RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi?

RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 3:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: TheCabal ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: TheCabal And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married. Perhaps because you cannot validat it. Can't validate what? That unmarried people are irresponsible. That's a lovely strawman you've built there. But, why would I need to validate a claim I never made? My assertion was that people who've had their children taken by the state are, by and large, irresponsible.

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 3:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: TheCabal No seriously. That's how they started. The reason you had to get permission from the state to get married is because the state wanted to make sure blacks weren't marrying whites... or in some cases it was making sure Jews weren't marrying Christians, etc. That's what the entire purpose was back in the 20s, when marriage licenses became more or less standard practice. You know I read that mega many years ago, but then that was before I was aware that we are victims of propaganda second only to himmler. Well, ok, if you don't think that's the point, why would government care who you were getting married to? This country did just fine for about a century without widespread use of marriage licenses.

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 4:48:46 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheCabal ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married. Perhaps because you cannot validat it. Can't validate what? That unmarried people are irresponsible. That's a lovely strawman you've built there. But, why would I need to validate a claim I never made? Well it is your post I am quoting. See the bolded part of your post that I am quoting. So it is not a straw man but in fact what you said.

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:17:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: TheCabal ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married. Perhaps because you cannot validat it. Can't validate what? That unmarried people are irresponsible. That's a lovely strawman you've built there. But, why would I need to validate a claim I never made? Well it is your post I am quoting. See the bolded part of your post that I am quoting. So it is not a straw man but in fact what you said. Go back and read the part you didn't bold. And now try really hard to think about what I said. And now I'll re-phrase it in a way you will hopefully find clarifying: If you are so irresponsible that the state felt the need to take away your kids, you're probably not married. This doesn't mean that single people are irresponsible (or even that single parents are irresponsible). It means that very irresponsible people tend to be single. Get it yet?

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:38:09 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheCabal ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married. Perhaps because you cannot validat it. Can't validate what? That unmarried people are irresponsible. That's a lovely strawman you've built there. But, why would I need to validate a claim I never made? Well it is your post I am quoting. See the bolded part of your post that I am quoting. So it is not a straw man but in fact what you said. Go back and read the part you didn't bold. I have and the meaning does not change. And now try really hard to think about what I said. Did that too and it does not change what you said. And now I'll re-phrase it in a way you will hopefully find clarifying: If you are so irresponsible that the state felt the need to take away your kids, you're probably not married. This doesn't mean that single people are irresponsible (or even that single parents are irresponsible). It means that very irresponsible people tend to be single. Have you any validation for this moronic statement. Get it yet? Not until you can validate your moronic statement that "very irresponsible people tend to be single" Get it yet?

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:40:51 PM)
quote: It means that very irresponsible people tend to be single. Have you any validation for this moronic statement. Get it yet? Not until you can validate your moronic statement that "very irresponsible people tend to be single" Get it yet? How is that even a controversial statement? Or are you the sort of person who finds a high level of irresponsibility an attractive quality in a partner?

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:47:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheCabal It means that very irresponsible people tend to be single. Have you any validation for this moronic statement. Get it yet? Not until you can validate your moronic statement that "very irresponsible people tend to be single" Get it yet? [/quote] How is that even a controversial statement? If it is not a controversial statement then it should be pretty easy for you to validate it. Or are you the sort of person who finds a high level of irresponsibility an attractive quality in a partner? The overwhelming majority of my partners are prostitutes from nevada butt huts...(I am old and ugly). Their only responsibility to me is to show me that I got my money's worth.

Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:48:17 PM)
hey he has his imaginary magnum it makes sense he would have an imaginary partner [8D]

Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne hey he has his imaginary magnum it makes sense he would have an imaginary partner [8D] Na, I believe he frequents prostitutes. I'm sure that what he considers his money's worth is he lowers his pants and the whores point and laugh.

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:53:59 PM)
quote: How is that even a controversial statement? If it is not a controversial statement then it should be pretty easy for you to validate it. Or are you the sort of person who finds a high level of irresponsibility an attractive quality in a partner? The overwhelming majority of my partners are prostitutes from nevada butt huts...(I am old and ugly). Their only responsibility to me is to show me that I got my money's worth. Ok, just how would I 'validate' the notion that irresponsibility is not an attractive trait in a marriage partner, and that therefore very irresponsible people have trouble getting married? I mean, you seem to understand "old" is not an attractive trait in a marriage partner and neither is "ugly;" and the fact that you are both is preventing you from getting married. Why wouldn't "irresponsible" be just as much of a problem?

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 5:58:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne hey he has his imaginary magnum it makes sense he would have an imaginary partner [8D] Butt still sore auto-mag boy? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:04:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheCabal Ok, just how would I 'validate' the notion that irresponsibility is not an attractive trait in a marriage partner, and that therefore very irresponsible people have trouble getting married? That is not what I ask you to validate. While the opposite to your idiotic statement is quite easy to validate. That being that those who marry are irresponsible. To wit: the divorce rate is proof of irresponsibility. "Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher." http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:08:21 PM)
ORIGINAL: Nnanji Na, I believe he frequents prostitutes. I'm sure that what he considers his money's worth is he lowers his pants and the whores point and laugh. You think prostitutes get paid for that? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: TheCabal Ok, just how would I 'validate' the notion that irresponsibility is not an attractive trait in a marriage partner, and that therefore very irresponsible people have trouble getting married? That is not what I ask you to validate. While the opposite to your idiotic statement is quite easy to validate. That being that those who marry are irresponsible. To wit: the divorce rate is proof of irresponsibility. "Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher." http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/ No thomsonx, the opposite of MY statement is extreme irresponsibility is an attractive trait in a possible marriage partner. The idiotic statement is the one you came up with that you wish was mine.

Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Nnanji Na, I believe he frequents prostitutes. I'm sure that what he considers his money's worth is he lowers his pants and the whores point and laugh. You think prostitutes get paid for that? Jesus you are phoquing stupid. I wouldn't know myself. But I'm sure they'd fulfill such a contract for you. You tell me.

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:12:31 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheCabal No thomsonx, the opposite of MY statement is extreme irresponsibility is an attractive trait in a possible marriage partner. The idiotic statement is the one you came up with that you wish was mine. I quoted it from your post. You have shown you cannot validate it. Have a nice day.

TheCabal -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:42:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: TheCabal No thomsonx, the opposite of MY statement is extreme irresponsibility is an attractive trait in a possible marriage partner. The idiotic statement is the one you came up with that you wish was mine. I quoted it from your post. You have shown you cannot validate it. Have a nice day. Yes, and you clearly don't understand what I wrote.

LadyPact -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 6:47:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer That list of big names who are boycotting states with these anti-LGBT policies is getting longer and longer, isn't it? Do you know, I'm beginning to believe that it really isn't just democrats/liberals/commies/socialists/lefties/authoritarians (take your pick, they're all the same thing, as we all know) who are against these repulsive measures. I mean, the Disney corporation? Wow! I suspect that wouldn't have happened when Walt was alive, but even so .... Yes, and from my perspective, it works. Those years ago when Colorado voted Amendment 2 into law (it was an anti-rights bill) the state took one heck of a hit in the tourism industry. As the list of big names that won't come to your state grows, it has an impact.

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/11/2016 7:11:52 PM)
ORIGINAL: Nnanji I wouldn't know myself. But I'm sure they'd fulfill such a contract for you. You tell me. Should you ever sprain your wrist. http://www.sherisranch.com/

PeonForHer -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/12/2016 1:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer That list of big names who are boycotting states with these anti-LGBT policies is getting longer and longer, isn't it? Do you know, I'm beginning to believe that it really isn't just democrats/liberals/commies/socialists/lefties/authoritarians (take your pick, they're all the same thing, as we all know) who are against these repulsive measures. I mean, the Disney corporation? Wow! I suspect that wouldn't have happened when Walt was alive, but even so .... Yes, and from my perspective, it works. Those years ago when Colorado voted Amendment 2 into law (it was an anti-rights bill) the state took one heck of a hit in the tourism industry. As the list of big names that won't come to your state grows, it has an impact. I must say, I'm pretty impressed. I've not seen similar gutsiness in the UK by big companies or celebs (though, of course, there aren't states here to boycott, anyway). Good for them.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875