Iraqis, Coalition Troops (1 Viewer)

[400miles]

He has a different opinion to you, and seemingly, you can't accept that.

I can accept it fine. Asquithian has a different opinion to me in regards to teachers pay but I have no problem with him.
I have a problem with Rorix because he's an aggravating poster.

So, I say you were in a great position to judge, you say it's not just based on your opinion, and now you say you were just voicing your opinion. OK.

Initially, I was voicing my opinion. I backed that up by saying other people feel the same but without going into depth with that, so essentially it's still my opinion. Would you like me to explain it more?

Please link me to a post where I presented a position which you responded to, pointing out its flaws. That's responding to a stupid post. Your responses are more like

Go to the ban on gay marriages thread where we had that whole argument about the 'extra rights' crap. It was like a week ago but you've already forgotten....

As for your example with you saying "comment" and me saying ha ha you're an idiot. It's fairly accurate except your comment needs to be detailed more for a full understanding to be had about why I would leave such a short, seemingly pointless post.
IMO, it's more like this.

Some ignorant bullshit

Me: Hahaha you're an idiot.

So, put your money where your mouth is and stop responding.

I'm taking your lead mate. You said in the other post you could admit when you were wrong. And oh how many of those times there has already been. I'm waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is.

Plus I like showing you up. Dickheads annoy me, it's fun to annoy them.

 

[Rorix]

Wait, you're still saying that gay marriage isn't an extra right? I quit reading that thread once politiktim acknowledged he was using a different definition of extra, which he felt meant something different in context.

BTW: Go ahead and provide some links to any posts you want to talk about. I'm giving you the liberty of citing the worst examples of my behaviour you can find. Go ahead and link to an instance where I was proven wrong but refuse to admit it, or where I post "some ignorant bullshit".

 

[400miles]

hmm you quit reading that thread after someone else admitted to something different. You were arguing with me, however, and I still don't believe in the concept of extra rights so yeah, I'm still saying marriage isn't an extra right.

And if you'd REALLY like some examples of your ignorant bullshit then say so but honestly, like I said, I'm not worried with justifying myself to you. This perhaps may looks as though I'm avoiding what you said but in all honesty it's got more to do with me having more to do than look around every thread we've talked in for some example of your retarded attitude. But you have fun with life!

 

[Rorix]

hmm you quit reading that thread after someone else admitted to something different. You were arguing with me, however, and I still don't believe in the concept of extra rights so yeah, I'm still saying marriage isn't an extra right.

I quit reading the thread when politiktim said by extra he didn't actually mean the definition of extra, but rather 'something above and beyond what the ordinary populous has'.

What do you mean that you don't believe in the concept of extra rights? Is this a belief? Is this a point? Is there any reasoning to it, or is it just 'I don't believe rights are quanitities to be counted'?

And if you'd REALLY like some examples of your ignorant bullshit then say so but honestly, like I said, I'm not worried with justifying myself to you. This perhaps may looks as though I'm avoiding what you said but in all honesty it's got more to do with me having more to do than look around every thread we've talked in for some example of your retarded attitude. But you have fun with life!

Well, according to you, there's so many recent examples that you shouldn't have too much trouble! Besides, you like showing dickheads like me up.

 

[400miles]

What do you mean that you don't believe in the concept of extra rights? Is this a belief? Is this a point? Is there any reasoning to it, or is it just 'I don't believe rights are quanitities to be counted'?

oh my god... this is my point... here's an example for you of an ignorant post... I spent SOOO long saying this in the other thread telling youthat I didn't believe in the concept of extra rights and saying why. I cannot believe that it's just hit you now.

Well, according to you, there's so many recent examples that you shouldn't have too much trouble! Besides, you like showing dickheads like me up

According to me, i also said I don't have to justify myself to you as your opinion means nothign to me. I like showing dickheads like you up, doesn't mean I must do it at every chance I get.
But, see above for a prime example of your ignorance.

 

[Rorix]

have you ever considered the possibility that you're wrong?


just a thought.


you know, someone can't be deprived of rights when you can't count them.

btw: that sort of post is the same as every other shit post you make.

It's all just random "I can't believe you don't believe me" or "it's so obvious", you can't actually argue logically for anything.

 

[400miles]

Wow that was a fantastic argument. Well done. Another ignorant one from you. "Have you ever thought that you're wrong?"
Good work Rorix, well done.

You can count rights son, but I don't believe it's a concept of trying to limit it. Like saying 'Gays would be getting an extra right' I think is crap. That's why I dont believe in the concept of extra rights. The more rights there are in society the fairer things are. The point I'm making is it's not an issue of how many rights one has it's an issue of equality which is not to do with how many rights we have but why some people aren't allowed to do things others are.

But this is offtopic here, if you want to further discuss it bring it back to the proper thread.

As for your first sentence again, it's another classic example (you asked me to point them out) of your ignorance. And talk about posts that are 'trolling' people. Someone's a bit hypocritical now aren't they.

 

[400miles]

Btw, I just saw your edit saying it's obvious I can't argue anything logical. Well back that up. I argued very logically about extra rights in the ban on gay marriages thread. And suddenly now you come up going 'Oh what? Don't you believe in extra rights?'
Did you want me to repeat the ENTIRE ARGUMENT you and I had again?
It's very obvious I can argue it's also obvious that your ignorant. So as for typical posts you can open your eyes a bit. Perhaps you should re-read the gay marriages thread and stop posting crap.

And I didn't say "I can't believ eyou dont believe me" I said "I can't believe that you've only just realised that was my point". It was me pointing out your ignorance which you asked me to do so it wasn't random. Nice try though.

 

[Rorix]

You can count rights son, but I don't believe it's a concept of trying to limit it. Like saying 'Gays would be getting an extra right' I think is crap. That's why I dont believe in the concept of extra rights. The more rights there are in society the fairer things are. The point I'm making is it's not an issue of how many rights one has it's an issue of equality which is not to do with how many rights we have but why some people aren't allowed to do things others are.

So, did you read the three or four occasions where I said that I wasn't arguing about the validity of gay marriage, just rebuking the idea that gays were being deprived the right to marriage?

Have you realised that this relates to what you're saying if and only if you believe gays are being deprived the right to marriage?

Keep in mind that marriage is defined by the law to be the union of a man and a woman, which gays obviously aren't deprived of.

As for your first sentence again, it's another classic example (you asked me to point them out) of your ignorance. And talk about posts that are 'trolling' people. Someone's a bit hypocritical now aren't they.

Explain how I am being ignorant. It's not trolling to respond to one of your points, it's trolling to go around in every thread and just drop into it to flame you, like you did in this thread.

 

[Rorix]

Btw, I just saw your edit saying it's obvious I can't argue anything logical. Well back that up. I argued very logically about extra rights in the ban on gay marriages thread. And suddenly now you come up going 'Oh what? Don't you believe in extra rights?'

Perhaps you can quote me the bits you thought were logical.

Because this is what I remember:

Well I don't understand that... I'm all for "GIVING" the extra right... to "EVERYBODY"... I just don't understand what's wrong with it. It's not like we're only going to give the right to one group of people.. no no no... that would be as bad as giving marriage to heterosexuals only.
What's wrong with giving people rights?

"I don't see what's wrong with it"? Where's the logic?

Okay, let's say your pathetic argument about 'extra' rights is correct. What is wrong with the dog having extra rights? What is wrong with gays having more rights than they did before? Of course they'd bloody have more rights than they did before you fool that's the whole point... THey're undermined and underprivilaged.... they don't get to marry who they're in love iwth like heteros so therefore they dont have as many rights as heteros and therefore they deserve the right to marry who they like... and therefore OF COURSE THEY'D HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY HAD BEFORE... THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...

You missing the point again.

Well I'd love to. I'd like to explain why the minority part is irrelevant. It's not whether or not it's a lot of people that the right is affecting... it's whether or not without it there would be injustice. Hmm, an example... here's on that's been used already. The Aboriginals were given the right to vote and be considered 'people' in '67 which they hadn't ever had for nearly 200 years. Now they're a minority group (today they make up 2% of the Australian population) but they were given this right because without it would be an injustice for them.

Your arguement from precedence.

I've already ripped apart all these allegedly logical arguements in the thread, so just quote which bit you think is appropriate so that I can copy and paste my response.

Did you want me to repeat the ENTIRE ARGUMENT you and I had again?
It's very obvious I can argue it's also obvious that your ignorant. So as for typical posts you can open your eyes a bit. Perhaps you should re-read the gay marriages thread and stop posting crap.

And I didn't say "I can't believ eyou dont believe me" I said "I can't believe that you've only just realised that was my point". It was me pointing out your ignorance which you asked me to do so it wasn't random. Nice try though.

I'm going to post like you:
That quote shows your ignorance.


When you ask why was that ignorant:
That shows your ignorance.

 

[Rorix]

I've realised that perhaps my argument wasn't presented in a sufficently broken up form for you. I'll respond to what you've said in this thread:

You can count rights son, but I don't believe it's a concept of trying to limit it.

Whether there's a concept of trying to limit rights or not, gay marriage is still giving an extra right. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant - my point is simply, for the nth time, GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXTRA RIGHT.

Like saying 'Gays would be getting an extra right' I think is crap.

Gays currently can't marry the same sex. Under proposed gay marriage, gays now have the right to marry those of the same sex. This is a right they didn't have before - thus an extra right. If you can't understand this simple point, I'm just going to quit because it's evident that you are obtuse.

That's why I dont believe in the concept of extra rights.

Your reason for not believing in the concept of extra rights is because you think extra rights is good. Do you realise how illogical that is?

A generalised version of your argument:
Giving A is good, therefore I don't believe that you can give A.
Explain how something being good leads to a logical conclusion of not believing in the concept. If you don't believe in the concept, how the fuck can you think it is good? You can't.

The more rights there are in society the fairer things are.

Disputable and irrelevant. "Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant - my point is simply, for the nth time, GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXTRA RIGHT. "

The point I'm making is it's not an issue of how many rights one has it's an issue of equality

But these are intrinsically linked. You're talking about equality of rights, then saying its got nothing to do with how many rights you have. It's got everything to do with how many rights you have. Is this another one of your logical arguments?

which is not to do with how many rights we have but why some people aren't allowed to do things others are.

What people are allowed to do DEPENDS ON WHAT RIGHTS THEY HAVE! A right gives you the ability to do something, generally speaking.

Gays do not have the right to marry the same sex. Gays are not allowed to marry the same sex. Please explain the difference in meaning between the two sentences.


You are however, only the second most illogical poster on the board.

 

[Chemboy]

Not being an Iraqui, I can't really offer an opinion (to the original post) with the same validity as one. However, this forms in my mind the basis for a parallel: If I were Iraqui, would I appreciate a high military presence in my neighbourhood? Although the old regime has been significantly nullified, I am still scrutinised, in terms of security, by foreign soldiers in my own country. I'm not sure if this thread is still concerned with this perspective though.
The other piece of information I have read, which may be relevant, is that the coalition (or, the US) elected as the succeeding government one who would effectively bend to the whim of the US, forming only a "puppet government". Source-Issue 3 Allied Socialist Magazine Cheers -Luke

 

[Rorix]

thanks for that shmorgan
i guess it's a question of how highly they value security vs liberty

 

[neo o]

Plus, the United States didn't elect the Iraqi interim government - the governing council did, and it wasnt the US's ideal candidate.

And, do you think it was the US people that elected the Prime Minister? Honestly.

Also, I question your sources credibility

 

[Chemboy]

Talk to the editor if you like. The website for the article is www.resistance.org.au. There's also heaps of other provocative stuff there too. NB, I do acknowledge that the article may have sufferes some bias due to the source, but it's still relevant -Luke

 

[neo o]

http://www.resistance.org.au/documents/wssf/howsoc.shtml

lol

 

[Chemboy]

Yeah, I know. Interesting, huh.

 

[400miles]

Rorix I'm not going to post an argument to your incredibly long posts (I couldn't even be stuffed reading them all)... they all seemed to be re-arguing or assessing posts from the gay marriage thread and I'm not going to re-argue an argument we've already had in another thread. Feel free to posts many more pages of repeats, but rest assured I won't be bothered to read something if you're just re-typing it from another thread.

 

[Rorix]

So much for showing dickheads like me up , considering the posts aren't very long at all, most of it's just quoting you.

Basically, you're just trying to concede, without looking bad.

 

[400miles]

So much for showing dickheads like me up , considering the posts aren't very long at all, most of it's just quoting you.

Basically, you're just trying to concede, without looking bad.

Would you please stop telling me what I would say or what I'm trying to do? You keep assuming these things and you're always wrong. The reason I didn't reply in full to your posts was that they were bloody long and all they were was you quoting arguments that you and I have already argued. I find it pointless to RE-ARGUE an argument that we've already had. Point out the merit in it and I'll respond to your (long) posts.

I have no interest in conceding, but I also have no interest in wasting my time going over something that's been covered already.

And yeah, so much for showing dickheads like you up, you got too boring and lame for me to care about.

And your posts are long, even though they are quotes of mine it still means I have to read it all... I hope you had fun collecting all the comments I've ever made in my life and posting them here, but I'm not really enthralled about reading them and unless you give me a reason to re-argue a point I've already argued (and will argue in exactly the same way) then I won't be bothered wasting my time like you.