OT Why Never Trumpers Should Bet on DeSantis Now

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
ABM said:
That is unless it's brother/brother or sister/sister.

Right?
Click to expand...
If they want to fight for that right I'm all for them living however they want. As long as it's not hurting anybody else I'm good with it.
 
It seems to me that Christians would have to be ok with incest since Adam and Eve created everyone. I mean it’s in the Bible and Christians follow it word for word.

Well not exactly word for word. I see many wearing different fabrics together. I’ve seen great gardens of Christians that have different plants planted side by side. I’ve seen them with their golden doodles. I’ve seen them work on Sunday. Those things in Exodus seem ok
 
ABM said:
That's what I thought.
Click to expand...
Of course. It's not hurting anybody else. Why would anybody worry about something like that?

You're talking about a scenario so remote that it may never have happened. And wouldn't harm anybody even if it did.

And you're wanting to base a law on that logic?

Insane.

Maybe we should make a law preventing people from picking other people's noses while we're at it.
 
It’s such a rhetorical trap, the whole incest rights horseshit because it paints the person supporting gay rights as a weirdo who’s okay with incest. Classic maneuver by purity-oriented bigots to frame the argument in a way that, to them, nullifies your arguments because of who you have now revealed yourself to be. Remember, purity bigots don’t care about the right or wrong of actions, only of people’s purity: the good can oppress and hurt and murder as long as it’s righteous. So all their arguments are about painting their opponent as unrighteous. Don’t fall for it.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Of course. It's not hurting anybody else. Why would anybody worry about something like that?

You're talking about a scenario so remote that it may never have happened. And wouldn't harm anybody even if it did.

And you're wanting to base a law on that logic?

Insane.

Maybe we should make a law preventing people from picking other people's noses while we're at it.
Click to expand...

There's a meme out there that goes Republicans want to change things because it *might* benefit 1 out of 1000 people but not them and they hate the idea of themselves suffering....and Democrats want to make laws that benefits as many of the 1000 people as possible because they feel bad about someone else suffering even if they themselves arent.
 
Everything Beagle said:
It’s such a rhetorical trap, the whole incest rights horseshit because it paints the person supporting gay rights as a weirdo who’s okay with incest. Classic maneuver by purity-oriented bigots to frame the argument in a way that, to them, nullifies your arguments because of who you have now revealed yourself to be. Remember, purity bigots don’t care about the right or wrong of actions, only of people’s purity: the good can oppress and hurt and murder as long as it’s righteous. So all their arguments are about painting their opponent as unrighteous. Don’t fall for it.
Click to expand...

It so easy to discount what they say when you realize theyre full of shit, hypocrites and projecting a lot of their own insecurities.

The problem is these people vote and create laws.
 
Everything Beagle said:
It’s such a rhetorical trap, the whole incest rights horseshit because it paints the person supporting gay rights as a weirdo who’s okay with incest. Classic maneuver by purity-oriented bigots to frame the argument in a way that, to them, nullifies your arguments because of who you have now revealed yourself to be. Remember, purity bigots don’t care about the right or wrong of actions, only of people’s purity: the good can oppress and hurt and murder as long as it’s righteous. So all their arguments are about painting their opponent as unrighteous. Don’t fall for it.
Click to expand...
Making or supporting limiting the rights of others based solely on fear and doubts is Evil with a capital 'E'.
 
Everything Beagle said:
It’s such a rhetorical trap, the whole incest rights horseshit because it paints the person supporting gay rights as a weirdo who’s okay with incest. Classic maneuver by purity-oriented bigots to frame the argument in a way that, to them, nullifies your arguments because of who you have now revealed yourself to be. Remember, purity bigots don’t care about the right or wrong of actions, only of people’s purity: the good can oppress and hurt and murder as long as it’s righteous. So all their arguments are about painting their opponent as unrighteous. Don’t fall for it.
Click to expand...
This girl gets it.
 
It's like asking "have you stop beating your wife" fallacy.

Their simple brains can't comprehend why it is their "gotcha" point is anything and everything but a "gotcha" point.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Making or supporting limiting the rights of others based solely on fear and doubts is Evil with a capital 'E'.
Click to expand...
100% agree. I’m only saying the intent of the argument is to discredit the other side in the eyes of onlookers who might be on the fence. In this way it’s not a gotcha technique but an “associate the opponent with something icky” technique. No need to use logic when you can appeal to emotions.
 

A reminder that perviously they’ve (a) called all democrats child groomers, and (b) literally enshrined into law that queer people commit child sexual abuse by being queer in public, and (c) have reduced the requirement for the death penalty to an 8-4 jury.
 
Everything Beagle said:

A reminder that perviously they’ve (a) called all democrats child groomers, and (b) literally enshrined into law that queer people commit child sexual abuse by being queer in public, and (c) have reduced the requirement for the death penalty to an 8-4 jury.
Click to expand...


The weird thing is, changing this law only really effects straight men (who aren't A: trans or B: cross dressing or C: gay/homosexual)...so it's not the pwn they think it is.
 
julius said:
The weird thing is, changing this law only really effects straight men (who aren't A: trans or B: cross dressing or C: gay/homosexual)...so it's not the pwn they think it is.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand this… Is it a joke about straight men being the most likely to abuse children?
 
Phatguysrule said:
Of course. It's not hurting anybody else. Why would anybody worry about something like that?

You're talking about a scenario so remote that it may never have happened. And wouldn't harm anybody even if it did.

And you're wanting to base a law on that logic?

Insane.

Maybe we should make a law preventing people from picking other people's noses while we're at it.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, so many other scenarios are coming to pass, why not eventually that one? What seemed crazy yesterday, isn't so crazy today. What seems crazy today, may not seem so crazy tomorrow.
 
ABM said:
What I'm saying is, so many other scenarios are coming to pass, why not eventually that one? What seemed crazy yesterday, isn't so crazy today. What seems crazy today, may not seem so crazy tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I think what you meant to say was "what we could be bigoted about yesterday, we can't be bigoted about today. So whats to stop this totally unrelated scenario that has happened maybe 3 times in record history, from actually happening? I mean, first the gheys have rights, and the next thing you know, we'll have people marrying animals and child brides! Oh wait, that's already happening. And the like"
 
julius said:
I think what you meant to say was "what we could be bigoted about yesterday, we can't be bigoted about today. So whats to stop this totally unrelated scenario that has happened maybe 3 times in record history, from actually happening? I mean, first the gheys have rights, and the next thing you know, we'll have people marrying animals and child brides! Oh wait, that's already happening. And the like"
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect. As per usual.
 
Everything Beagle said:
I don’t understand this… Is it a joke about straight men being the most likely to abuse children?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a joke, per-say, as much as it was pointing out that they are like "LEts KILl THe CHILd MolESters! THey'rE All QueEr AnyWays!" without realizing that the overwhelming vast majority of them are straight men. So while they're secretly trying to make it so they are justified in trying to kill the G and T out there (because they seem to think that is the group that does it), they don't realize this law would just going to be killing a lot their own.

poorly worded though. (even my explanation is poorly worded)
 
julius said:
It wasn't a joke, per-say, as much as it was pointing out that they are like "LEts KILl THe CHILd MolESters! THey'rE All QueEr AnyWays!" without realizing that the overwhelming vast majority of them are straight men. So while they're secretly trying to make it so they are justified in trying to kill the G and T out there (because they seem to think that is the group that does it), they don't realize this law would just going to be killing a lot their own.

poorly worded though. (even my explanation is poorly worded)
Click to expand...

Whites and people of color smoke weed and get pulled over at the same rate, so why do people of color get arrested for weed 4x as often?

This is the cruel beauty of Republican law: when the police force is on your side, when the judges are on your side, when the jurors are on your side… any law becomes selectively enforced. They won’t condemn white straight men to death at any rate comparable to queer people and people of color.
 
Also that slippery slope “so much is already happening so why not this?” moral panic horseshit gives me nostalgia for when they used to say gay marriage would cause bestiality. Now apparently it’s gay marriage and incest? A more focused approach, but just new lipstick on the same pig.
 
Everything Beagle said:
Also that slippery slope “so much is already happening so why not this?” moral panic horseshit gives me nostalgia for when they used to say gay marriage would cause bestiality. Now apparently it’s gay marriage and incest? A more focused approach, but just new lipstick on the same pig.
Click to expand...
Better be a female pig putting on that lipstick, or it's the death penalty for him!
 
ABM said:
What I'm saying is, so many other scenarios are coming to pass, why not eventually that one? What seemed crazy yesterday, isn't so crazy today. What seems crazy today, may not seem so crazy tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Does it hurt somebody else or negativity impact society in a tangible way? If so, I'll consider a law discouraging it.

If it doesn't then I probably won't.

Pretty simple.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Does it hurt somebody else or negativity impact society in a tangible way? If so, I'll consider a law discouraging it.

If it doesn't then I probably won't.

Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Basically speaking, that's Progressive as a whole.

I was s
imply saying that, currently, incest (in any form) is socially taboo. It wouldn't surprise me, though, that, eventually (years), it will become legal, and the Progressives such as yourself will heartily embrace - and fully support it in any way. As Bruce Hornsby crooned (in an entirely different context), "That's just the way it is."
 
ABM said:
Basically speaking, that's Progressive as a whole.

I was s
imply saying that, currently, incest (in any form) is socially taboo. It wouldn't surprise me, though, that, eventually (years), it will become legal, and the Progressives such as yourself will heartily embrace - and fully support it in any way. As Bruce Hornsby crooned (in an entirely different context), "That's just the way it is."
Click to expand...

Don’t worry you’ll be dead by then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top