is the outcome. A particle has nearly an infinite number of states in QE until an observer forces it to choose one.

Can you please reread what you just stated about 100 times until you figure out where you contradicted yourself?

Because there's a very clear contradiction here, and I'm not sure you even realize you made it.

chaos · Apr 9, 2015

Maybe you should just drop the metaphor bs, because you either have no idea what entanglement is or you don't understand what "choice" means.

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Vox Populi Jihadi

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Vox Populi Jihadi

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Vox Populi Jihadi

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Vox Populi Jihadi

scientia potentia est

Trump's Staff

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Poet Warrior

Golden Baron of the Realm

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Vox Populi Jihadi

Buzzfeed Editor

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh