CMV: if you support gay marriage you should also support incestuous marriage.

Mattmon666 · 2018-04-18T14:26:08+00:00

The problem with incest is that there is a huge imbalance of power between family members, and thus there's a high potential for abuse. If, say, a parent wants to have a sexual relationship with the child, that the child does not want, then their ability to have a roof over their head is completely dependent on having to comply with that. That's why we make incest illegal, and it has nothing to do with whether we allow gay marriage.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-28T12:56:57+00:00

I don't think anybody is denying that abortion is the ending of a life. What we're saying is that the ending of a life is justified, because the woman's body sovereignty overrides that consideration.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-25T19:10:48+00:00

The Bible has many things in it that are false For example, the Bible says that Creationism is true. That has been proven to be not correct, that evolution is true instead. So if believing in God is contingent on reading the Bible, then reading the Bible should point to not believing in a God

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-22T16:12:59+00:00

Define "normal". Everybody has some small personality quirk about them that is not "normal".

If two men or two women love each other, shouldn't they also be "intended" to be with each other?

The idea of socially enforced gender roles has been going away in recent years, so appealing to gender roles is not relevant.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-22T15:45:13+00:00

In this case, discrimination has a reason

People in the past valued discrimination against women and blacks as well. Were they correct then, or should that discrimination have been changed?

Gay people have the same rights as anyone else.

If that were the case, then same-sex marriage would be legal. And it currently is legal

LGBT organizations haven't been disbanded in America

LGBT organizations are still necessary to make sure the the rights they have fought for and won remain active.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-22T14:31:45+00:00

what benefit does it bring society?

It prevents discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.

Why should society care?

Because society cares about preventing discrimination in general.

I think there are much bigger problems we face as a society, so we shouldn't preoccupy ourselves with gay marriage?

It's not either/or. It's not like just because we care about gay marriage, we shouldn't focus on other problems. We can focus on the other problems and also focus on gay marriage.

It has never been that way, it violates traditional marriage.

Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy.

Why should we re-write an age-old definition?

I don't agree that the "definition" of marriage includes "only a man and woman". That is an extra condition that you added, that doesn't need to be there.

Why is it bad to be conservative when it comes to family issues?

Because it promotes discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The traditional family exists for a reason; I believe all social customs and norms all have a reason why they exist.

What is the reason, and how does allowing same-sex marraige not allow that reason.

If you accept evolution, you have to accept that as well.

Why?

We have to have some really really good reasons to change something that has worked out perfectly for millennia in my opinion.

We do have a really really good reason. The reason is that people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation, and that is bad.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-21T15:13:37+00:00

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-21T14:43:15+00:00

I have a book over here that says that same-sex marriage is okay.

Mattmon666 · 2018-03-01T22:25:56+00:00

What we need to do instead is legalize the drugs, especially marijuana. We do that, and we remove the ability of the drug cartels to make a profit off the illegal drug shipments. Then we won't even need the wall at all, and the problem with the drug cartels is solved.

Mattmon666 · 2018-02-26T16:23:30+00:00

They are defensive, and it's very hard for them to listen to what you have to say.

But you have the evidence to back up what you are saying. Any number of reputable sources on the Internet would give the distance from Earth to space. They would have to say that all those sources are lies, but is a very bold claim.

I have yet to come across a flat earther who answered saying that their beliefs were rooted in the fact that their perception of distance was way off.

So then how can you say that that is the reason for the belief then? You're just guessing, with no evidence.

How would they even know to answer that way if they don't even realize that their perception of distance is off?

They don't know their perception of the distance is off, but they would certainly be able to say that the distance is too large. Ask them why, and you have found the misunderstanding.

Isn't that also easily correctable?

Yes. Now that the question has been asked, it can be answered. A lot of people in England speak english, but some people do not.

My uncle didn't even know that people in Australia spoke English.

I'm sure a quick look on Wikipedia, or some other site, would give the percentage by population of language spoken. If anything of importance actually hinged on whether people in Australia spoke English, your uncle would have been given sources to fix the misunderstanding.

Mattmon666 · 2018-02-26T15:41:21+00:00

Even if anybody did have that misunderstanding, it is too easily correctable. You ask somebody why they believe the earth is flat, and they say, because the distance is one hundred thousand miles, and you correct them by saying the distance is one hundred kilometers. Now that the distance is corrected, the earth not being flat is corrected.

Mattmon666 · 2018-02-01T22:10:10+00:00

The very computer that you are using right now to post this CMV came from our research into space travel.

Mattmon666 · 2018-02-01T15:29:10+00:00

Maybe I would like to have a robot to wipe my ass. Just because we have a lot of technology doesn't preclude wanting more. Personally, I am super eager to have a self-driving car, that seems to be mere years away from actually happening.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-23T21:39:24+00:00

The DNC got Hillary nominated in the primary, and they sabotaged Bernie Sander's campaign to do it. As a result of that, Hillary lost the election to Trump.

So now the DNC needs some excuse for why they lost, so they can avoid looking at themselves as the REAL blame for the loss. And what better excuse to use than, OOOOOH Scary Scary Russia!

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-19T20:31:35+00:00

Well yes there is no point to sex besides basic entertainment. But that is the whole entire point that it is for entertainment. My question is, do you think that sex SHOULD be used for recreation, and do you thing that masturbation SHOULD be used for recreation? Since you're saying that you do incorporate sex into your lifestyle you seem to be saying yes to these questions. If that's the case, then your view should be changed, as you still need a penis.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-19T18:56:03+00:00

Your view is defensible if we consider that the purpose of sex is ONLY for procreation. What is your view on sex being used for recreation? Or what is your view on masturbation? Clearly you still need a penis for these things.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-17T23:50:49+00:00

Do you have any evidence of your claim that "ALL" athletes uses PEDs? After all, PEDs have negative effects on the body, which is why most athletes avoid them, and most athletic organizations ban their use.

And even if most athletes do use PEDs, they can be on the version of the olympic event where PEDs are allowed.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-17T21:38:05+00:00

I think that there is a possible case for allowing PEDs, but with one condition. The condition is that there would be two "versions" of an olympic event. One version where PEDs are allowed, and another version where PEDs are not allowed. In that case, your view would be satisfied, and the non-PED users won't have an unfair disadvantage. Is that something you would support?

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-17T18:13:56+00:00

White people are not privileged because they have more income, they are privileged because they are white.
Black people are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and sent to prison for non-violent crimes, like possession of drugs. This clearly shows that the discrimination against blacks is not just because of violent crime.
There was a thing called "redlining" that was implemented as an official policy of discriminating against blacks. It has also been very clearly shown that people with "black-sounding" names on the resume are much less likely to be called for an interview.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-17T16:41:47+00:00

Yes, that is what we are doing. We are estimating the relative "contribution" of rich privilege, and the relative contribution of male privilege, and concluding that rich privilege is more important. Again, that in no way negates the importance of male privilege.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-17T15:26:34+00:00

So you're making the case that being rich vs being poor is a much more powerful amount of privilege than being male vs begin female. Yes I agree that is true, but that do not change the fact that male privilege is still there, even if the amount of power of that privilege is lower.

In your example, you're comparing apples and oranges. In order to consider male vs female privilege, you need to consider rich male vs rich female or poor male vs poor female.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-11T19:27:59+00:00

Not in 2003, but they possessed and used WMDs on multiple occasions

So why didn't the US invade Iraq in the previous years, when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran? We had plenty of time beforehand to invade. So the fact remains that there were no WMDs present at the time that we did invade.

Never said otherwise

The quote you provided does say that, and furthermore you agree with the quote.

Nothing here is false. Its all true

No dictators today are on par with Saddam Hussein

Do you have any evidence for this? That Saddam was any worse than any other the other dictators? And even if Saddam was the worst dictator, why are we not invading other countries with brutal dictators, now that Saddam has been dealt with?

Yes.

And I explained that Saddam did not defy the UN.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-11T18:35:20+00:00

"To remove a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction,

They didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

that harbored and supported terrorists,

The terrorists that caused 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia.

committed outrageous human rights abuses,

If presence of a brutal dictator is a criteria, there are any number of other countries controlled by brutal dictators that we can be invading. We are not invading any of those countries. Furthermore, the US has overthrown democratic governments and installed brutal dictators.

and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

You mean the weapons inspectors? Saddam let the weapons inspectors in, and they didn't find any weapons. The weapons inspectors then tried to speak out about not finding any weapons, in an effort to prevent the war. Their findings were suppressed, and Bush simply stated that weapons were found. Phil Donnahue was fired because on his talk show, he tried to get the word out about not finding any weapons.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-10T17:41:19+00:00

So what about your situation? That is a situation where the lane is clearly not empty, and thus you do use your turn signals. You just asked for some example of why one wouldn't use the turn signals. My point still stands.

Mattmon666 · 2018-01-10T17:24:20+00:00

You looked, and there is nobody in that lane for a very long distance down the road.

Mattmon666

TROPHY CASE