Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
They overrode the precedent to allow interracial marriage 50+ years ago, did that somehow magically make polygamy legal?
Are you saying the arguments against interracial marriage work for polygamy by swapping out the terms? Just admit you were wrong already.
I said it WILL, if the law is changed.
That's not precedent. It's a statute.
-
This would be true 30-50 years ago, at least to some degree. You're describing a libertarian conservatism that still exists -- it's Ron and Rand's good side -- but has been thrown to the curb by a toxic mix of religious nutjobbery and power-drunkenness that has hijacked the term "conservative".
Except that even your "religious nutjobs" mostly want that. We all have personal exceptions, of course.
Never mind that both sides love to trip over amendment number 1 before they even get to squabble over amendment number 2...
I don't follow you here. Note that only one side is actively proposing to gut the 1st and 2nd.
-
-
Are you saying the arguments against interracial marriage work for polygamy by swapping out the terms? Just admit you were wrong already.
I am specifically saying the exact opposite of that.... sorry you fail to read the sarcasm in that sentence? I am pointing out that the equal rights arguments for interracial marriage were very close to the current equal rights arguments for gay marriage. So if interracial marriage becoming legal didn't help polygamists, then why should it be expected that legalizing gay marriage would be any different?
-
So if interracial marriage becoming legal didn't help polygamists, then why should it be expected that legalizing gay marriage would be any different?
That was never what I said. "Interracial marriage helped pave the way for gay marriage. Polygamists expect gay marriage to help pave the way for poly marriage" is what I'm saying. That's how a slippery slope: each step builds on the previous one, not the first (except by implication.)
-
That's how a slippery slope: each step builds on the previous one, not the first (except by implication.)
which is exactly what makes the slippery slope argument typically be a fallacy.
In this case, interracial marriage and gay marriage are more or less analagous in terms of 2 people's rights.
Polygamy IS NOT. Claiming slippery slope here is just plain stubborn FUD.
-
No, seriously: what's wrong with polygamy? @FrostCat?
-
[quote=GOG]Late to the party! What's wrong with polygamy?
Exactly!
[/quote]
Polygamy is fine by me, but being used as a "ZOMG WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO" argument for oppressing other people, which is flat out stupid.
-
what's wrong with polygamy?
Polygamy is fine as a practice. The problem would come in trying to create the laws to govern it, because there is no precedent. In gay marriage, it's still 2 people, so you can easily apply the same laws that applied to regular marriage. With polygamy, you need to create some way of chaining inheritances and taxes.
Like if it's the single person -> multiple spouses: then when the single person dies, do all the spouses become independent? Who gets which/all children if kids are involved?
Or if you have the true triangle/circle of bisexual polygamy where every one might remain married to everyone else.There's just a lot more involved in creating laws for legal polygamy.
-
No, seriously: what's wrong with polygamy? @FrostCat?
The only thing objectively wrong with polygamy per se is it removes females from the available marriage population. This is actually a problem in places like the Middle East where it's widely practiced and men can have up to four wives: if everyone who could did, 3/4 of men would have no chance to get married.
Having lots of young men with no access to women leads to civil unrest, which can frequently be "solved' by sending them somewhere else to make war.
Polyamory in general? Two people have enough trouble forming a stable relationship. Adding a third, fourth, or more? That makes it a lot harder. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it does mean people should think really hard about it before doing it.
-
In this case, interracial marriage and gay marriage are more or less analagous in terms of 2 people's rights.Polygamy IS NOT. Claiming slippery slope here is just plain stubborn FUD.
Good luck with that theory, bro.
-
Good luck with that theory, bro
I have had pretty good luck with it. Consider that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage by most polling. Just about the only people that think it's truly a slippery slope problem that will result in polygamy and bestiality being legalized are the sheeple of FOX news.
-
That doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it does mean people should think really hard about it before doing it.
A perfectly fine stance.
TBH, a lot of people should have thought much harder about marrying just 1 person before doing it.
-
Just about the only people that think it's truly a slippery slope problem that will result in polygamy and bestiality being legalized are the sheeple of FOX news.
Aww, it's so cute when you do that.
Hey, you know what? People said the same thing about gay marriage 20 years ago.
-
It's like watching people ski down a mountain and exclaiming they aren't on a slippery slope!
-
It's like watching people ski down a mountain and exclaiming they aren't on a slippery slope!
Most people have seen so many fallacious slippery slopes that they refuse to admit when they see a real one.
-
Clearly MS needs to redesign UAC to make more sense, then.
The fact that so few people seem to understand what it does certainly shows that it can use some improvement- as it stands right now, it's barely any better than Linux's sudo (At least as far as I know- UAC has the ability for either the user to explicitly invoke it, or the program to ask for it, while Graphical Sudo can only be explicitly invoked?)
I'm really not sure how UAC would determine, at launch time, whether the program will in the future require elevated permissions- and if so, why.
How would you know when you launched Word whether or not the user will save a file in Program Files or not? If they do, you need to launch under the elevated token, if not, the regular one.
-
People said the same thing about gay marriage 20 years ago.
Not sure what "same thing" they said? Which thing was the "slippery slope", interracial marriage? I would love to see you show me ANYTHING where they claimed that legalizing interracial marriage will lead to legal gay marriage. Because you're not going to be able to.
-
How would you know when you launched Word whether or not the user will save a file in Program Files or not? If they do, you need to launch under the elevated token, if not, the regular one.
This is a pain in the ass that you can't switch while the app is running.
I can't count how many times I've edited a file only to find that the location it was in is UAC protected, so I have to save it somewhere else and the copy it over in another shell with admin mode on.
-
It's like watching people ski down a mountain and exclaiming they aren't on a slippery slope!
Great, just what we need. Ski analogy strawmen.
-
I would love to see you show me ANYTHING where they claimed that legalizing interracial marriage will lead to legal gay marriage. Because you're not going to be able to.
Aww, you're so cute when you do this. First link:
"Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the modern civil rights movement to argue for marriage between two men. Aside from the moral outrage this should generate in the black community but doesn’t, marriage between a man and woman of different races and marriage between people of the same sex aren’t comparable at all."
Goddamn, there's even a "black people don't like gay people co-opting their struggle" reference! Let's see what else is there... "The court also found that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violated the Due Process Clause: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes…is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”"
Well, just damn. Hey, I wonder if.... "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as 'only two people should be able to get married' ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." Naw, utter nonsense.
-
Here, let me make my own like you.
It's like jumping off a cliff and claiming it was skiing down a slope.
-
-
-
"Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the modern civil rights movement to argue for marriage between two men. Aside from the moral outrage this should generate in the black community but doesn’t, marriage between a man and woman of different races and marriage between people of the same sex aren’t comparable at all."
Are you fucking retarded?
I saidI would love to see you show me ANYTHING where they claimed that legalizing interracial marriage will lead to legal gay marriage.
Not, hey find an article written this year that references old laws and conjectures about how it might have changed things.
-
http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf
Want more?
Again, you're a fucking retard. Are any of those articles written 40+ years ago? No.
Try again dumbass
-
Again, you're a fucking retard. Are any of those articles written 40+ years ago? No.Try again dumbass
Oh yeah, the internet's full of 40 year old blogs.
-
the internet's full of 40 year old blogs.
It is however, full of people that reference old writing as sources.
-
The only thing objectively wrong with polygamy per se is it removes females from the available marriage population.
Females? There's a rule that says polygamy comes only in the "many wives" variety? (Don't tell me about the Middle East. I used to live there.) Hardly an objective difficulty: a mere bit of social prejudice.
Polyamory in general? Two people have enough trouble forming a stable relationship. Adding a third, fourth, or more? That makes it a lot harder. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it does mean people should think really hard about it before doing it.
They should really think hard before getting married, certainly. Twice as hard before deciding to have kids.
Please consider, however, that perhaps it is our expectations regarding stability that are at fault.
-
The problem with the arguments of current articles claiming past events as slippery slopes is that they're creating the argument in hindsight simply to try to create the fallacy of a slippery slope. There was no slippery slope from legalizing interracial marriage that directly led to a move to legalize gay marriage.
The fact that gay marriage proponents are using the same or similar arguments is because the situations are actually analogous in terms of 2 people's rights, not because legalizing interracial marriage somehow made society more tolerant of other different types of marriages than interracial.
-
There was no slippery slope from legalizing interracial marriage that directly led to a move to legalize gay marriage.
Ugh, Ok, fine, since I can't find a refutation in three minutes while at the office, that proves that nobody ever said that ever and nobody ever will say the same thing about polygamy.
-
There's a rule that says polygamy comes only in the "many wives" variety?
That's usually what people mean with that word, but if it makes you feel like you scored a point because I accidentally didn't say "polygyny," then congratulations.
-
if it makes you feel like you scored a point because I accidentally didn't say "polygyny," then congratulations.
The only point here is that "taking females off the nuptial market" isn't an objective problem.
-
Ugh, Ok, fine, since I can't find a refutation in three minutes while at the office, that proves that nobody ever said that ever and nobody ever will say the same thing about polygamy.
I won't stick it to you like that. You or anyone else willing to do the hunting can post one later at any time. I've tried myself before posting it - had there been anything remotely close to it, I wouldn't have issued the challenge.
-
The only point here is that "taking females off the nuptial market" isn't an objective problem.
TBH, even if it WERE only polygyny.... it's not like every woman is suddenly going to change their minds and marry to 1 guy. Only the people who are actually polygamist. You are NOT going to change the actual ratio, because those people are already sleeping with each other and not you right now - they're just not "married" in a legal sense.
-
The only point here is that "taking females off the nuptial market" isn't an objective problem.
Got figures to back that up?
I actually don't know. I've heard it's a theoretical problem but at the moment I have yet to be able to craft a search showing marriage rates in countries that practice it widely.
-
but at the moment I have yet to be able to craft a search showing marriage rates in countries that practice it widely.
Eh - marriage rates quoted from countries where women don't have any rights and therefore HAVE TO MARRY if the men say they do... doesn't really mean jack shit.Women have rights here. They won't HAVE to be polygamist.
-
Clarification: any problems are due to other social factors where it is practiced, not due to the actual practice.
Finding a wife in China is hard - I am told - as a result of the one-child policy. What does that say about the monogamy practiced there? Absolutely nothing.
-
I don't follow you here.
The religious nutjobs are just as censorious as the political-correctness twats.
-
Oh look, "You believe this thing I don't but wouldn't fight very hard for it except against me personally because I'm being annoying." is being opposed by "Y U SO STUPID! again.
Man, you should run for president!
-
Your posts are next to useless. At least put SOME content in them other than random ad hominem attacks.
-
There, that's one that makes sense! Good job attacking the content and not the person! Oh wait, did you imply that I never have put out any content? Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon.
Honestly, I'm enjoying reading this debate. But fighting off a weak opinion with "STOOOOOPIDDDD!!" just is not entertaining to read. Entertain me!
-
Honestly, I'm enjoying reading this debate. But fighting off a weak opinion with "STOOOOOPIDDDD!!" just is not entertaining to read. Entertain me!
sorry, but there wasn't much to respond with, and I was only calling him retarded because of his stupid "you're so cute" lead-in that was followed with completely the wrong type article.I believe @Frostcat and I came to an understanding in our stances about whether gay marriage itself should/could be legalized.
The argument now is entirely about whether there is a slippery slope argument to be made about gay -> polygamy.
All of these arguments are very complex because they involve essentially nothing but beliefs. And you're very rarely going to change someone's beliefs unless they are pretty damn objective in their thinking.
-
The problem would come in trying to create the laws to govern it, because there is no precedent.
Not no precedent. Just not many precedents in recent times in the US (or Europe either, for that matter) other than it being a banned practice. Though most of the time these days, the practice in those areas seems to be related to dishonest dealing and fraud, with the bigamist attempting to persuade multiple partners that they are not married multiple times in order to receive support payments from several people.
Scum are scum. Nobody has an exclusive claim on that, alas.
-
I am specifically saying the exact opposite of that.... sorry you fail to read the sarcasm in that sentence? I am pointing out that the equal rights arguments for interracial marriage were very close to the current equal rights arguments for gay marriage. So if interracial marriage becoming legal didn't help polygamists, then why should it be expected that legalizing gay marriage would be any different?
The arguments are pretty different between interracial and same sex marriages. The first was just about racism. Nothing was really changed about the institution. The second requires some fundamental cultural changes about what constitutes a family.
You are either an idiot or just terrible at sarcasm.
-
Not no precedent. Just not many precedents in recent times in the US (or Europe either, for that matter) other than it being a banned practice.
I should clarify that by no precedent, I meant in the US jurisdiction, for legalization. Since it is pretty rare that a US court would use other countries as examples for how we should enforce our own laws.Yes, there are precedents here for it being illegal entirely.
-
In gay marriage, it's still 2 people, so you can easily apply the same laws that applied to regular marriage. With polygamy, you need to create some way of chaining inheritances and taxes.
There are probably lots of precedents, given the number of second and third and etc marriages that happen.
-
I have had pretty good luck with it. Consider that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage by most polling. Just about the only people that think it's truly a slippery slope problem that will result in polygamy and bestiality being legalized are the sheeple of FOX news.
Except for the ones who vote. But all it takes is a judiciary that can agree. Which is how we got to where we are right now. Maybe if you watched more Fox News you'd understand what's actually happened on this issue.
-
The second requires some fundamental cultural changes about what constitutes a family.
It does? The right to marriage legally doesn't have much to do with what you or anyone thinks about family. It's about legal rights to things like inheritance, children, taxes....
-
Maybe if you watched more Fox News you'd understand what's actually happened on this issue.
You mean, maybe if I watched more FOXnews I'd think most Americans hate gays like they do?
Good old brainwashing foxnews.
