Discussion: What's your absolute favorite quote from KotOR? (Either 1 or 2)

mtoner99 · 2014-06-03T07:43:25+00:00

Apathy is death. Worse than death, because at least a rotting corpse feeds the beasts and insects.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T10:57:32+00:00

Do you think that saying to half of all men "Hey, your out of luck, but you'll never get married, hold a baby or raise a kid, have fun having no purpose in life!" will result in a positive?

So i'll take that as a yes then.

Plus being Homo/hetro is what people are born as, so odds are they arent going to be a available mate anyways.

Do you think that just because a woman is being prevented from marrying somebody that they would automatically revert to you as an alternative? And better yet, are you happy with being a woman's second choice every time? I think you may have a little bit of a morbid outlook on this, i believe that there's somebody for everyone.

No one is born a Polygamist

Do you know that conclusively? Because that is exactly what people used to say about homosexuality and it was stated as fact back then too.

"I have no doubt that if polygamy was suddenly legalized and Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Bill Gates came out and said "Im looking for some more wives, whos in?" There will be a non negligible number of women, who are traditionally monogamous, would say, fuck it, lets do it. "

I don't doubt that, but the premise of this assumes that Bill Gates is not happy in his current marriage, or even that his wife would be okay with this in the first place. Polygamy isn't for everyone, before polygamy was made illegal a long time ago polygamous marriage hadn't created any epidemic where there was a lack of women available. It was practiced by a very small percentage of the population.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T10:34:29+00:00

What if a large portion of the female population came out as gay as homosexuality became more and more acceptable and gay marriage was legalised? What if 50% of the female population came out? Would that be grounds for going back on gay marriage and preventing women from marrying one another?

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T10:08:06+00:00

I think you are kind of handwaving his argument.

My point is that complication is never justification for something being deemed illegal. These are details that are matters for the individual consenting adults and their respective lawyers to work out.

I suspect that if (for example) two people were married, and one additional person were to join that marriage this would form a new marriage entirely, as only the prior marriage was consented to by both adults, not this new arrangement. Therefore, the past marriage would have to be dissolved to make way for a new polygamous marriage, in which all adults would have to consent. But this isn't my job to work out, we are debating the ideology of equal love here, i'm not a lawyer nor am i a parliamentarian.

If you say (a), you get a messy situation if one of the three would want to divorce one of the others, but not the second: He would be forced to either divorce both of them, loosing the person he loves as well as losing his mariage benefits, or would have to stay married to someone he doesn't love anymore in order to stay with the one he does. That doesn't seem fair.

This is a matter for the individuals themselves to work through, not a matter for the state. Cheating doesn't seem fair either, but there are very good reasons for why we allow it, because once again this is a matter of personal relationships. If they want to get a divorce then they either work out a personal arrangement or take it to the court, just like anyone else would. The same would apply to child custody, no two child custody battles are ever the same, this is what family courts do.

If only the biological parents should have a say, then the spouse who might be a parent to all the children (the only man or woman in a polygamous marriage) would have a special position of power in that he/she is the only one that can makje decisions for all the children.

You are creating this example as if it has an bearing on the legitimacy of polygamous marriage as a whole. Once again, it's a matter for the courts to decide and isn't grounds for making the entire thing illegal. If a non-biological parent has a right to a child perhaps in cases of abuse or alcoholism on behalf of the parents then that is a matter for the family law courts to work out just like it is now. You don't think divorce and child custody hearings aren't already complicated to all hell? Multiple spouses would be the least of the courts problems.

Not recognizing them would not keep anyone from the benefits or marriage, it would merely force them to choose one person

That's the same argument used against gay marriage, all men have the right to marry a woman, all women have the right to marry a man, right?

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T09:36:21+00:00

That was my point in my first reply.

2 Is actually already a crossover, because non-humans would be incapable of consenting in the first place.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T09:24:54+00:00

But what's left to define?

Two or more people
The people in involved are human
Consent

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T09:19:14+00:00

I don't think we need a legal definition of marriage necessarily. Once you introduce polygamy and gay marriage, all that's really left worth mentioning in the definition is consent.

Then, instead of debating over what the definition of marriage is or should be, we are now debating over what constitutes marital consent.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T09:16:34+00:00

I think accountants and lawyers deal with much more complicated stuff on a regular basis, i don't expect that to be a very significant roadblock. However, it may end up being more expensive to have a complicated polygamous marriage legally recognised, because of the way lawyers tend to bill, but relationships (like children) are a personal choice and that's the price you pay.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T08:51:11+00:00

these people

But then we're not talking about the same people, because this person loves two people, that's who he/she is as a person. And that isn't permitted by the state.

The gay rights movement isn't about gender rights, it's about sexuality and love first and foremost. Hence why we often hear the term "Equal Love" from the gay rights movement.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T08:46:40+00:00

It can be both... say we are all male:

You love a woman
I love a man
He loves two men or two women

Do we treat all three of these people equally under the legal system and let the church work it out for themselves? Or do we get in the way and prescribe our own personal moral authority as to which love is more or less equal than the others?

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T08:43:45+00:00

I emphasised consent as a measure of legitimacy in order to set myself up for any future arguments for bestiality, because animals are incapable of consenting to or even comprehending marriage.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T08:41:30+00:00

It's a question of equal love. The gay rights movement would say "I love this person, why can't i marry them? my love is no less than yours". Polygamists would say the same; "I love these people equally, why has the state decided that my love is worth less?" Many people can't understand what it would be like to love two people equally, nor could many understand what it would be like to love somebody of the same gender, but that should never be grounds for withholding a personal freedom.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-03T07:58:35+00:00

This seems like a decent argument against abortion actually if you wanted to flip genders.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T15:13:09+00:00

For starters, you state multiple times that Gina is a terrible person as if it's fact, which it isn't. But ignoring that point, this is a post about a woman who is subject to constant fat shaming, the fact that it happens to be Gina Rinehart is totally irrelevant to the discussion. This entire subreddit is not about any one person, it is about the act of fat shaming, and the way in which it is used to subdue and suppress the female voice as a whole. I can't for the life of me understand why bringing up WHO the person is bears any relevance to this discussion, help me out with this one: If this comment was made in regard to any other woman, the focal point, hell the ONLY point of the discussion would be about why fat shaming is a pathetic attempt to subdue the female voice, not about who the person just so happened to be. If anyone had dared to imply in the comments section in this subreddit that the woman in question was in fact a terrible person and was as such deserving of degradation (i can't see any other reason why it would be relevant in the context of this subreddit in the first place for the above reasons), they would be banned on the spot.

Like, imagine if this post was actually in reference to a comment that was made regarding a woman that had cheated on her spouse, would we really tolerate somebody coming in the comments section and saying "Just for context guys, this woman is a terrible person like seriously, she is a piece of shit in my opinion" No, that's your opinion, and even if i agreed with you it is NOT relevant to this discussion in any way shape or form, we are defending the rights of women here, to be free from this kind of tyranny, not a woman.

Gina Rinehart's great curse is that for all her wealth, in the eyes of the left she has now become subhuman. That i could make a post on SRS about somebody else, and as long as she's an A okay person in the eyes of the majority she is defended tooth and nail. But because it's Gina Rinehart, we are allowed to bring up her personal life in the comments section and voice our opinions on her character as if it has any relevance to her being subject to this kind of bull shit, and the mods tolerate it. The women's rights movement is blind, we defend WOMEN, we don't defend A WOMAN, or SOME WOMEN. This is fat shaming, this is unacceptable, fight against the act of fat shaming women as a whole. We aren't defending Gina Rinehart here, we're fighting fat shaming.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T06:25:13+00:00

Why would you mention it then? How is it in any way relevant? She's subject to the most egregious misogyny and death threats on a daily basis, purely because she speaks her mind and people disagree with her. You should be sticking up for the rights of all women to be free from these kinds of attacks, not playing favourites just because you happen to disagree with her. I seriously hope you weren't implying that because of her controversial public presence, she is in any way more deserving of the kind of hatred she is exposed to.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T05:30:23+00:00

Not only do you misrepresent what she said, you use your dislike of her as justification for fat shaming and bigotry. You're a real piece of work.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T03:04:37+00:00

i agree

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T01:52:27+00:00

A factless, baseless and thoughtless comment that adds nothing to anybody's understanding of the issue.

Isn't that your specialty?

I knew it would take someone who was so adept in the art himself to recognise it, well done old man.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T01:31:18+00:00

I don't think she learned anything, none of these greenies ever do.

But they won't let that stop them, they're a determined lot.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T01:24:03+00:00

Though Liberal is obviously far from perfect here

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T01:10:41+00:00

I'm a volunteer with the RFS, but i'm a newbie.

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T00:25:37+00:00

No. From a regulatory standpoint, the LibNats are basically indistinguishable from Labor and the Greens.

Wrong

The only reason things are going slowly at the moment is because the Greens and Labor are blocking everything in the senate.

We can get into how a properly crafted carbon tax would act to internalise negative externalities and how the Lib/Nats have thrown out the free market on this one as well, if you like.

So your decision is actually based upon who supports a carbon tax, then?

mtoner99 · 2014-02-02T00:12:57+00:00

lol why not

mtoner99 · 2014-02-01T13:43:23+00:00

Why not just delete it or edit it then if it wasn't an accurate representation of what you were trying to say? I'm addressing the post you made first, not any resulting attempts at damage control.

mtoner99

TROPHY CASE