At Home

You mean your idiotic point of how this is somehow totally different because it involves other people voting their opinions on other people? As in that's not how most other national moral questions are solved (with voting)?

You're an atheist good for you. Since you don't take the Bible seriously, there's nothing to argue here. But don't expect those religious nuts to take a guy with his own full capacity moral standards seriously either. And that's why both sides will continue to have problems. When the athiest backs his argument up with logic and facts, it's not the atheist's problem if the Christians can be reasonable. So after all this, you guys still get it wrong? This isn't a "logic and facts" argument. This is entirely a beliefs argument. Most, if not all, of your "logic and facts" are completely predicated on certain beliefs and assumptions regarding this debate.

Way to miss the point.

Coincidentally, all Hindus believe that Nachiketa really had a long discussion with Yama (the god of Death) and learned the secret to life from him! You can really be fucking stupid sometimes.

But that'll never happen, it'll crush their economy. Same goes for a lot of the Middle Eastern countries. As far as I know, their economies are too specialized in energy to even consider risking just cutting off supplies.

My favorite topic! Here we go. I don't buy the opinion that the Japanese wanted to surrender considering that they were training women and children to kill American with bamboo staffs. In short, a land invasion would've been like the strategy of island hopping (which, by definition required waves of men being sent to their death) only ten times more brutal. Someone would've had to have been decimated with a land invasion. Regarding the Red Army in Manchuria, don't forget that we asked them to be there. At Yalta, Roosevelt specifically requested that three months after the war ended (or the conference, I forget), the Red Army needed to be in Japan to secure victory if we hadn't already. This is why, after the decision was handed down to use atomic force, they absolutely rushed to drop the bombs as fast as they could: to prevent Russian excursion into Japan. Concurrently, along with preventing Russian excursion into Japan, a second benefit to atomic force was the ability to show the Russians our nuclear might and send a warning out that surely gave us some bargaining power in the beginning of the Cold War. Also, food for thought: the "unconditional surrender" thing came from WWI Germany. Some historians argued that in order to have successfully dealt with Germany, the winning powers needed to have crushed it completely, or done nothing at all. What ended up was something in the middle, leading to the mess of the Weimar Republic, and, long story short, Hitler. They didn't want easy treatment for Japan (even though they let them keep the Emperor) in case another Hitler propped up in Japan. Smit: I've read that before, and it's interesting, but it's by no means a case-closed kind of thing, just another dimension. Consider the Imperial army: all the crazy shit that happened in China, young, rogue officers invading Manchuria without any sort of approval, the island hopping strategy being predicated off of the belief that Americans were weak soldiers and wouldn't take the losses they did fighting up the islands of Japan. The Imperial Army was some serious shit.

Got a blowjob from a lesbian in a park, then hooked up with my sisters roommate while my sister was sleeping next door.

I'm pretty busy tonight and just wanted to come and check in here, but don't you think this is a little bit naive?

This is going to be a blowout, just exact revenge now.

I don't think that's what they're going for.

Golden

And it's also filled with lessons of love, and harmony. But I'm sure you know that you can pick or choose what you want in order to push whatever opinion you have. Taking those stories literally is also a choice.

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong." Is it okay to call their opinion "hateful," "bigoted," and "harmful to the progress of a happy, healthy society"? Or is that verboten, too? No, that's fine, but calling opinions wrong or right is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Just because you vote for a banning of gay marriage, does not mean you're forcing others to vote for it.

You're not talking about gay marriage anymore. You don't even recognize the fact that this isn't (primarily) a logical topic, and you certainly don't need logic to back up your opinion. The "problem" that you profess this to be is the name of the voting game. And yes, you do apply your personal opinions to other people when you vote, that's how it works.

EVERY TIME YOU GO VOTE, YOU APPLY YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

There doesn't need to be an argument! If people want to say, "I'm just uncomfortable with two men marrying," I don't need logic to understand their point of view. That's how some opinions work.

Details, Peter. It was on multiple occasions. One time I just punched her hand while it was up, finger went back, snap, one time was a soccer ball, one time was a door, and another time just me punching her. She's now a successful artist.

But a lot of that falls under the proviso of free trade and wanting people to buy American stuff. Had it not been for already-existing political influence, would that exist with the same fervor and prevalence as it would today?

The whole package. It's a pretty broad topic, I know, but we should discuss all the aspects and results of American influence around the globe, good and bad.

I've seen everything on the internet. Worst thing I've ever done? I broke a bunch of my sister's fingers, that's probably the worst.

And yet you use the tenets of libertarianism to form your own opinion! That's not different at all.

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong."

Yeah, it's a whole bunch of stupid bullshit. There's a chance, however, it'll be rendered unconstitutional in court like it was a few times. That's just what I've heard, but it seems like that wouldn't work considering that it's a constitutional amendment itself. It's complicated, but I don't think the existing marriages will be invalidated.