dk

I didn't mention population. I'll say this though, a nation, empire or civilization grows and prospers by overcoming problems that arise from time to time with life affirming solutions. When a nation, empire or civilization encounters a problem they can't resolve, they are ruined whether the end comes quick or slow. The problem may push them over like a game of dominoes, or like the Roman Empire decline for a couple hundred years. Cortez (not even a military man) with about 400 men toppled the Aztec Empire of +20million people. The Aztecs with overwhelming superior numbers, and home field advantage fell like dominos. Obviously overwhelmingly superior numbers and home turf don’t mean everything.

Kimpatsu

Don't you mean called pokin' fun?

Kimpatsu

No, but they mean a large portion.
One of the things that killed the Aztecs was that Cortez's appearance fulfilled a doomsday prophecy, and many Aztecs just gave up and surrendered to the inevitable.
Disease also played a part.
Why not mention those two points first?

dk

The Aztecs had enough people to drown Cortez and his men by pissing on em, even pissing into the wind. These weren't dumb people, a quick examination of their culture and science shows they were certainly technologically advanced, maybe superior to the Spanish. I can't explain it, and I've read several theories. What his means to me, is that civilizations aren't forged upon material things despite appearances.

keyser_soze

Okay, so now I am confused. Because you kept arguing that homosexual marriage was "somehow" responsible for europe not being able to keep it's population high enough for employment and military. You keep insinuating that this "terrible thing" is going to destroy the american family structure(news for you, look around, it's been destroyed since the country was founded...those dorks who keep talking about the glory days...are just trying to blow sunshine. America has had it's problems for a long assed time.) Please clarify your position in light of your new assertions, so that I can straighten out exactly what you are saying. Because I don't see any population declines. I don't see europe's more compassionate and understanding sexual mores as being destructive to them. I don't see "abstinence first" working here in the states. I see a bunch of uptight, anal retentive homophobes and bigots trying to fundyize the united states, trying to bring it back to the days of plymouth rock so that they can keep a hold on their whiteness. They are drowning in diversity and refusing to learn to swim. Screw 'em, let them go down with the S.S. Bigot.

See, either you are saying all these things, or you are all over the freaking map. I keep hearing about civiliations that have fallen, and it occurs to me that someone has missed an important fact...SHIT CHANGES. It always has, it always will. Those who try to grasp onto the static world, bigots and racists, and militia freaks...These people are just not able to understand that this fundamental fact affects ALL civilizations. No civilization remains unchanged forever. That is such a ludicrous idea.

Clutch

Okay, liv, I thought yguy'd won the "Most Absurd Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Reply" in his blitherings at me. But you managed to get something truly remarkable out of him here.

400 years after some Romans do something yguy doesn't like, the Roman Empire falls. yguy concludes that the Roman empire fell because some Romans had done something he doesn't like, 400 years earlier.

yguy, is the idea to make yourself so laughable as to beat any potential satirizers to the punch? So ludicrous as to be safe from any conceivable caricature?

Carry on, then.

Philosoft

"Original sin. It's not just for Jews anymore."

Bill Snedden

I was going to post separate lengthy responses to both yguy and dk, but after reading the last page or so, I realized there would be little point. I'll confine myself to the following:

To yguy, who noted that my argument relied on evolution, which he considers "unproven":

Actually, no. "Man has changed over the millenia" was not a reference to evolutionary change, but to societal change, which seems to me undeniable. I mean, I don't live in a cave or mud hut, I don't hunt bison, and I'm typing this message on a computer instead of incising it in stone tablets. Of course, if you're willing to deny the veracity of history, psychology, anthropology and sociology along with biology, gealogy, and genetics, I suppose you might be able to make some sense out of your argument...

To dk, who noted....well, really nothing much:

I found your comments to be only tangentially related to anything I said and certainly a far cry from addressing the points I made. Further, your reference to the Swift article as "hate speech" is completely baffling. Swift was employing a time-honored rhetorical device, one that should be easily reconizable by any educated person. The Christian "Right" has often claimed the existence of a "homosexual agenda" and further averred that it contains the types of activities Swift mentioned. Swift's statement, hyperbolically constructed, satirizes and lampoons those in the Right who construct such fatuous arguments. By putting such thoughts into words, and emphasizing them as he does, he demonstrates how truly ridiculous and offensive it is to argue or believe that such statements could possibly be true.

If you can't understand this, then you are truly beyond reason's grasp...

As it is, I should have heeded my own better judgement and never entered into this fray. I leave with the following observation:

Although I must admit I find the word "homophobe" almost completely devoid of objective meaning, you have otherwise hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head here.

At its base, this is about people who don't like change and seek to stop it at all costs. Unable to cope with the reality of a changing world, they construct all sorts of elaborate fantasies that allow them to justify their objections on all sorts of levels. Unfortunately, neither the religious (yguy) nor the "chicken little" (dk) approaches will ultimately triumph. Just as keyser_soze has said, change happens. It is our ability, both as individuals and as a society of individuals, to cope with constant, ineluctable change that ensures our survival and nothing else.

There will be no convincing these true disciples of the "church of yesterday's way is always better". At best, we can only continue to point out the flaws in their arguments and trust that in the end, Man's mind will win out over his baser emotions.

And with that, I'm out...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

keyser_soze: Okay, so now I am confused. Because you kept arguing that homosexual marriage was "somehow" responsible for europe not being able to keep it's population high enough for employment and military.
dk: From the beginning, I’ve asserted gay marriage (x-family) undermines the nuclear family as the archetype of civilization. I wouldn’t presume to compare the US, a diverse nation of immigrants from around the world, with Europe, or any particular nation in Europe.

keyser_soze: You keep insinuating that this "terrible thing" is going to destroy the american family structure(news for you, look around, it's been destroyed since the country was founded...those dorks who keep talking about the glory days...are just trying to blow sunshine.
dk: I haven’t insinuated anything.

keyser_soze: America has had it's problems for a long assed time.) Please clarify your position in light of your new assertions, so that I can straighten out exactly what you are saying. Because I don't see any population declines. I don't see europe's more compassionate and understanding sexual mores as being destructive to them. I don't see "abstinence first" working here in the states. I see a bunch of uptight, anal retentive homophobes and bigots trying to fundyize the united states, trying to bring it back to the days of plymouth rock so that they can keep a hold on their whiteness. They are drowning in diversity and refusing to learn to swim. Screw 'em, let them go down with the S.S. Bigot.
dk: I haven’t made any new assertions the last couple of pages, but have answered questions and responded to the assertions of others. You can’t rationalize gay marriage by yelling “you bigot”, “you homophobe” and “you fundie”. You’ve got to make a reasonable argument then support it. Gays suffer from their own culture at the hands of gay leaders. Gay leaders yell, “Save us, we love you, we need you to be like us, so we can stick it up your ass”. The Institutionalization of anal sex won’t help gay people, it will only sever the bonds that hold together the nuclear family.

keyser_soze: See, either you are saying all these things, or you are all over the freaking map. I keep hearing about civiliations that have fallen, and it occurs to me that someone has missed an important fact...SHIT CHANGES. It always has, it always will. Those who try to grasp onto the static world, bigots and racists, and militia freaks...These people are just not able to understand that this fundamental fact affects ALL civilizations. No civilization remains unchanged forever. That is such a ludicrous idea.
dk: So change your mind about gay marriage. When you change the bath water you don’t throw the baby out. This is a weak argument.

dk

Preach it, brother!
Bill Snedden: To dk, who noted....well, really nothing much:
dk: Well I can see by your 11 syllable pronouncement you’ve got real substance.

Bill Snedden: I found your comments to be only tangentially related to anything I said and certainly a far cry from addressing the points I made.
dk: I have no idea what points you made, because you didn’t respond when I asked for clarification.

Bill Snedden: Further,
dk: Further? you’ve said nothing so far.

Bill Snedden: your reference to the Swift article as "hate speech" is completely baffling. Swift was employing a time-honored rhetorical device, one that should be easily reconizable by any educated person.
dk: Hey, 50 years ago, it was a time honored tradition to call an African American nigger. Good point.

Bill Snedden: The Christian "Right" has often claimed the existence of a "homosexual agenda" and further averred that it contains the types of activities Swift mentioned.
dk: You have heard of the Gay Right Movement? No. I can see you’ve got a lot offer.

Bill Snedden: Swift's statement, hyperbolically constructed, satirizes and lampoons those in the Right who construct such fatuous arguments. By putting such thoughts into words, and emphasizing them as he does, he demonstrates how truly ridiculous and offensive it is to argue or believe that such statements could possibly be true. If you can't understand this, then you are truly beyond reason's grasp...
dk: Hate speech always needs to be rationalized, otherwise it would sound hateful.
I understand, and that’s why I have a problem with hate speech and people that rationalize hate speech. When an oppressor becomes the oppressed, nothing changes, people still hate one another. It's the cycle of hate.

Bill Snedden: As it is, I should have heeded my own better judgement and never entered into this fray. I leave with the following observation:
dk: I understand you can’t help yourself.