Conquer Club

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.

Then you genuinely are an idiot. Bear in mind that I'm not attacking you as a person- I have no idea who you are. I'm attacking your arguments, and judging you on their poor quality over a consistent period. Indeed, you seem to have regressed to the point of making your arguments in picture format. Endearing in a small child, less so in an adult.

Symmetry wrote: you're an idiot.

patrickaa317 wrote:



I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

Symmetry wrote: you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:



I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

Symmetry wrote: you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:



I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

Symmetry wrote: you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

Examples of people explaining my mistakes and me being upset in this thread?

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

I for one am pretty dissapointed there was not "Scooby Doo ending" answer.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:



I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

Symmetry wrote: you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

Examples of people explaining my mistakes and me being upset in this thread?

No need to get defensive, you do accept that you made mistakes in this thread right? Or are you just being a dick and demanding that people explain your mistakes to you again before you acknowledge them?

And seriously? No picture this time? Maybe you are learning.

patrickaa317 wrote:lol, that's all i have to say is lol.

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

I for one am pretty dissapointed there was not "Scooby Doo ending" answer.

Frigidus wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage was designed for couples to have children

People were having children loooooong before marriage was invented. Besides, the form and function of marriage has differed between cultures, and within those cultures it has drastically changed over time. In the modern world, most people get married because they are interested in who they're getting married to, not because of the potential children they might have someday.

Forgive my doubt here, but I have a feeling that the only reason you choose to define marriage that way is because you are looking for a way to argue against gay marriage. Free thinking involves taking some given premises and arriving at a conclusion, but so often when it comes to this issue people take the reverse path. They aren't looking for the best answer, they're looking for a way to get what they want.

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

Phatscotty wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

SwimmerDude wins the thread

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

SwimmerDude wins the thread

Because thats what really matters,petty point-scoring.F@ck having a serious discussion,and heaven forbid listening to different points of view and learning something..

Phatscotty wrote:What we learned this week is that Joe Biden is out of touch with the mainstream, and then Barak Hussein Obama joined him.

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:What we learned this week is that Joe Biden is out of touch with the mainstream, and then Barak Hussein Obama joined him.

How so? The majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and in three or four decades most of the opposition that's left will have died of old age.

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:What we learned this week is that Joe Biden is out of touch with the mainstream, and then Barak Hussein Obama joined him.

How so? The majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and in three or four decades most of the opposition that's left will have died of old age.

Then a majority of states will accept gay marriage

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:What we learned this week is that Joe Biden is out of touch with the mainstream, and then Barak Hussein Obama joined him.

How so? The majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and in three or four decades most of the opposition that's left will have died of old age.

Then a majority of states will accept gay marriage

I imagine they'll eventually just amend the Constitution.

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:What we learned this week is that Joe Biden is out of touch with the mainstream, and then Barak Hussein Obama joined him.

How so? The majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and in three or four decades most of the opposition that's left will have died of old age.

Then a majority of states will accept gay marriage

I imagine they'll eventually just amend the Constitution.

31 states already have or have taken similar measures

North Carolina is the most recent

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:How so? The majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and in three or four decades most of the opposition that's left will have died of old age.

Then a majority of states will accept gay marriage

I imagine they'll eventually just amend the Constitution.

31 states already have or have taken similar measures

North Carolina is the most recent

No, like, they'll amend the country's Constitution to force things across the country. I can't predict when, but in one hundred years if that hasn't occurred I'll be shocked.

vodean wrote:marriage is kinda an outdated concept anyway... why dont we abolish it for all people and have people live together in informal civil unions... or hippie, cult-like societies where people collectively raise children and care for everyone's children equally.

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:marriage is kinda an outdated concept anyway... why dont we abolish it for all people and have people live together in informal civil unions... or hippie, cult-like societies where people collectively raise children and care for everyone's children equally.

North Carolina also banned civil unions for gay people.