A victory for polyamorous rights! (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

If there is a difference, explain why

If you can't see the difference and how it might lead to arrangements among simple friends bilking landlords for rent, then I don't see the point in taking much time.

Oh, and if you're that dense, the answer is in that sentence.

Don't troll me, Chachi.

 

[rockaction]

No more time wasted on this topic, which obviously is over our protagonist's head. That's the last post from me in the thread.

WHY DO YOU CARE? WASTE YOUR TIME EXPLAINING TO ME WHY SETTLED LAW SHOULDN'T CHANGE TO MY WHIM?

EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rockaction]

In case that sounded hostile, I really hate troll attempts at my time, which is fairly precious these days.

 

[Captain Cranks]

No more time wasted on this topic, which obviously is over our protagonist's head. That's the last post from me in the thread.

WHY DO YOU CARE? WASTE YOUR TIME EXPLAINING TO ME WHY SETTLED LAW SHOULDN'T CHANGE TO MY WHIM?

EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!!!!!!!!

Cool strawman, Rock. Your projection is off the chain.

Gotta call people dense to prove your point too. Looking real good this afternoon. Bravo.

Get some help. Seriously. You're off the rails.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If there is a difference, explain why

If you can't see the difference and how it might lead to arrangements among simple friends bilking landlords for rent, then I don't see the point in taking much time.

Oh, and if you're that dense, the answer is in that sentence.

Don't troll me, Chachi.

I don’t see it as trolling. It’s asking for clarification of what the OPs point was. Is there a different way of approaching the issue? Sure. But this particular approach by Cranks isn’t even remotely controversial by PSF standards.

I don’t think anyone who has posted in here so far has disagreed with the likelihood that people might/will/have abuse(d) the rent control laws by claiming to be in a polyamorous relationship. That seems fairly non-controversial.

But that isn’t the only thing happening in here, as hinted at (and later explained) multiple times by the OP. The OP has also made clear that he doesn’t think people in polyamorous relationships should have the same rights as people in types of relationships that he is more approving of.

Why did Cranks continue to press the issue? Is that your question? Or why didn’t he press the issue in a different manner?

It was a real, substantive question by Cranks. Not trolling.

 

[rockaction]

The OP has also made clear that he doesn’t think people in polyamorous relationships should have the same rights as people in types of relationships that he is more approving of.

So do I. That's a fundamental tenet of how the state gets involved with relationships and where they intersect. We've held since declaring polygamy illegal that those relationships are different. It's no big deal to say that.

That's why I'm wondering why Cranks is asking why. It's not some gotcha thing. Ever since the Supreme Court decided in the nineteenth century that it was against federal law to recognize polyamorous/polygamous relationships, it's been the law of the land and accepted moral practice.

You guys ARE really dense.

This shouldn't even be a "gotcha" thing.

This is stupid. Take all the time you want debating this. Cranks is a fool, and so are you for intervening on his behalf.

Good day.

 

[rockaction]

Get some help. Seriously. You're off the rails.

Reported this.

 

[rockaction]

Seriously. I reported that.

And I used colorful language and an insult while doing so.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The OP has also made clear that he doesn’t think people in polyamorous relationships should have the same rights as people in types of relationships that he is more approving of.

So do I. That's a fundamental tenet of how the state gets involved with relationships and where they intersect. We've held since declaring polygamy illegal that those relationships are different. It's no big deal to say that.

That's why I'm wondering why Cranks is asking why. It's not some gotcha thing. Ever since the Supreme Court decided in the nineteenth century that it was against federal law to recognize polyamorous/polygamous relationships, it's been the law of the land and accepted moral practice.

You guys ARE really dense.

This shouldn't even be a "gotcha" thing.

This is stupid. Take all the time you want debating this. Cranks is a fool, and so are you for intervening on his behalf.

Good day.

I’ve been called far worse than a fool. Today! By my own kids!

Enjoy your day good sir.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don’t think anyone who has posted in here so far has disagreed with the likelihood that people might/will/have abuse(d) the rent control laws by claiming to be in a polyamorous relationship. That seems fairly non-controversial.

Thank you. Honestly, I don't even know how to purposely troll. Am I snarky AF? Yes. Believe it or not I'm acutely aware of this behavior and try to be better. However, I don't say things to purposely irritate or inflame.

The OP in this particular instance has a history of posting social anecdotes that are supposed to spark outrage. This isn't a one-off for him. Thus, while some may very well be concerned about the law in this matter, I don't believe that to be the case with OP. He very clearly admitted to that later.

So I want to know why. Why does he care so much? What is the skin off his back? As you stated, no one is trying to defend situations of abusing the system, but I think it goes beyond that for some.

 

[rockaction]

Because what I really want to say would get me suspended.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Get some help. Seriously. You're off the rails.

Reported this.

I mean, you just called me a fool. C’mon man. We’re all just having a chat here. No need for anyone to come in here guns blazing.

Edit to add: you also called me dense. Which is…..lol. I’m a lot of things, but that ain’t one of them. Lol.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Because what I really want to say would get me suspended.

Hit me up in PM, please. Let it out because it's obvious you need to vent. Sumpin ain't right.

 

[rockaction]

No need for anyone to come in here guns blazing.

No need for anyone to come in guns blazing with a "Why do you care?" question, either. And then defense of said question like it was a valid one.

 

[rockaction]

Hit me up in PM, please. Let it out because it's obvious you need to vent. Sumpin ain't right.

It's doesn't need to be over PM. I hate the tactic. I hate the implication that para is not normal or a bigot because two hundred years of settled law is now up for grabs by radicals. He's not a bigot. There's abuse to had here by people not renting. There is also a different legal set of rights for people in non-traditional, non-monogamous relationships than there are for married people.

Whither marriage? Whither monogamy as a standard of state sanction?

Why do you care?

Because it extends state rights in an way that is easily abused in their means, that's why. That's all that needs to be said. It's easy.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

No need for anyone to come in here guns blazing.

No need for anyone to come in guns blazing with a "Why do you care?" question, either. And then defense of said question like it was a valid one.

I’ll go to sleep tonight with a completely clear conscience regarding my actions in this thread.

 

[rockaction]

If you say, "because I don't agree with the sanctity of polyamorous relationships," that's fine by me, too. I resent the implication that it's bigoted or church ladyish. It's a ****ing normal reaction ordained by millennium of history.

 

[rockaction]

I’ll go to sleep tonight with a completely clear conscience regarding my actions in this thread.

I don't expect to you to ruminate over it. Everybody is wrong and doesn't know it at least a few times a day. No need to have a troubled conscience over human limitations.

 

[dkp993]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the link in the OP wasn't to a news article, it was to the IMDB page for "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry 2"

Does Jessica Biel underdress to her underwear again. If so, IN.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I’ll go to sleep tonight with a completely clear conscience regarding my actions in this thread.

I don't expect to you to ruminate over it. Everybody is wrong and doesn't know it at least a few times a day. No need to have a troubled conscience over human limitations.

I’m not wrong here. Very comfortable with that too.

“Human limitations.” 3rd time you’ve said something offensive about me. Quite the track record you are creating in here tonight. Yeah, clearly I’ve got a lot to self-explore. Good times.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Does anyone seriously believe that Alito especially, but that the current conservative "religious freedom" majority would uphold the finding of Reynolds v. United States? Specifically, the idea that "religious duty is not a defense"? That century old, settled law would be so easily dismissed.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I’ll go to sleep tonight with a completely clear conscience regarding my actions in this thread.

I don't expect to you to ruminate over it. Everybody is wrong and doesn't know it at least a few times a day. No need to have a troubled conscience over human limitations.

I’m not wrong here. Very comfortable with that too.

“Human limitations.” 3rd time you’ve said something offensive about me. Quite the track record you are creating in here tonight. Yeah, clearly I’ve got a lot to self-explore. Good times.

This is his schtick. He gets outraged, calls you dumb, then runs away.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Hit me up in PM, please. Let it out because it's obvious you need to vent. Sumpin ain't right.

It's doesn't need to be over PM. I hate the tactic. I hate the implication that para is not normal or a bigot because two hundred years of settled law is now up for grabs by radicals. He's not a bigot. There's abuse to had here by people not renting. There is also a different legal set of rights for people in non-traditional, non-monogamous relationships than there are for married people.

Whither marriage? Whither monogamy as a standard of state sanction?

Why do you care?

Because it extends state rights in an way that is easily abused in their means, that's why. That's all that needs to be said. It's easy.

You're bringing baggage to the table, plain and simple. You continue to attack strawmen to justify your verbal rampage.

I don't know what your sensitivity is to the question, "why do you care," but that's your issue, not mine.

 

[rockaction]

Specifically, the idea that "religious duty is not a defense"? That century old, settled law would be so easily dismissed.

No, it wouldn't. Not when it "religious duty" could be substituted with "I want to **** whoever and how many ever I want and the state must recognize that as a contractual arrangement."

They're never finding for this. In fact, they want to overturn Obergfell (or whatever the case is) because the precedent it sets brings us close to this. They want to do away with gay marriage for this exact reason, reasoning Scalia talked about in dicta in that case I just mentioned.

Thinking the Supreme Court, as composed, would ever overturn that case is bizarro world.

 

[rockaction]

You continue to attack strawmen to justify your verbal rampage.

There is no straw man? You asked "Why do you care?" That's all you said. Forgive me for quoting the lunacy and trollishness of your argument, if one can call it an argument.

I'm done with you and Keaton for the day. Spit in the wind for all I care.

 

[Captain Cranks]

You continue to attack strawmen to justify your verbal rampage.

There is no straw man? You asked "Why do you care?" That's all you said. Forgive me for quoting the lunacy and trollishness of your argument, if one can call it an argument.

I'm done with you and Keaton for the day. Spit in the wind for all I care.

I didn't ask you.

 

[rockaction]

And you're damn right I'm mad. I'm mad because losers like Bottomfeeder Sports continue to post the same bad faith **** that got people like IK to leave the board. Same belittling, stupid attitude that drives away good posters.

The "why do you care?" is an arrow in the obnoxious internet liberal quiver that is "Let's drive off all the good people and replace them with snark." I remember when Bottomfeeder said I must have been a janitor at the ACLU where I interned.

**** that. He's a bad faith poster. So are you, Cranks.

 

[djmich]

Specifically, the idea that "religious duty is not a defense"? That century old, settled law would be so easily dismissed.

"I want to **** whoever and how many ever I want and the state must recognize that as a contractual arrangement."

This does sound kinda cool.

 

[rockaction]

This does sound kinda cool.

It's a groovy kind of love.

Why do you care?

 

[djmich]

Damn can we stop talking about @IvanKaramazov makes me sad lol

So should poly people be liable for alimony to the poly people they are not longer poly with. Given we agree these are implied contractual relationships.

I know, why do I care.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Both of you please be more cool.