Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Trumps Temporary Travel Ban to be Decided by Supreme Court" video.

  1. Stupid. That isn't why it's outlawed. It's outlawed strictly on a religious moral basis.
    2
  2. Try making a sensible comment, Ryse.
    1
  3. Supreme court found it unconstitutional; this is what Styx was referring to. Setup? LOL. K. Great setup. A government can can discriminate however it wants, but under the current government, you retards, it doesn't and cannot, constitutionally, discriminate in the manner in question. Good setup.
    1
  4. Does it matter if it's merely political if they're using the issue? If the issue had no sway, they wouldn't be using it; so no, I don't think they are necessarily religious nuts, but they are using religious nuts to find the sway to their agenda, dumbshit. Which is the point. You wanna tell me about the sordid History of polygamy, because I haven't ever picked up a book on it- just know that basically there is no legal recourse against it that is sensible, and that there is no social dysfunction, mayhaps with the exception of within the family unit, and that as far as I can see, with any instance I've gathered, is only the case when the family are already dysfunctional. You could make the argument that they are dysfunctional because of the polygamous relationship, but they don't think so- maybe they were already screwed up to begin with...but here's the thing, shitheel; not all families turn out that way, so hence the onus is clearly not on the polygamy, but on the people engaged in it. People in "normal" marriages also turn out to be dysfunctional? Should we blame improper marriage vows, or something, moron? No.
    1
  5. "In context to OP, the gay marriage argument hinged on "because they love each other" which brings no value for secular reasoning" Wrong. There is your secular reasoning...they love each other. That is the premise in which people get married. They love each other and want to be wedded. That's as secular is you can get. "Civil Union" is a terrible non-argument- marriage is not simply a civil union, it is a sentimental ceremony and a matter of fiduciary concern. "You too are letting the religious argument cloud your judgement, but hopefully you'll overcome this deficiency someday." Your mental gymnastics are ineffective. "Again, the government has every right to subsidize production of things that will sustain its society." Doesn't mean jackshit. Doesn't mean that it SHOULD. "There are 2 major concerns in polygamy." Not an argument. The government has no role in stipulating what people can and cannot do when their actions harm no one. Individuals in society isn't the governments concern, only policy, and policy cannot be enacted based on an inconclusive premise, or at least it shouldn't be. Is there data to show that marriage in general creates familial problems and thus effects individuals in society? Yes. So stfu, because it still will not nor could ever be made illegal. Polygamy was outlawed purely on contentious religious rationale. Divorce rates skyrockets, families suffer, why isn't marriage outlawed? You still have not laid out a refutation, because I assume you have none. I rest my case.
    1
  6. Love is just a word. Courses on Religion aren't necessary, there is plenty of literature on the subject. "Yes it does; it's literally the role of government" Yeah, and people differ in opinion on what constitutes the sustaining of their society. Get fucked leech. "It very must is. Those 2 reasons do harm, or help, the people.... another fundamental missed, again." Still not an argument. The government has decided on a moral basis that polygamy is unreasonable. You can't refute that, so please, try to. The government should have no role in morality issues, as it's a secular institution. Fuck off now. I've got a sammich to eat. "Your statement logically should have lead to, "why isn't divorce outlawed?" You statement is saying divorce harms then suggests stopping marriage ( which doesn't harm ) is the solution.... wow. Thanks for the excellent chuckle on that one.... another fundamental missed by you." Wrong again hot shot. My statement should have led to "why isn't divorced outlawed"? No, idiot. It was a rhetorical statement, forgoing your logic, and in substitute, implementing my superior logic in order to prove your lackadaisical reasoning. My statement, obscure as it may be to you, leads to the logic that "divorce isn't outlawed, because the US government has no basis for instituting moral laws. This has been back in forth in LAW for decades now almost a century. You're a holdover from another age and you can't think straight. Go away now.
    1
  7. You've proven nothing, yet continue to tout like a headless chicken. You can't refute the fact that the nature of the government is decided not on a moral basis (what is best for the sustenance of society- a fiction, you fool)- but what is best for the state, and that is to say, the laws and practices of the culture therein the state- if not oppressed (as a rule of thumb); what you confuse this for is "society". You are conflating the two. There is no debate here, fucknugget.
    1
  8. Doesn't matter, as I've said, people decide what is their concern in policy (which you agree), and as i've stated, just because something is in law, doesn't mean it should be- a mere technicality does not change the fact that Trump's ban had no religious basis; just because Islam is both a governmental and religious organisation, matters not, because Trump is not banning anyone from any of those "religious nations" (you could say) for "religious reasons", but purely legitimate economic, and also security, reasons. Unfortunately, his rhetoric on the campaign trail hurt his cause, which anyone could have warned about (as I did, but who listens);-- look, go hump a Bible. Nobody cares about your polygamy red herring, and your equivocations. Gay marriage has no basis in anything, let alone any argument here, and is nothing but the pith of a temerent impetus to your religious notions. It is more than just a civil union, it's a legal union, and a business union, and it's also a concept that transcends your moral boundaries, because it is such, a concept, malleable, and freeforming in the eyes of the constitution.
    1
  9. "ok, what about the 8 years of the Obama administration?" What about it? What about George W. Bush? See what I did there?
    1
  10. "They love" is not merely the test...fool. It is the fact of them being legally enjoined, contractually no less, at the hip (if you will). Come with arguments, not this pithy disapprobation, this is getting old. No need to leave, either. I am remarking on your thread like a madman scrawling on the walls of your inner sanctum, and will continue to do so, for pleasure in seeing you squirm. But alas, it does bore that you capitulate and offer no arguments or refutations so easily. The people can be seen fit to be enjoined in marriage contractually, and legally, so as to give them the civic pursuit of family and happiness (or productivity, if you'd prefer; i'd prefer happiness be instated first as ordinance of the government in moral affairs.)...Which is what you keep postulating. A moral quandary.
    1
  11. We are talking about the United States, not 'multivariable geographic circumstances'. Homosexuality is not detrimental to the US. So what is your point? I'll tell you that plainly you have none. Sorry. Marriage a "religious argument". Hardly. It's not nearly a religious anything-- because it is a legal matter. Ought to arguments are fallacious reasoning. If you may needle me, then have at it, you're not making any point. This isn't a religious argument...it's a moral argument THAT YOU PROPOSED. You are simply unable to make point and thus keep circling the drain repeating your drivel. Gay marriage is "marriage" only in name, but it is still a fact that people will want to get married and they should be given that due process in the sense that they should not be impinged in their ability to "marry"- even morally- any moral argument is useless, given the actual constitutional rights they have been granted. They have equal rights. I'll see you in court. It's simply a matter of opinion we are arguing here because it is PLAINLY a moral one-- and I am not the instigator, but the interlocutor of this little excursion here.
    1
  12. Objective facts? @2:00--- He made a strawman out of some impertinent issue he had with insert timecode indicated, and Styx is right, it's a contractual agreement with the state that's all. Secular and morally ambiguous sans regarding their constitutional rights.
    1
  13. You two have failed in your attempt to elucidate any point. Keep trying to knock down strawmen, it's really effective.
    1
  14. It's a strawman if you're a dumbshit misrepresenting/assuming Styx's position and basing your dumbshit argument around that misrepresentation. The government denying any marriage contract based on moral impetus is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Hence, it's the aim of government institutions and those therein to avoid that.
    1
  15. "What he continually ignores is the fact Styx said the government can't discriminate on that basis, and Styx is wrong in that claim. They can, but they have chosen not to." So sans the strawman, you concede that Styx didn't make the claim you insisted he was making, because really he made no such claim, "they can't discriminate on that basis", that is to say, "legally"- but constitutionally, yes, and your claim is no? Well, prove it. Because although marriage isn't a right (looking at you Danny the Rehabitulated Lobotomitard), discrimination is clearly unconstitutional and you'd be looking at a civic rights violation in due course. STFU, you ingratiating hyena-mad lunatics. "Obviously separation of church and state was the premise, not "Lemon v. Kurtzman."" Tell that to Ri3m4nn, dumbshit. The original contention here, regardless, is whether there is a moral basis for the polygamy law, and of course there is...your dumbasses' just can't see the fact because you think the law speaks for itself. You're morons.
    1
  16. "moral impetus isn't different than religious creed" It's my moral impetus that the religious destroy themselves in the light of truth. Equivocation is hardly a decent refutation, dumbshit. "So he is focusing on the subject perspective of morality judgements against polygamy when my exact point is Not To focus on the religious argument...." Your argument was still specious. Styx never implied anything less than that the government over turned whatever ability there was to deny same-sex marriage. Which means that it doesn't fall under any religious purview, because that was the purview- that was previous granted- which was thusly struck down in 2015. Just stop. My contention is a different argument altogether. You want to focus on that, be my guest.
    1
  17. "Riemann did make that argument the first time. How are you this stupid?" And Styx made no claim regarding the verisimilitude of the argument, seeing as he made no such postulation or statement regarding it. He just said "supreme court said, yeah, people who are gay, they have the right to be married." Riemann is still wrong though. I mean, not about his general statement "The government has the right to subsidize production of things that will sustain its society", but just about anything having to do with the insinuation that you can discriminate against US citizens, constitutionally. Nothing to say about the moral argument, eh? Nice deflection. Nice dog and pony show, can I get off the ride now?
    1
  18. *Role
    1
  19. "So you deleted your comment to address a voice to text error. You really have nothing left." Alright there, buddy. LOL I've deleted no comment; maybe Riemann did. Which comment are you referring to?
    1
  20. Well, I didn't delete any comment. I've edited errors and reformed a passage to make it clearer, that was earlier. I've already clarified that the strawman was when you (Reimann) launched in to presuppose an argument Styx never made, so you could try and argue against him- it's really dumb of you to do so. I'm just here, playing interlocutor, to tell you that by what he said, at face value, was right, and to argue what you're arguing, well you'd have to take it up with the courts- and/or ask Styx to weigh in on his position, instead of just assuming it.
    1
  21. Speak for yourself. Styx also said, "you're talking about religious ceremonialism", which is what he was referring to by "that basis", that is to say, the basis by which you cannot marry (which was used as his example); ie, that you can't ban gay marriage (as per the example given) because you'd be violating the constitutional rights of those seeking to marry. Simple as that. Styx wasn't imprecise. Styx gave a damn good précis of the notion he wanted to touch on. You were imprecise in your presumptions. The strawman is in assuming an argument that hasn't be put forward by an opponent is an argument you can rationally win against, in a debate you set forth with, where the opponent is literally nowhere to be found, cause he made no refutation or claim. Even though Styx is still right in what he actually said (as opposed to what you're appoximating he said); and I made an off-hand comment about the moral reasoning behind the banning of polygamy...you denied...eventually even Danno agreed with me, when he said, quote, "MORAL IMPETUS IS RELIGION", end quote...but he's still conflating two entirely different terms, consequently beclowning himself, down the line, unforeseen by him in the time he made the O so ironic comment.
    1
  22. And now we're onto "racial discrimination". Yeah, affirmative action is something that, hey, you don't know my opinion about- but nevertheless, what a completely separate issue. Here is where you tell me that they are one and the same- flagrant retardedness. Keep regressing, i'm gonna just keep showing that you A: misapprehend Styx's words, and make positions for him for you to knock down (or try), and B: that you can't comprehend where government's purview ends and where it begins.
    1
  23. It's amusing how either of you think you've proven anything.
    1
  24. LOL
    1
  25. Not. LOL, A government is a government is a government. LOL; tantamount to nonargument with this circular "what a government CAN do" bullshit. A government CAN do anything that's under it's purview..it can be totalitarian and tyrannical. But no one was talking about such a government, only just the US government, which under it's constitution, you'd have to do some fancy gymnastics to repeal such decisions (as've already been discussed) and making anything stick. You shitheels no nothing of law-- what a pathetic argument...A government CAN do it! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
    1
  26. Jenn Gerard, would you please explain and beclown yourself to me.
    1
  27. Sure it's an argument. Now refute it. PS: Your analogy was bad. A car can't move on green? Well, congestion follows, and all because of a fear of someone going on red, right? Well, there are penalties for doing such things...there, fear alleviated. But it doesn't stop people from breaking the law. Same with any future president.
    1
  28. And you don't see anything wrong with that? There is legal precedent there, good sir. As you said, it was illegal to permit them without consent and a fucking goddamn vote...so what the fuck do you suggest, good sir?
    1
  29. Your justification doesn't make it right, ponder that, oh ye old gorm- and honestly, I can tell if it's red herring to try and encapsulate your ridiculous holdover ideals, if and only if you aren't addressing these ridiculous claims to Styx anymore, and are only addressing them to me; otherwise, it is simply a clever Strawman. Styx made the claim that it is a moral quandary and not a merely metaphysical one at that, instead of a logical quandary; and thus it's legalese and it's justification (this so-called ordinance) is bullshit on the face of it, because it is a moral quandary, instead of a more logical stepping stone into a more cohesive and stable society- and we have to see it to believe it, as stark-raving mad moral busy-bodies would have at any length within their grasp to obscure that fact, because of the facile and ill-conceived conclusions based on their fearful predilections, furthermore, of course, only based on MORAL QUANDARIES ie, 6% of people think smoking is bad enough to warrant it's illegality in public venues ect, and some people think less people in a society is morally wrong as it would weaken the state of the nation as a whole, which is bad because it's wrong. All moral implications, impinged on the masses by the few whom whine and project enough about their fear of destruction. Civilizations have survived big and small, and there is such a thing as NATURAL SELECTION, you know- maybe you should ponder that too. A nation where a sum few idiots doesn't get to decide to impinge of the rights of another minority on the basis that they are gay, (not a moral argument, by the by, but simply logical one, QED...), while the more gay society can be kept happy, the more production in the state, the greater the wealth expenditure (of course, in the hands of the people, including you idiots, sadly), and the greater the ability to produce off-spring. Do you know how many kids are fostered? STFU you stark raving mad idiot. I hate to tell to go away, but it's your idiocy that's astoundingly distasteful.
    1