A Nonny Moose Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 This was spotted at a rally against Prop 8 in Florida and it sums up the entire debate: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic George Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 You're not one of those elbow macaroni heretics are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dies Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 You're not one of those elbow macaroni heretics are you? lol. If that's the best argument then they might as well forget about the whole thing. :censored2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartoon22 Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 If that's the best argument then they might as well forget about the whole thing. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp3228 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I have one. Your rights are inaliable, not given by government. Read the declaration of Independence. Thats a good start. Instead of prancing around in high-heels spilling hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieSosa Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Can anyone believe Prop 8 passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Yes, because whether or not it was right, moral, or nice, a few judges deciding that {censored} marriage would be legal did NOT reflect the will of California residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGJulius Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Yes, because whether or not it was right, moral, or nice, a few judges deciding that {censored} marriage would be legal did NOT reflect the will of California residents. Thats one of the great things about California. If they have a law that the common citizen does not like, they have the power to remove it in elections. Wish other states had this process..it got Davis out XD. MGJulius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Yes, because whether or not it was right, moral, or nice, a few judges deciding that {censored} marriage would be legal did NOT reflect the will of California residents. neither do the people from Utah who provided the majority of funding for yes on prop 8, I've lived here in CA for almost 30 years and noticed no difference whatsoever before/after {censored} marriage was legal, I can't say I've even seen a {censored} married couple, most of yes on 8 ads seemed to be fear mongering and I doubt that reflects the "will of California residents", letting {censored} marry hurts no one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 neither do the people from Utah who provided the majority of funding for yes on prop 8, I've lived here in CA for almost 30 years and noticed no difference whatsoever before/after {censored} marriage was legal, I can't say I've even seen a {censored} married couple, most of yes on 8 ads seemed to be fear mongering and I doubt that reflects the "will of California residents", letting {censored} marry hurts no one And people from all over came to protest Prop 8, including funding from many companies like Apple. What's your point? Both sides had people from all over the country there to convince Californians, and I doubt either really made a difference. You make no logical point in your argument. I don't care whether it "seemed different" or not or whether or not you've seen a {censored} married couple. All of that is beside the point that obviously the {censored} marriage law did not reflect the will of California residents (why did you put it in quotes?). And with the last statement once again you make an emotional point rather than a legal one. Letting {censored} marry might not hurt anyone, but that's beside the point. The will of CA citizens was not properly represented by the judges that made the decision on {censored} marriage. Plain and simple. The vote reflected that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 And people from all over came to protest Prop 8, including funding from many companies like Apple. What's your point? Both sides had people from all over the country there to convince Californians, and I doubt either really made a difference. You make no logical point in your argument. I don't care whether it "seemed different" or not or whether or not you've seen a {censored} married couple. All of that is beside the point that obviously the {censored} marriage law did not reflect the will of California residents (why did you put it in quotes?). And with the last statement once again you make an emotional point rather than a legal one. Letting {censored} marry might not hurt anyone, but that's beside the point. The will of CA citizens was not properly represented by the judges that made the decision on {censored} marriage. Plain and simple. The vote reflected that. Obviously it did not reflect the "will of California residents" or 100% of the state would have voted yes on 8, but in reality only about 5% more of the population voted yes on 8, therefore it does NOT represent the "will of california residents" but instead just some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Obviously it did not reflect the "will of California residents" or 100% of the state would have voted yes on 8, but in reality only about 5% more of the population voted yes on 8, therefore it does NOT represent the "will of california residents" but instead just some of them. Oh, sorry, it represents the will of a MAJORITY of CA citizens. Which is a given in any voting in a democratic system...(I thought that was understood). It does not represent just "some" of them, it represents "most" of them... You're just grasping for points here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Oh, sorry, it represents the will of a MAJORITY of CA citizens. Which is a given in any voting in a democratic system...(I thought that was understood). It does not represent just "some" of them, it represents "most" of them... You're just grasping for points here... Wrong again, it does not represent "most of them", only 52% of registered voters, voted yes on 8. That's barely a majority, is not "most" and certainly does not represent the "will of the people". Don't pretend to talk for californians when the amount of people who voted yes on 8 is only slightly larger than the people that voted no on 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Wrong again, it does not represent "most of them", only 52% of registered voters, voted yes on 8. That's barely a majority, is not "most" and certainly does not represent the "will of the people". Don't pretend to talk for californians when the amount of people who voted yes on 8 is only slightly larger than the people that voted no on 8. What are you smoking? "most /moʊst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mohst] - "the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish."..."majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most." "majority [muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-]- 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the population. 2. a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. 3. the amount by which the greater number, as of votes, surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality ). 4. the party or faction with the majority vote: The Democratic party is the majority." majority = 51% 52 > 51. I don't know what else I can do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 What are you smoking?"most /moʊst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mohst] - "the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish."..."majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most." "majority [muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-]- 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the population. 2. a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. 3. the amount by which the greater number, as of votes, surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality ). 4. the party or faction with the majority vote: The Democratic party is the majority." majority = 51% 52 > 51. I don't know what else I can do here. OOPS you forgot: "a good (or great) many, a large number" your "most" is hardly larger than the number that voted against it, it's not "most" people OOPS, I suppose you must have missed this one to: "nearly all of", guess what? it's not "nearly all of", it's not "most", it's only slightly larger than half and it will never be: "the will of the people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 OOPS you forgot: "a good (or great) many, a large number" your "most" is hardly larger than the number that voted against it, it's not "most" people OOPS, I suppose you must have missed this one to: "nearly all of", guess what? it's not "nearly all of", it's not "most", it's only slightly larger than half and it will never be: "the will of the people" 1. 52% is a large a number of people AND I quoted two entirely valid definitions for the word, which supports the context in which I used it. I only quoted the relevant ones because those were the ones I used in context... 2. Most can be a simple majority! "My most" might be "hardly larger" but it is still a valid use of the word considering two of its uses include it being a majority. 3. Once again, you can't just pull one definition out which I did not use in that context and try to pretend like it's the definition I used. I showed you FOUR definitions which all supported my context. Because I neglected the ones that I did not use does not mean that OOPS! the whole thing is negated. 4. Too bad, because according to Proposition 8, it's already in the California constitution. You can deny it all you want and try to use semantics to pick out words that you don't like and find definitions that were not used in that context, but {censored} still can't marry. Sorry, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 1. 52% is a large a number of people AND I quoted two entirely valid definitions for the word, which supports the context in which I used it. I only quoted the relevant ones because those were the ones I used in context... 2. Most can be a simple majority! "My most" might be "hardly larger" but it is still a valid use of the word considering two of its uses include it being a majority. 3. Once again, you can't just pull one definition out which I did not use in that context and try to pretend like it's the definition I used. I showed you FOUR definitions which all supported my context. Because I neglected the ones that I did not use does not mean that OOPS! the whole thing is negated. 4. Too bad, because according to Proposition 8, it's already in the California constitution. You can deny it all you want and try to use semantics to pick out words that you don't like and find definitions that were not used in that context, but {censored} still can't marry. Sorry, bud. In that case: MOST people opposed prop 8 because 47% of registered voters is also a " large number". You are merely picking and choosing definitions to fit your incorrect usage of the word. If 50.1% of people had brown hair and you said "most" people had brown hair, very few people would agree with you. It's not "most" people, it's a small majority of the voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 In that case: MOST people opposed prop 8 because 47% of registered voters is also a " large number". You are merely picking and choosing definitions to fit your incorrect usage of the word. If 50.1% of people had brown hair and you said "most" people had brown hair, very few people would agree with you. It's not "most" people, it's a small majority of the voters. What the {censored} are you talking about? I just pointed out how you improperly picked out definitions that I did not use, and then you go and do it AGAIN, except this time making even LESS sense! I am merely picking and choosing the definitions that I USED IN CONTEXT. YOU KNOW, THE ONES HAT FIT THE USAGE OF THE WORD. THOSE DEFINITIONS. It is not "incorrect usage" if I use a meaning of the word supported by 2 definitions! How "characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless" are you? A "small majority" is still MOST of the people because it is a majority and in a democracy, a MAJORITY rules the vote and REPRESENTS the will of the people as best as possible, no matter how close the vote is. And whether or not you like the word "most," this is all still irrelevant to the fact that Proposition 8 was enacted because 4 judges decided something that did not reflect the majority of voter's opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 What the {censored} are you talking about? I just pointed out how you improperly picked out definitions that I did not use, and then you go and do it AGAIN, except this time making even LESS sense! I am merely picking and choosing the definitions that I USED IN CONTEXT. YOU KNOW, THE ONES HAT FIT THE USAGE OF THE WORD. THOSE DEFINITIONS. It is not "incorrect usage" if I use a meaning of the word supported by 2 definitions! How stupid are you? A "small majority" is still MOST of the people because it is a majority and in a democracy, a MAJORITY rules the vote and REPRESENTS the will of the people as best as possible, no matter how close the vote is. And whether or not you like the word "most," this is all still irrelevant to the fact that Proposition 8 was enacted because 4 judges decided something that did not reflect the majority of voter's opinions. What you mean is that you are picking and choosing definitions to support your poor usage of the word, only a 5% more people support it than don't. I also wonder how many people who voted yes on 8 did so not because it reflected their true feelings on the matter, but instead because of the constant fear mongering that was on TV, and yes campaign ads do sway peoples opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 What you mean is that you are picking and choosing definitions to support your poor usage of the word, only a 5% more people support it than don't. I also wonder how many people who voted yes on 8 did so not because it reflected their true feelings on the matter, but instead because of the constant fear mongering that was on TV, and yes campaign ads do sway peoples opinions. How can my usage be poor if I am using definitions of the word that appear in the dictionary? Obviously, your reasoning is quite flawed. I also wonder how many people voted no on it because of the constant press, protests, celebrity endorsements for the cause, and donations from large corporations such as Apple. I bet it's more than a few TV commercials. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and just saying that it all evens out in the end, the number of people swayed either way was probably equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juulie Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 most lame discussion ever..... just stop it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 The will of CA citizens was not properly represented by the judges that made the decision on {censored} marriage. The purpose of a judge isn't to please the people. It's to interpret the law and decide if a law is actual a legit one and constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts