Home | News | Forums | Turf Map | Screenshots | Play Turf Wars Now!

Duck Dynasty

• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon "hateful" bigoted" for those who want sure
  

  Is a adult forcing oneself upon another? Where on earth did you read that? You are not allowing thought here fnord and closing your mind by just saying "its moronic" that simply doesnt deal with the issue that if two children want to marry they have that "equal right" to do so. You dont want equal rights buddy. You really have the appearance of a person with a agenda no question about it.

  They do have thy right. Once they reach the legal age, or parents consent. Man Augy really.....you suck at this debates. Why do you even bother? Thanks for the laughs man. Myself and my family appreciate it. We are all getting a good laugh from this thread.
• Ojibwe Dec 26, 2013

  Everyone else in this argument understands the concept of consent. Even Mack and Undertow concede we are talking about consenting adults here. Only Augustine constantly chooses to ignore consent. Just stick to the parameters of the debate. Throwing in entirely unrelated circumstances looks a bit desperate.
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
  

  Are you in support of Muslims building mosques all over America? Voting them into office to use their religion to rule your life? If not you're bigoted and hateful to them.

  You reference Muslims using their religion to rule your life? I hope you do some research on Sharia Law and how homosexuality is viewed under Sharia.
  And You think states rights are a bad thing?
• Oarsman Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
  

  Are you in support of Muslims building mosques all over America? Voting them into office to use their religion to rule your life? If not you're bigoted and hateful to them.

  You reference Muslims using their religion to rule your life? I hope you do some research on Sharia Law and how homosexuality is viewed under Sharia.
  And You think states rights are a bad thing?

  Who said State's rights are a bad thing. Nobody. You brought it up.
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont.
  

  You obviously don't understand evolution and natural selection enough to be discussing it. How come those species didn't die off? Augy....you make me laugh. You're funny :)

  For your question. How about.....overpopulation? Sorta like population control?
  

  Are you suggesting that gay marriage is part of evolution and or natural selection? There are 4 principles of natural selection. Not sure these principles support homosexuality. A spices ability to reproduce ensures that a species survives, homosexuals don't reproduce. Just saying.
• ★ΛUGUSTINΞ★ Dec 26, 2013

  Ojibwe wrote:

  Everyone else in this argument understands the concept of consent. Even Mack and Undertow concede we are talking about consenting adults here. Only Augustine constantly chooses to ignore consent. Just stick to the parameters of the debate. Throwing in entirely unrelated circumstances looks a bit desperate.
  

  Because consent doesnt establish moral objective truth.
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
  

  And You think states rights are a bad thing?

  I'm using the same logic as you guys. You use your religion (which you CHOSE to follow) to try and run OUR lives with it. Then play victim card at every corner possible. Id like to see you guys at the merci of another religion an see how you react. I hoped it would open your eyes....but obviously it won't. Plus I was calling Augy on his circular responses he loves to do. Says we do one thing an it's wrong, yet when he does it, it's right?
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont.
  

  Under tow. Next time READ what people are discussing. Where in the discussion you quote was either Augstine or myself discussing marriage? Really dude, you've lost your stance on this debate so now you resort to twisting and adding things to others discussion? Wow
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont.
  

  And You think states rights are a bad thing?
  

  Id like to see you guys at the merci of another religion an see how you react. I hoped it would open your eyes....but obviously it won't.

  It's a shame you prefer vengeance and some kind of implied injury by the hands of Muslims upon anyone who has a different opinion instead of promoting tolerance. You are even intollerent of what one state decides is best for them vs a different state.
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  I do love how your kind always resorts to the old " gays can't reproduce so if we allow gay marriage mankind will die out" REALLY? We don't chose our sexuality. Homosexuality has been around longer before humans evolved. It's in 1000's of other species that are still around. 😱 oh wait. It must be god right? He is just popping them into existence?
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
  

  I must say Augustine. Coming from a religious person, This is one of the most ironic things you could have said. Us free thinkers were taught to think this way? But religious people weren't? You weren't dragged to church your entire childhood forced into Sunday school? Threaghtend with hell and torture if you didn't believe? But we were taught to think this way and you weren't? LOL oh man. You totally made my day with that line man. 👏👏👏👏 thanks Augustine....ah that was a good laugh. 😂😂😂
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont.
  

  And You think states rights are a bad thing?
  

  It's a shame you prefer vengeance and some kind of implied injury by the hands of Muslims upon anyone who has a different opinion instead of promoting tolerance. You are even intollerent of what one state decides is best for them vs a different state.

  Lol wow, you are trying so hard to twist words around aren't you? Really pathetic attempts I might add hahaha
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  Ojibwe wrote:

  Everyone else in this argument understands the concept of consent. Even Mack and Undertow concede we are talking about consenting adults here. Only Augustine constantly chooses to ignore consent. Just stick to the parameters of the debate. Throwing in entirely unrelated circumstances looks a bit desperate.
  

  Because consent doesnt establish moral objective truth.

  Consent is exactly what moral objective truth implies. If it didn't we wouldn't have laws for "age of consent". Because we view any age below to be too young/ wrong.
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  It's a shame you prefer vengeance and some kind of implied injury by the hands of Muslims upon anyone who has a different opinion instead of promoting tolerance

  Where exactly did I say vengeance or injury in my response? And why would you automatically go to that assumption when Muslims were mentioned? You seem a little intolerant and bigoted towards Muslims. Tsk tsk, you're just like Augy. Talking in circles and can't remember what you said earlier. Lol
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  It's a shame you prefer vengeance and some kind of implied injury by the hands of Muslims upon anyone who has a different opinion instead of promoting tolerance

  Where exactly did I say vengeance or injury in my response? And why would you automatically go to that assumption when Muslims were mentioned? You seem a little intolerant and bigoted towards Muslims. Tsk tsk, you're just like Augy. Talking in circles and can't remember what you said earlier. Lol

  You can edit out your comment in your reply but that doesn't change what you said.
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:

  ☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:

  It's a shame you prefer vengeance and some kind of implied injury by the hands of Muslims upon anyone who has a different opinion instead of promoting tolerance

  Where exactly did I say vengeance or injury in my response? And why would you automatically go to that assumption when Muslims Lol

  You can edit out your comment in your reply but that doesn't change what you said.

  Lol god you're an idiot.
• ★fnord★ Dec 26, 2013

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
  

  About as ironic as the individuals who cry for tollerence calling names and making intollerent comments.
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 26, 2013

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
  

  I never argued against seperation of C&S. I argued against your comments claiming it was clearly defined. Follow along now.
• ★fnord★ Dec 26, 2013

  I really try to avoid ad hominem in a civilized discussion, but I have to agree. His reading comprehension and reasoning ability is so breathtakingly lacking, I'm still not entirely convinced it's not an act. Are there really people this stubbornly ignorant in the world that can also figure out how to use an iDevice? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he occasionally forgets to breathe.
• Oarsman Dec 26, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
  

  I never argued against seperation of C&S. I argued against your comments claiming it was clearly defined. Follow along now.

  No. You just wrongly argued the concept of separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. Then you tried to say the 1st amendment isn't part of the constitution. Then you claimed same sex marriage is a state's rights issue as opposed to an equal protection issue. Remember all that?
• ★fnord★ Dec 27, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
  

  I never argued against seperation of C&S. I argued against your comments claiming it was clearly defined. Follow along now.

  Get help. Now. This is not healthy behavior.
• Boner Jams '03 Dec 27, 2013

  Oarsman wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  Just skimming through...did the same guy that argued for pages and pages against separation of church and state just bring up the dangers of Sharia law without a hint of irony?
  

  I never argued against seperation of C&S. I argued against your comments claiming it was clearly defined. Follow along now.

  No. You just wrongly argued the concept of separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. Then you tried to say the 1st amendment isn't part of the constitution. Then you claimed same sex marriage is a state's rights issue as opposed to an equal protection issue. Remember all that?

  Oh snap!
• ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ Dec 27, 2013

  Ojibwe wrote:

  Deicide wrote:

  ok.... i freely admit im extrememly ignorant in this area and i don't have much background information on the situation and no interest in the show or the characters. i don't see how the network firing him has anything to do with seperation of c&s..... don't slam me... just help me understand.....
  

  Topic drift Deicide. It happens. :)

  +1
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 27, 2013

  Oarsman wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  I never argued against seperation of C&S

  No. You just wrongly argued the concept of separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. Then you tried to say the 1st amendment isn't part of the constitution. Then you claimed same sex marriage is a state's rights issue as opposed to an equal protection issue.

  Lol. No where in Constitution or BofR does it say "seperation of C&S". I argued that that the constitution has amendments, amendments are part of the constitution but amendments are not the constitution......and lastly you pick and choose what amendments you like and don't like to fit your view. I simply stated that the 10thA is an important part of the marriage debate since nowhere in the constitution or BofR is marriage or "right" to mairrage exist.
• ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ Dec 27, 2013

  I'm guessing the mods are still in vacation. How is this still up???
• Oarsman Dec 27, 2013

  Now you are back to, exact verbiage as opposed to intent in the Constitution? I thought we covered this. And equal protection under the law is the correct issue here, not state's rights.
• Oarsman Dec 27, 2013

  That makes this a 14th amendment issue as opposed to a 10th amendment issue. Your state will still be able to regulate marriage, it just won't be able to discriminate against same sex union. Just as your state can no longer discriminate against inter racial unions.
• Oarsman Dec 27, 2013

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  Oarsman wrote:

  Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:

  ★fnord★ wrote:

  C&S

  Lol. No where in Constitution or BofR does it say "seperation of C&S". I argued that that the constitution has amendments, amendments are part of the constitution but amendments are not the constitution......and lastly you pick and choose what amendments you like and don't like to fit your view. I simply stated that the 10thA is an important part of the marriage debate since nowhere in the constitution or BofR is marriage or "right" to mairrage exist.

  How did I miss that? You still don't understand that a rarified amendment is the constitution?
• 〓UNDERTOW〓 Dec 27, 2013

  ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:

  I'm guessing the mods are still in vacation. How is this still up???
  

  Just delete it.

Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC