SiouxChef comments

Seriously, who need facts when you have talking points? Amiright, guys?

Dhimmi...check.

Victory Mosque...check

Two blocks is too close...check

It's about respect, not the law...check

yes, because that then reads to me that male is the head, and joining with a woman makes marriage.

Or you just couldn't bother to refer to the OED and the link I provided that breaks down the Latin. You don't get to make up the origins or meanings of any word. But again, to do so (and assign importance to it) is to argue from antiquity and is logically fallacious.

The point is that arguing over semantics is an intentional distraction from the real issue; it's not about a word and those who insist that it is are in deep denial.

Dubya,

The word marriage implies maternity (and paternity, I assume).

You know what they say about what happens when you assume.

The word is derived from marītus which comes from mās which is "male"

I'm curious. Do you still find the etymology relevant? Do you still think "same-sex marriage" is an "oxymoran"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maritus#Etymology

Judge Vaughn Walker (who is gay) struck down California’s VOTER-APPROVED gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

A majority opinion doesn't mean it's just. Fortunately, that's just not how our government works.

And pointing out how many people haven't supported gay marriage throughout history or in California isn't an argument--it's logical fallacy sandwich (argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad antiquitatem).

the rising increase of HIV in Japan (the fastest for developed nations-check me on that).

If you're going to make a claim like that, the onus really is on you to provide a reference. A cursory glance suggests you have an unreliable source or made it up: http://tinyurl.com/2aeoz8e

Sarge,

Whatever happened to majority rules?

Majority has never ruled; this isn't about deciding where to go for dinner. Unconstitutional laws are just that.

I wish we had a mechanism in place that could boot out presidents and lawmakers when the majority gets it wrong, like in the past election, heh heh.

We do have it. See the Constitution you disparage when you don't like the outcome of judicial review (which exists to protect you).

Are you unable to read? I already said that if men want to live together and have sex, or if women want to live together and have sex, be my guest. But it's not marriage, one of the great institutions of this still great but rapidly deteriorating country.

Why do you keep bringing up sex? No one is asking for your permission to live together and have sex. In fact, no one is asking for your permission for anything; you don't get to decide. Did you even see the ruling?

So, do you have any rational basis for discriminating against homosexual couples? Marriage "[is] a great institution of this still great . . . country" isn't logical. It doesn't even make sense.

Is it rising? Reference?

Sarge,

Sushi, it is in California only because a liberal judge ruled against the majority of the voters. Amazing, huh?

I agree. Since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been amazing. It's great to have a mechanism in place that can strike down laws when the majority gets it wrong.

So, you've presented a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) in support of your position (and your apparent disdain for our Constitution and its balance of powers is noted).

Do you have any rational basis for discrimination against gay couples?

He pulled me into his office . . . to inform me that my blonde highlights were unacceptable in the Japanese workplaces to which I was sometimes dispatched.

Perhaps he was too polite to say that blonde highlights look ridiculous on men over thirty?

AlfGarnett,

The disgysting excuse for a woman should be locked up and her hair shaved.

I find misogynistic comments like these to be 'pure filth'.

If your OAP shtick is real, it's time to come to terms with your antiquated beliefs being, well, just that.

Sideshow Bob.

calories in < calories out = weight loss

There is no magic potion.

I agree. I had my sweet tats done in a listed country mansion overlooking an authentic 18th century lawn.

LOL! That certainly sounds like a tasteful manor!

Yep, thats its official latin name Sioux. Mr. Attenborough renamed it for TV audiences to the less offensive Titan Arum.

What I meant was does the prefix mean "deformed" or "in the shape of"?

But I guess either would apply.

"Amorphophallus" = "deformed" phallus or "being in the shape" of a phallus?

Latin experts?

Something tells me Ms. Jardine comes from a different social circle then the average JT reader....

Yeah. I bet she even pronounces it Targét.

Nobody, apart from certain JT posters, talks about her anymore.

Is that why only small, obscure companies like Coca Cola want her for advertising?

my2sense at 11:47 AM JST - 20th July

Wow its Monday 1145 AM here..... how did that happen "afternoon"?

Because it happened on Monday afternoon.

Today is Tuesday.

OkiTaro

There are many religions, and we have different names for the same God or Supreme Being we believe in, but there is only one God.

Is this the common argument against the reality that not all religions can be correct (to plead that everyone is actually worshipping the same deity)?

If so, not only is there nothing to support such a statement, it cannot be correct. Not all religions are monotheistic so the claim must be false.

Or were you just saying that your god is the only god?

I once knew a Shibainu who would do a handstand (pawstand?) straight up to do this business.

Back paws, I hope.

I've been looking for one of these for months!

Finally!

"can you tell me which religion promotes drinking wine and wearing skimpy clothes? Do you think it is a RELIGIOUS observance?"

It is irrelevant whether or not these practices are religious.

This kind of special pleading is the problem. Irrational beliefs shouldn't be rewarded with special concessions and certainly not simply because they're irrational.

What about the people that did murder...? We shouldn't worry about thier rights.

You're just dodging the question. How can you expect anyone to take your position seriously if you're unwilling to address all aspects of the issue?

What about people who didn't murder but are still sentenced to death?

No, what I'm saying is that because we have over crowded prisons, we should get rid of the hard core criminals. We need to stop being convict lovers and worrying about thier rights. When they murdered, they lost thier rights to live amongst us.

This argument is invalid; the premise that the death penalty solves overcrowding is false.

What about the people who didn't murder but are still sentenced to death . . . ? We needn't worry about their rights?

bdiego,

SiouxChief, he tried to murder three people. Two he succeeded, and the other one was while he was in prison after being convicted. It was my mistake to think he actually murdered the other man, but it doesn't really change the fact that he should never have been let out after attempted murder. He murdered two people after that.

You still don't have the facts right. He didn't try to murder three people. He was never let out of prison nor was he ever convicted of attempted murder before killing Otterstrom or Burdell. He escaped from a hospital while serving a sentence for robbery, killed Otterstrom and then Burdell while on trial for the Otterstrom murder.

There is certainly something to be said about the incompetence of the officials both in the hospital where he escaped and in the courthouse where he came into possession of a firearm and was able to kill the attorney (he was also able to climb a wall and escape once before the hospital escape). However, that "something" isn't that a death sentence would have prevented either of the other murders as robbery isn't a capital crime in Utah (or any state, for that matter).

bdiego,

It is worth noting that your first attempt at an "indisputable" argument doesn’t even get the facts in the story straight:

In this case, the killer murdered even though he was in prison.

Wrong. In this case, the killer murdered while on trial for another murder.

It's just an extreme example of the innocent people murdered by the lack of a death penalty. That's indisputable. The debate is where you balance the two.

No, it’s an example of you misunderstanding the sequence of events. Your argument is apparently that the lack of a death sentence in a trial which hadn’t even convicted him yet led to the attorney’s death during the same unfinished trial. What’s indisputable is that one event cannot cause another if it didn’t happen first.

False premises can only lead to incorrect conclusions.

bdiego,

You can tell who they are by their ridiculous logic and name calling in discussions like these.

Care to point out some of this "ridiculous" logic? Or how about positing some of your own?

Do try to avoid fallacious logic like this straw man you’re furiously swinging at now:

Of course, there will always be plenty of people who blindly support more murder of innocent people by convicted murderers.

Gurukun,

How does it not solve over crowding? 1,000,000 inmates, minus one, equals 999,999. Simple math.

If you really think one executed inmate (or 1,0000 for that matter) “solves” overcrowding, then your solution is also simple (though not in the same way as the math).

If only California had the death penalty, they wouldn’t currently be appealing a federal ruling that ordered a reduction in the state's prison population by 40,000 inmates because the overcrowding was found to be in violation of the Eight Amendment*.

Oh . . . this just in . . . they do have the death penalty. Back to the drawing board.

*http://tinyurl.com/29ga2mn

And also, please stop saying that my ( and I think I'm speaking for Sarge too) thinking is wrong, unacceptable or whatever you may think. I respect your opinions, respect mine (ours). Don't try to change my thinking on a message board. It wont happen.

That's kind of what logical debate is, Gurukun: an attempt to change someone's opinion with sound reasoning. However, I'm afraid I haven't seen any from your side.

What's wrong with wasting somebody. Obviously he/she did something to get the death penalty, right?

This is a circular argument; 'he deserves the death penalty because he was awarded the death penalty'.

Solves the problem of prison over crowding. Solves the problem of world over crowding. Saves the problem of wasting my tax dollars to have the worst of the worst being given room and a hot meal three times a day.

False. None of these 'problems' are solved by the death penalty.

that's because capital punishment isn't across the board, nor is it a daily occurrance. Speed up the occurances and publisize it, and I guarantee you that crime will go down. But in the mean time, yes, it hasn't curtailed crime, but it took those people out of society didn't it?

You've contradicted your own argument here. And the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime because people don't plan on being caught. How does lessening time spent on death row address this fact?

Furthermore, people deserve respect. Sound logic deserves respect. No opinion deserves any amount of respect.

LFRAgain,

Thanks for the link (the first one worked--I just overlooked it before I posted).

If this is the American study she's referring to, it reinforces my original hunch.

This study points to an inverse correlation between the prevalence of porn and sexual assaults. However, the Professor of Manga's conclusion that sexual images of minors shouldn't be restricted in manga doesn't follow the premise that there was an inverse correlation between sexual assaults and prevalence of porn (even if minors were depicted in some of it).