This place really is growing...

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:05 pm

First topic message reminder :

In numbers :D ...

May the debate and chat continue in a peaceful manner :D

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:00 pm

Catman wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:

I like how you can never stand up for your opinion and constantly have to resort to hiding behind the law in your country.

What?

The current laws reflect my opinions.

What he means is you can't turn to the law as though it were the absolute beacon of righteousness- the law once outlawed 'us' for instance, and people arguing against gay rights would have said 'well the law agrees with me'.

I agree with you much of the time on gay rights catman but our argument is strong enough without simply referring to the law as our back up.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:01 pm

Thanks, Eilzel.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:01 pm

Actually, since you're here, when did you say you were returning to Taiwan?

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:03 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:Actually, since you're here, when did you say you were returning to Taiwan?

Haha, think I've mentioned a few times now it's Thailand (my dad makes the same mistake all the time, to be fair it's far less understandable from him haha) Wink

May; May 25th to be exact- I'm counting down the days Smile

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:07 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

What?

The current laws reflect my opinions.

What he means is you can't turn to the law as though it were the absolute beacon of righteousness- the law once outlawed 'us' for instance, and people arguing against gay rights would have said 'well the law agrees with me'.

I agree with you much of the time on gay rights catman but our argument is strong enough without simply referring to the law as our back up.

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:07 pm

Eilzel wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:Actually, since you're here, when did you say you were returning to Taiwan?

Haha, think I've mentioned a few times now it's Thailand (my dad makes the same mistake all the time, to be fair it's far less understandable from him haha)

May; May 25th to be exact- I'm counting down the days

Cool.
You should take more photos.
The ones from last time were nice.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:15 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

What he means is you can't turn to the law as though it were the absolute beacon of righteousness- the law once outlawed 'us' for instance, and people arguing against gay rights would have said 'well the law agrees with me'.

I agree with you much of the time on gay rights catman but our argument is strong enough without simply referring to the law as our back up.

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

Because the law isn't an absolute and referring to it is nothing more than a lazy cop-out by someone who can't defend their opinion.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:15 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

What he means is you can't turn to the law as though it were the absolute beacon of righteousness- the law once outlawed 'us' for instance, and people arguing against gay rights would have said 'well the law agrees with me'.

I agree with you much of the time on gay rights catman but our argument is strong enough without simply referring to the law as our back up.

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

So, imagine if possible, that you are a gay rights activist in 1966, a year before the decriminalization of homosexuality. Some old bigot you are arguing with says that it goes against human decency to allow such things as sex between two men, and the LAW AGREES with him- would that have been a credible and valid argument at the time?

^of course Tea, plenty will be forthcoming, planning a trip to Japan in the next 12 months too which will be nice additions to the collection Smile

Hope all is well with you btw Smile

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:19 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

So, imagine if possible, that you are a gay rights activist in 1966, a year before the decriminalization of homosexuality. Some old bigot you are arguing with says that it goes against human decency to allow such things as sex between two men, and the LAW AGREES with him- would that have been a credible and valid argument at the time?

^of course Tea, plenty will be forthcoming, planning a trip to Japan in the next 12 months too which will be nice additions to the collection :)Hope all is well with you btw :)

Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Which part of Japan?

Also, yeah, shit's fine on this end, doing my best to not make a balls of college lol

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:26 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

So, imagine if possible, that you are a gay rights activist in 1966, a year before the decriminalization of homosexuality. Some old bigot you are arguing with says that it goes against human decency to allow such things as sex between two men, and the LAW AGREES with him- would that have been a credible and valid argument at the time?

^of course Tea, plenty will be forthcoming, planning a trip to Japan in the next 12 months too which will be nice additions to the collection :)Hope all is well with you btw

Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Which part of Japan?

Also, yeah, shit's fine on this end, doing my best to not make a balls of college lol

Good luck with that then, what subjects you doing?

Going to Tokyo, my BF has a friend who lives in Japan and is based in Tokyo- so will see the sites round there, Edo Castle and all the big gaming stories in the city, and want to go up Fuji too Smile

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

So, imagine if possible, that you are a gay rights activist in 1966, a year before the decriminalization of homosexuality. Some old bigot you are arguing with says that it goes against human decency to allow such things as sex between two men, and the LAW AGREES with him- would that have been a credible and valid argument at the time?

^of course Tea, plenty will be forthcoming, planning a trip to Japan in the next 12 months too which will be nice additions to the collection :)Hope all is well with you btw

Well, the law agreed with him at the time...The law was unjust and was fought against and then changed over time. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:28 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Catman wrote:

I can't see any problem in referring to the law of the land as a back up to an argument tbf.

Because the law isn't an absolute and referring to it is nothing more than a lazy cop-out by someone who can't defend their opinion.

That's your opinion, which is wrong imo.

by captain Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:28 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Yeah, I blame the admins for letting everyone and their grandmother sign up.

Who are you calling a Granny. Razz

Hello to anyone I have not connected with. Smile

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

So, imagine if possible, that you are a gay rights activist in 1966, a year before the decriminalization of homosexuality. Some old bigot you are arguing with says that it goes against human decency to allow such things as sex between two men, and the LAW AGREES with him- would that have been a credible and valid argument at the time?

^of course Tea, plenty will be forthcoming, planning a trip to Japan in the next 12 months too which will be nice additions to the collection :)Hope all is well with you btw

Well, the law agreed with him at the time...The law was unjust and was fought against and then changed over time.

So the law then is only there at the will of the consensus- then just throwing it at someone as though it makes your argument more solid and more 'right' is pretty fallacious. I appreciate the law is now on our side, as it should be. But to someone defending free speech as the pinnacle of civilization; you claiming the 'law' is against them wont wash, the same as it wouldn't have done for you and me in 1966- if the law does ban people from saying certain things then they will simply argue the law is wrong; as it was once for us.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:37 pm

Catman wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:

Because the law isn't an absolute and referring to it is nothing more than a lazy cop-out by someone who can't defend their opinion.

That's your opinion, which is wrong imo.

You should play this game:

This place really is growing... - Page 2 Fo_splash

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:38 pm

captainJane wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Yeah, I blame the admins for letting everyone and their grandmother sign up.

Who are you calling a Granny.

Hello to anyone I have not connected with.

Hello cap'n! Nice to see you around here more lately.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:38 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

Well, the law agreed with him at the time...The law was unjust and was fought against and then changed over time.

So the law then is only there at the will of the consensus- then just throwing it at someone as though it makes your argument more solid and more 'right' is pretty fallacious. I appreciate the law is now on our side, as it should be. But to someone defending free speech as the pinnacle of civilization; you claiming the 'law' is against them wont wash, the same as it wouldn't have done for you and me in 1966- if the law does ban people from saying certain things then they will simply argue the law is wrong; as it was once for us.

...It won't wash with you!...Couldn't really give a stuff tbh :D

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:39 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Catman wrote:

That's your opinion, which is wrong imo.
You should play this game:

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

Not into cartoons or games thanks! :D

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:42 pm

Catman wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:
You should play this game:

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

Not into cartoons or games thanks! :D

The game seems appropriate to your level of understanding though.
Only trying to lend you a hand.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:42 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

So the law then is only there at the will of the consensus- then just throwing it at someone as though it makes your argument more solid and more 'right' is pretty fallacious. I appreciate the law is now on our side, as it should be. But to someone defending free speech as the pinnacle of civilization; you claiming the 'law' is against them wont wash, the same as it wouldn't have done for you and me in 1966- if the law does ban people from saying certain things then they will simply argue the law is wrong; as it was once for us.

...It won't wash with you!...Couldn't really give a stuff tbh :D

Bit slow there catman; it wont wash WITH THEM, ie: the person you would be arguing with- backing your argument with the law is as much a waste of time as them using the law in 1966. It means nothing- it just means you are so incapable of backing your opinion with sound logic and reasoning you just resort to 'the cops are on my side'- presumably you would tell a gay Russian, complaining they can't speak about gay rights in school, that they are wrong cause the Kremlin says so Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:47 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

...It won't wash with you!...Couldn't really give a stuff tbh :D

Bit slow there catman; it wont wash WITH THEM, ie: the person you would be arguing with- backing your argument with the law is as much a waste of time as them using the law in 1966. It means nothing- it just means you are so incapable of backing your opinion with sound logic and reasoning you just resort to 'the cops are on my side'- presumably you would tell a gay Russian, complaining they can't speak about gay rights in school, that they are wrong cause the Kremlin says so

People need to get out there, and try to change laws that they don't agree with, try to get some experience of doing that. :D

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:48 pm

I like how you're trying to devalue what Lez is saying because he isn't "a great martyr for the gay rights movement" like you see yourself as.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:50 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Bit slow there catman; it wont wash WITH THEM, ie: the person you would be arguing with- backing your argument with the law is as much a waste of time as them using the law in 1966. It means nothing- it just means you are so incapable of backing your opinion with sound logic and reasoning you just resort to 'the cops are on my side'- presumably you would tell a gay Russian, complaining they can't speak about gay rights in school, that they are wrong cause the Kremlin says so

People need to get out there, and try to change laws that they don't agree with, try to get some experience of doing that. :D

What has that got to do with what I just said? I agree with the law as it stands.

So would you prefer every Right Winger who thinks free speech is being suppressed go out on the streets and force a change in the law? Do you just want conflict with people?

So how about that gay Russian? Are they wrong cause the law says so?

(Btw I totally got your vindictive little slur there. Thankfully I am able to enjoy life, and don't look for conflict where there is none, now why not stick to debate instead of trying to throw spiteful comments out eh phil?)

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:50 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:I like how you're trying to devalue what Lez is saying because he isn't "a great martyr for the gay rights movement" like you see yourself as.

I'll leave you to get on with your tag teaming, and i hope that you've changed your views of transexuals.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:51 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:I like how you're trying to devalue what Lez is saying because he isn't "a great martyr for the gay rights movement" like you see yourself as.

Exactly Tea. phil seems terminally bitter toward younger gay people because they have it 'easier' in his mind- shame, he should be happy for that fact...

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:53 pm

Catman wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:I like how you're trying to devalue what Lez is saying because he isn't "a great martyr for the gay rights movement" like you see yourself as.

I'll leave you to get on with your tag teaming, and i hope that you've changed your views of transexuals.

What?! Multiple people dissagree with me?! They must be conspiring against me!!!!

That's how you sound.

And yes, I have, couldn't care less what people want to wear. I believe in personal freedom and the pursuit of personal happiness.
Enjoy cross-dressing? Go for it.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:54 pm

Eilzel wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:I like how you're trying to devalue what Lez is saying because he isn't "a great martyr for the gay rights movement" like you see yourself as.

Exactly Tea. phil seems terminally bitter toward younger gay people because they have it 'easier' in his mind- shame, he should be happy for that fact...

Phil seems bitter in general to be honest.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:00 pm

Cry me a fucking river!

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:01 pm

Catman wrote:Cry me a fucking river!

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Fucking rich coming from the one constantly crying over people using words he doesn't like.

You have absolutely no self-awareness, do you?

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:04 pm

Catman wrote:Cry me a fucking river!

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:09 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:Cry me a fucking river!

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Posts up to 80, getting there! Laughing

....Glad to see that you are spending less time on certain other forums, and logged on here more! cheers

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:10 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Posts up to 80, getting there! ....Glad to see that you are spending less time on certain other forums, and logged on here more!

I'm losing the argument!
Better try to masterfully and subtly change the subject.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:11 pm

Also I like how you're implying that post count matters.
Oh wait, you're the type of person who actually think the reputation matters too, aren't you?
Comedy fucking gold.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:11 pm

Fellas?

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:13 pm

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Posts up to 80, getting there! ....Glad to see that you are spending less time on certain other forums, and logged on here more!

Oh aye, the old post count, right up there with my current goals in life pmsl lol!

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:14 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fellas?

How do Ben Smile

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:14 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Catman wrote:

Posts up to 80, getting there! ....Glad to see that you are spending less time on certain other forums, and logged on here more!

Oh aye, the old post count, right up there with my current goals in life pmsl

But, Lez! Don't you know?
Your opinion only matters if you have a high post count!

by captain Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:25 pm

"Your opinion only matters if you have a high post count!"

Really?

I thought I had posted in here already. Oh well, i will find my post tomorrow. Good night all and it is really good seeing this place so busy. I sure have a lot of catching up to do.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:25 pm

captainJane wrote:"Your opinion only matters if you have a high post count!"

Really?

I was being sarcastic.
Christ.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:27 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Oh aye, the old post count, right up there with my current goals in life pmsl

But, Lez! Don't you know?
Your opinion only matters if you have a high post count!

Haha, those that shout the most....

Funny thing is phil used to agree with me on most things; until I disagreed with him- bless him lol!

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:29 pm

Folks, if this thread doesn't evolve from personal squabbling I'm shutting it down.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:

But, Lez! Don't you know?
Your opinion only matters if you have a high post count!

Haha, those that shout the most....

Funny thing is phil used to agree with me on most things; until I disagreed with him- bless him

He really can't stand anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him.
It's fucking sad.

by Eilzel Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:42 pm

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Haha, those that shout the most....

Funny thing is phil used to agree with me on most things; until I disagreed with him- bless him

He really can't stand anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him.
It's fucking sad.

It is. But I'll leave it there- enough said I think- apologies Ben, some people bring out the worst Neutral

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:58 pm

Eilzel wrote:
краљица од Хартс wrote:

He really can't stand anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him.
It's fucking sad.

It is. But I'll leave it there- enough said I think- apologies Ben, some people bring out the worst

Why don't you post a news story/debate on any kind of subject, posting stuff like that keeps forums running! Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:04 am

Catman wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

It is. But I'll leave it there- enough said I think- apologies Ben, some people bring out the worst

Why don't you post a news story/debate on any kind of subject, posting stuff like that keeps forums running!

I like how you've completely fucking lost but still feel the need to respond so you post irrelevant inane shit.

by Guest Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:11 am

краљица од Хартс wrote:
Catman wrote:

Why don't you post a news story/debate on any kind of subject, posting stuff like that keeps forums running!

I like how you've completely fucking lost but still feel the need to respond so you post irrelevant inane shit.

...Point me towards the last thread that you posted, point me in the direction, where anything that you had to say led to any kind of discussion at all...

by Guest Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:12 am

...Apart from this thread of course, and your agenda's from another forum!

LMFAO!!!!

by Sponsored content