Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (2 Viewers)

[Statorama]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.

At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

 

[MongoL3]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.

At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

You dont think, you know

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.

At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

That would be a relevant analogy if:(1) the judge was actively seeking to get married in the state of California and was denied, in that case you could claim self-interest. There's no evidence he's pursued a homosexual marriage, so I'm not sure where there's self interest; and

(2) our system of justice assumed judges who hold stock in oil companies are not fair arbiters of cases involving oil companies. It doesn't.

It's true some people criticized Feldman as "in the pocket of big oil" after the moratorium decision, just as oneohh and mongol3 are doing with Taylor here. Those people were alternatively laughed at and asked for evidence of bias in the decision by more reasonable people, just as we're doing here with those two extremists (In the Feldman moratorium case, even Earthjustce notes that it didn't ask for a recusal and the issue never came up, as it says in the link).

 

[Shtaym Syek]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

I think we all understand the analogy he's trying to make. It just doesn't hold up.

 

[urbanhack]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. ...

Haven't those paying attention have learned by now that conservative gays are biased in the direction of being overly homophobic? No wonder the Prop 8 supporters wanted this judge. How weak of case could this have been for a hiding in the closet gay to have sided with the gays?

 

[MongoL3]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

I think we all understand the analogy he's trying to make. It just doesn't hold up.

If the judge were a robot and not a human being then i would agree, it wouldnt hold up....

 

[oneohh]

Is the only unbiased judge a white christian male heterosexual then? There is a 136 page publically viewable document with citations why prop 8 was unconstitutional, either quote something from there showing the judge is biased or shut up about it.

But isn't it obvious?

Based on the stellar logic presented here by oneohh and mongol, I propose that only gay judges be permitted to oversee divorce proceedings. A heterosexual judge would obviously be biased towards the party that is the same gender as him or herself. If you can't see how a heterosexual male or female judge would be influenced by their sexuality and their lifestyle, then I really can't help you.

How about we just forbid the "gays" from becoming judges altogether? I mean, if you're not even attracted to the correct gender, should you really be making important decisions?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

I think we all understand the analogy he's trying to make. It just doesn't hold up.

If the judge were a robot and not a human being then i would agree, it wouldnt hold up....

Did you also consider the decision on the May offshore drilling moratorium by Judge Feldman to be invalid or corrupt or whatever it is you think about the Taylor ruling, based on his stock ownership?What about married heterosexual judges who rule on matters related to divorce? Are their decisions valid? How about a gun owner deciding a Second Amendment case? Valid?If so, how are these different than a gay judge (as you're assuming about Taylor) ruling on a gay marriage case?

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Is the only unbiased judge a white christian male heterosexual then? There is a 136 page publically viewable document with citations why prop 8 was unconstitutional, either quote something from there showing the judge is biased or shut up about it.

But isn't it obvious?

Based on the stellar logic presented here by oneohh and mongol, I propose that only gay judges be permitted to oversee divorce proceedings. A heterosexual judge would obviously be biased towards the party that is the same gender as him or herself. If you can't see how a heterosexual male or female judge would be influenced by their sexuality and their lifestyle, then I really can't help you.

How about we just forbid the "gays" from becoming judges altogether? I mean, if you're not even attracted to the correct gender, should you really be making important decisions?

 

[MongoL3]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

I think we all understand the analogy he's trying to make. It just doesn't hold up.

If the judge were a robot and not a human being then i would agree, it wouldnt hold up....

Did you also consider the decision on the May offshore drilling moratorium by Judge Feldman to be invalid or corrupt or whatever it is you think about the Taylor ruling, based on his stock ownership?What about married heterosexual judges who rule on matters related to divorce? Are their decisions valid? How about a gun owner deciding a Second Amendment case? Valid?If so, how are these different than a gay judge (as you're assuming about Taylor) ruling on a gay marriage case?

ALL judges are human and all can be influenced, they arent perfect...

 

[timschochet]

How about a gun owner deciding a Second Amendment case? Valid?

We can't have a gun owner deciding Second Amendment cases. On the other hand, we can't have a non-gun owner deciding Second Amendment cases. What we're going to need is a judge who has never heard of guns to decide this stuff.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think what Mongol is trying to get at is....well let's use a different example. If a judge held millions of dollars in Big Oil stock, would he be the best judge to hear a case about offshore drilling? Likewise, we have a judge who has a lot of stock in Big Gay and we're asking him to be impartial in a gay case. He could see a benefit by judging one way, and nullify that potential benefit if he judged another way.

At least I think that's the analogy he's trying to make.

I think we all understand the analogy he's trying to make. It just doesn't hold up.

If the judge were a robot and not a human being then i would agree, it wouldnt hold up....

Did you also consider the decision on the May offshore drilling moratorium by Judge Feldman to be invalid or corrupt or whatever it is you think about the Taylor ruling, based on his stock ownership?What about married heterosexual judges who rule on matters related to divorce? Are their decisions valid?

How about a gun owner deciding a Second Amendment case? Valid?

If so, how are these different than a gay judge (as you're assuming about Taylor) ruling on a gay marriage case?

ALL judges are human and all can be influenced, they arent perfect...

But you only assume that one type of judge was influenced and thus his decision wasn't valid.

 

[Statorama]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

 

[oneohh]

ALL judges are human and all can be influenced, they arent perfect...

But you only assume that one type of judge was influenced and thus his decision wasn't valid.

There was only one type of judge assigned to this case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There was only one type of judge assigned to this case.

A republican appointee noted for his homophobic attitudes.

 

[urbanhack]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

THE PASSION OF THE PEENS!Coming to a theater near you.

 

[Statorama]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

THE PASSION OF THE PEENS!Coming to a theater near you.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ALL judges are human and all can be influenced, they arent perfect...

But you only assume that one type of judge was influenced and thus his decision wasn't valid.

There was only one type of judge assigned to this case.

So you're just gonna continue to dodge the various analogies and hypotheticals that myself and others have asked you about for like ten pages now that we think clearly show your irrational distrust of/distaste for homosexuals as compared to other subsets of the population? Got it.

 

[tommyboy]

"The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines."This is exactly why religion and politics in the U.S. is such B.S.

from the study itself

ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that ***M-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior. We speculate that this behavioural change is likely to be related to the neurodevelopmental change in preoptic area of mutant brain that became similar to that of wild-type male. Since the level of AFP, playing a role in titrating estradiol, is known to affect development of female brain associated with sexual preference, we speculate that the lower level of AFP, presumably resulting from the reduced ***osylation, in the mutant embryo causes abnormal brain development. Our studies on the ***M-/- mouse may provide an animal model for understanding sexual preference of animal at genetic as well as epigenetic levels.

this doesn't mean what the author of the article thinks it means.

Please tell me your interpretation. Please, please tell us how 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Tell us how mickey mouse wasn't really effected by the gene altering at all. How mickey was really just abused as a small mouse, pressured by all his mouse peers, until one day mickey made the choice to become mini mouse. Tell us how it's too bad that mickey didn't have any sort of mouse religion or he might have been saved from all the mouse back door secks.

what the conclusion says in laymans terms is the scientists have a theory that because of an abnormal brain development in the mutated study mice, the mice acted like the opposite sex. The theory goes on that they think it may be related to a biological process of glycose metabolism in the embryonic stages of development of the mice. They end it with a statement that it could provide a model of animal behavior based on both genetic and environmental factors.basically this study just repeats what we already know about sexuality.

 

[MongoL3]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

ALL judges are human and all can be influenced, they arent perfect...

But you only assume that one type of judge was influenced and thus his decision wasn't valid.

There was only one type of judge assigned to this case.

So you're just gonna continue to dodge the various analogies and hypotheticals that myself and others have asked you about for like ten pages now that we think clearly show your irrational distrust of/distaste for homosexuals as compared to other subsets of the population? Got it.

There’s no reason to give any credence to your assertions. These various analogies and hypotheticals make not one bit of difference nor do they even belong in the discussion. If the judge feels so strongly about this issue, why doesn't he come out on his own and admit his gayness? I wonder if he feels this would show bias in his decision.

 

[Statorama]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

 

[TobiasFunke]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Right. Instead you attack, mock and stereotype people because you don't like who they're sexually attracted to. Much better.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Right. Instead you attack, mock and stereotype people because you don't like who they're sexually attracted to. Much better.

Truth hurt?

 

[MongoL3]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Right. Instead you attack, mock and stereotype people because you don't like who they're sexually attracted to. Much better.

Im not attacking anyone. Im merely stating that this gay judges ruling was probably influenced by him actually being gay?? How that is hard for anyone to understand is beyond me Hell, politicians are influenced all the time by their beliefs??

 

[TobiasFunke]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Right. Instead you attack, mock and stereotype people because you don't like who they're sexually attracted to. Much better.

Truth hurt?

 

[TobiasFunke]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Right. Instead you attack, mock and stereotype people because you don't like who they're sexually attracted to. Much better.

Im not attacking anyone. Im merely stating that this gay judge was probably influenced by him actually being gay?? How that is hard for anyone to understand is beyond me

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

 

[MongoL3]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

Ive answered it countless times. There are good judges and bad judges, just like police, lawyers, politicians and on and on...Could this guy be a good judge that was able to seperate his personal life, experiences and beliefs to make a non biased ruling? Sure he could have. I just have my doubts...

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!?

New here?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

Ive answered it countless times. There are good judges and bad judges, just like police, lawyers, politicians and on and on...Could this guy be a good judge that was able to seperate his personal life, experiences and beliefs to make a non biased ruling? Sure he could have. I just have my doubts...

And I think most rational people would agree with you. But not the "argue-with-a-brick-wall-because-I-think-I'm-smarter-than-God" brothers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.

I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

Ive answered it countless times. There are good judges and bad judges, just like police, lawyers, politicians and on and on...Could this guy be a good judge that was able to seperate his personal life, experiences and beliefs to make a non biased ruling? Sure he could have. I just have my doubts...

Why? Do you have the same doubts and make the same automatic assumptions about judges in the other hypotheticals presented? If not, why not? Because that's where I and others are suggesting you may be bringing an irrational bias to bear- that you automatically assume bias here where you wouldn't for other judges.If you do have the same doubts and make the same automatic assumptions in any case in which a judge might appear to have an indirect interest, that seems to me like a complete condemnation of our judicial system, since all judges have "real life" biases that could potentially influence their decisions all the time- probably in the majority of decided cases. That's fine, it's a reasonable position I guess- you could just think American justice is a farce because most judges are simply incapable of ruling fairly and rationally in most matters. Just curious.

 

[MongoL3]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

Ive answered it countless times. There are good judges and bad judges, just like police, lawyers, politicians and on and on...Could this guy be a good judge that was able to seperate his personal life, experiences and beliefs to make a non biased ruling? Sure he could have. I just have my doubts...

Why? Do you have the same doubts and make the same automatic assumptions about judges in the other hypotheticals presented?

Sure i do. People in general are crap...People in a position of power are real sketchy :(

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, you said a little more than that. You basically said it was obviously the determining factor in the decision, if I remember correctly. You also assumed he was an "elitist," presumably based on his sexuality. But most importantly, you didn't clarify whether you'd make the same assumption about any of the many, many other subsets of the population called upon to make decisions directly or indirectly influencing their peers- take married heterosexuals ruling on divorce proceedings as one example, or gun owners on Second Amendment decisions as another. If you do make that same assumption, it seems to me your problem is with our entire justice system, since those sorts of things happen all the time. If you don't, then you're showing a bias against homosexuals (or at least homosexual judges) with no rational basis to support your bias, which, it seems to me, is bigoted.I give up. Myself and many others have been asking this question in one form or another for like ten pages now. You clearly don't want to answer it, so I suppose the conversation is over.

Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Misdirect. Why won't you answer my question?!? I quit.

Ive answered it countless times. There are good judges and bad judges, just like police, lawyers, politicians and on and on...Could this guy be a good judge that was able to seperate his personal life, experiences and beliefs to make a non biased ruling? Sure he could have. I just have my doubts...

Why? Do you have the same doubts and make the same automatic assumptions about judges in the other hypotheticals presented?

Sure i do. People in general are crap...

OK. I think we've taken this one as far as it's gonna go. Thanks for the reasonable responses today.

 

[FatMax]

And I think most rational people would agree with you. But not the "argue-with-a-brick-wall-because-I-think-I'm-smarter-than-God" brothers.

Awesome.

 

[tommyboy]

Also, I've clarified repeatedly what I meant about genetics. I wasn't claiming it was solely genetic/biological, rather that genetics/biology a play a role- that much is 100% certain. I also said that from what I've read, my interpretation of the scientific consensus seems to be that sexuality is far more a product of genetics and biology than environment, and that some of what we call "environment" are neonatal or involuntary post-birth factors, such that sexuality is really not in any sense a "choice." The latter sentence is my semi-educated opinion, but the former is true without question. So why do you keep harping on the one sentence that I've since clarified/corrected repeatedly?

sorry, i didn't intend to until pickles brought it back up.

 

[scoobygang]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Are you kidding? What's all the Gaaary's and throwing glittah on the barn and all that? Listen, I don't care if you want to insinuate that everyone who could possibly be for gay marriage or any liberal in general is a girlie, girlie man. But you kind of lose your place on the martyr bus.

 

[MongoL3]

is Stat going to change his username to #1 fan of PEENS?

I like the passion Peens brings to the discussion.We're probably on different sides of the fence on this issue though, as I'm pro gay marriage.

Thats fine. I dont personally attack or mock people that dont agree with me. I just state my disagreement and move on...

Are you kidding? What's all the Gaaary's and throwing glittah on the barn and all that? Listen, I don't care if you want to insinuate that everyone who could possibly be for gay marriage or any liberal in general is a girlie, girlie man. But you kind of lose your place on the martyr bus.

I was quoting Adam Lambert with the "glitter on the barn"comment. How can that be offensive towards gays when he was the one who said it? Yes, i found it funny, I have a good sense of humor. sorry

 

[Mr. Pickles]

But you kind of lose your place on the martyr bus.

To be fair, it's a short bus.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Tell me when you are ready for the test.

So is this going to happen or what?

 

[MongoL3]

But you kind of lose your place on the martyr bus.

To be fair, it's a short bus.

Hey, atleast i dont claim to be a chemical engineer

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Tell me when you are ready for the test.

So is this going to happen or what?

In my look back at old threads, golddigger pulled out a similar line some time ago. This was after I'd already determined that he had no idea how to apply simple probability and made that comment about him giving his degree back.

 

[scoobygang]

I can see how people might doubt Pickles. All of the LABS aliases have been less authoritative on science issues since we lost Shiny.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

But you kind of lose your place on the martyr bus.

To be fair, it's a short bus.

Hey, atleast i dont claim to be a chemical engineer

You shouldn't claim to be something you're not. We agree there.

 

[FatMax]

Tell me when you are ready for the test.

So is this going to happen or what?

In my look back at old threads, golddigger pulled out a similar line some time ago. This was after I'd already determined that he had no idea how to apply simple probability and made that comment about him giving his degree back.

This reminded me of one of my favorite old golddigger exchanges. It took me awhile to find, but it was well worth it.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8788098

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

* 24 percent of gay men had more than 100 partners. * 43 percent of gay men had more than 500 partners. * 28 percent of gay men had more than 1,000 partners.

I know you're not a statistics guy, but I really hope you can see the problem with this (other than the comically bloated numbers).

I see your point. Do you have better data?

HFS

 

[badmojo1006]

Here are some ideas California is knocking around: A cap-and-trade system in which homosexual couples can buy marriage credits when heterosexual couples get divorced or die

 

[Statorama]

* 24 percent of gay men had more than 100 partners. * 43 percent of gay men had more than 500 partners. * 28 percent of gay men had more than 1,000 partners.

I know you're not a statistics guy, but I really hope you can see the problem with this (other than the comically bloated numbers).

I see your point. Do you have better data?

HFS

 

[Shtaym Syek]

* 24 percent of gay men had more than 100 partners. * 43 percent of gay men had more than 500 partners. * 28 percent of gay men had more than 1,000 partners.

I know you're not a statistics guy, but I really hope you can see the problem with this (other than the comically bloated numbers).

I see your point. Do you have better data?

HFS