Joe the Welfare Benefactor

[StupidNation]

Did the Romans permit same sex marriage a generation before its demise? I can't find information on that, and the Wiki entry doesn't mention it. Also, regardless of whether Roman Christians practiced Christian values, they were decidedly practicing pagan values- including homosexuality- for hundreds of years prior to Christianity's imposition, including the Pax Romana. Why did it not crumble then?

 

I said public acceptation of homosexuality. Now that I have quoted a professor who researched 86 cultures and that isn't good enough for you do you expect me to waste my time with you? I've been debating this garbage for years, and what I've learned is people don't like facts in these predicaments. You ask me for proof, I provide some, you ask me for more in the hopes you can drive a wedge in one fraction of my statement hoping to disprove one aspect in the hopes you are disproving everything.

 

But I will answer your question. There were homosexual actions in those societies, but it was never widely accepted. After it was there is no proof of cultural vitality as lust is blinding. For references check this message board or most spam you receive.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I said public acceptation of homosexuality. Now that I have quoted a professor who researched 86 cultures and that isn't good enough for you do you expect me to waste my time with you? I've been debating this garbage for years, and what I've learned is people don't like facts in these predicaments. You ask me for proof, I provide some, you ask me for more in the hopes you can drive a wedge in one fraction of my statement hoping to disprove one aspect in the hopes you are disproving everything.

 

But I will answer your question. There were homosexual actions in those societies, but it was never widely accepted. After it was there is no proof of cultural vitality as lust is blinding. For references check this message board or most spam you receive.

 

The best you could find was research from 1934?

[StupidNation]

The best you could find was research from 1934?

 

No, I gave a form of proof. Now, let's perform some basic logic on you and see if you pass, ok?

 

Does the research from 1934 invalidate his historical thesis because it is over 10 years old in your book?

Do statements of historical value become less valuable as time moves forward?

If something is correct 1,000 years ago, is it correct today?

 

Ergo, your statement is silly and illogical. The quote I gave was a combination of quotes.

 

Where's your proof he's wrong? I'll take a quote from a professor in 1933.

[erynthered]

The best you could find was research from 1934?

 

 

Look!! RCow idiocy shows up in the evening. Morning noon and night, we have elegantRCow idiocy. Cool!!

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Dibs]

I said public acceptation of homosexuality.......

Actually, the study didn't cover public acceptation of homosexuality according to what you wrote.....

 

Unwin studied 86 different

cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No

nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual

chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced

sexual hedonism.

 

It seems to be focused on the institute of marriage(between a man & woman)......my guess would be in relation to property & assets ownership & inheritance.

[Andrew in CA]

I said public acceptation of homosexuality. Now that I have quoted a professor who researched 86 cultures and that isn't good enough for you do you expect me to waste my time with you? I've been debating this garbage for years, and what I've learned is people don't like facts in these predicaments. You ask me for proof, I provide some, you ask me for more in the hopes you can drive a wedge in one fraction of my statement hoping to disprove one aspect in the hopes you are disproving everything.

 

But I will answer your question. There were homosexual actions in those societies, but it was never widely accepted. After it was there is no proof of cultural vitality as lust is blinding. For references check this message board or most spam you receive.

 

The quote:

 

 

"He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin,

whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical

decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different

cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No

nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual

chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced

sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records

there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete

new generation has inherited a tradition which does not

insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."

 

Are you not changing the parameters, then? You say that public acceptance of homosexuality caused the fall (which had been going on throughout Roman paganism, including the Pax Romana), while Unwin says a rejection "of monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity" caused the fall. There isn't a mention of homosexuality, just of pre marital sex and marital affairs.

 

Your claim, that allowing same sex marriage is a direct link to the downfall of 16 civilizations, is not proven by this at all. It is absurd at face value, and your declaration that it is fact puts the onus on you to demonstrate it is fact. You cannot claim ridiculous notions are fact without providing proof if you don't want to be laughed at. Otherwise, anyone could say whatever they wanted, and demand to be disproven rather than provide proof.

[blzrul]

As long as I don't have to personally witness homosexual "relations" I don't give a rat's ass. It's none of my damned business. Maybe the problem is that some people obsess over stuff that really has nothing to do with them.

 

So-called "gay marriage" is a civil rights matter.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

As if I have to? Your ignorance is not my responsibility to educate you. Why don't you actually go learn rather than throw up sound-bytes of links or some such other non-sense. If you think I have time to re-research every thing I say or do than you should do the same and disprove it. Throw your time around for me monkey-boy.

 

It's not as if I list them (Rome, Greek, etc.) and then you say "yes, now I agree." You just want me to waste my time for your enjoyment. Here's a suggestion, why not learn about the destruction of civilizations and read history. It makes fascinating reading.

 

It really makes no difference what happened in these archaic civilizations because everybody knows that the Earth will cease to exist in a few weeks when the gastric acids of the giant crocodile that swallowed the planet in 1764 begin to take effect.

 

What? You think I'm wrong? Do some research and disprove me.

[Steely Dan]

As if I have to? Your ignorance is not my responsibility to educate you. Why don't you actually go learn rather than throw up sound-bytes of links or some such other non-sense. If you think I have time to re-research every thing I say or do than you should do the same and disprove it. Throw your time around for me monkey-boy.

 

It's not as if I list them (Rome, Greek, etc.) and then you say "yes, now I agree." You just want me to waste my time for your enjoyment. Here's a suggestion, why not learn about the destruction of civilizations and read history. It makes fascinating reading.

 

 

The reason you don't supply the names of the 16 civilizations is because you can't.

 

 

No, I gave a form of proof. Now, let's perform some basic logic on you and see if you pass, ok?

 

Does the research from 1934 invalidate his historical thesis because it is over 10 years old in your book?

Do statements of historical value become less valuable as time moves forward?

If something is correct 1,000 years ago, is it correct today?

Ergo, your statement is silly and illogical. The quote I gave was a combination of quotes.

 

Where's your proof he's wrong? I'll take a quote from a professor in 1933.

 

Let's see there was research that said blacks were less intelligent than whites. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are less intelligent. Lightning happened because the Gods were angry. Bloodletting was the way to cure disease. It would be impossible for man to fly. Breaking the speed of sound couldn't be accomplished. I guess you believe in those things too.

[Philly McButterpants]

I thought conservatives wanted to do away with it because it doesn't help anyone. How f*cking hypocritical. The point KOS is making is that this guy is held up as a conservative hero to represent their cause and yet he's benefited from the things they are so against. So what is it? Is welfare good or bad? Should it be totally abolished or not? There's the hypocrisy.

 

OK, Steely, I'll say it slower this time so you can comprehend (that means understand) this time . . .

 

When HE WAS A CHILD, he was on welfare. How does he become a hypocrit if HIS PARENTS are on Welfare??

[elegantelliotoffen]

Does the research from 1934 invalidate his historical thesis because it is over 10 years old in your book?

 

You mean over 70 years old?

[Lurker]

When HE WAS A CHILD, he was on welfare. How does he become a hypocrit if HIS PARENTS are on Welfare??

I guess benefiting directlty from the redistributed income of other people doesn't count as socialism. It's only when Joe's redistributed income benefits someone else that it becomes so.

[Steely Dan]

OK, Steely, I'll say it slower this time so you can comprehend (that means understand) this time . . .

 

When HE WAS A CHILD, he was on welfare. How does he become a hypocrit if HIS PARENTS are on Welfare??

 

Where did I say he was the hypocrite? Go back and reread my post and then show me where I call him a hypocrite.

 

I guess benefiting directlty from the redistributed income of other people doesn't count as socialism. It's only when Joe's redistributed income benefits someone else that it becomes so.

 

Another good point.

[ieatcrayonz]

I guess benefiting directlty from the redistributed income of other people doesn't count as socialism. It's only when Joe's redistributed income benefits someone else that it becomes so.

If Joe is such a moron how does it prove that welfare helped him? Wouldn't it prove that welfare hurt him? He is a moron after all.

[Philly McButterpants]

Where did I say he was the hypocrite? Go back and reread my post and then show me where I call him a hypocrite.

 

I thought conservatives wanted to do away with it because it doesn't help anyone. How f*cking hypocritical. The point KOS is making is that this guy is held up as a conservative hero to represent their cause and yet he's benefited from the things they are so against. So what is it? Is welfare good or bad? Should it be totally abolished or not? There's the hypocrisy.

 

I still don't see how any of this demonstrates how Joe the Plumber has any control over whether his parents go on welfare. I don't know what your childhood was like, and I won't presume to make any assumptions . . . In my childhood, I had very little say in any of my parents affairs . . . particularly financial affairs.

[finknottle]

I thought conservatives wanted to do away with it because it doesn't help anyone. How f*cking hypocritical. The point KOS is making is that this guy is held up as a conservative hero to represent their cause and yet he's benefited from the things they are so against. So what is it? Is welfare good or bad? Should it be totally abolished or not? There's the hypocrisy.

 

You thought wrong. The problem is crutches that become permanant - where welfare is seen as a guaranteed income adjustment, like unemployment that never runs out. That was the point of Clinton's welfare reform (and the origins of the animosity between the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party).

 

Regardless, that's not the point. You are making the assumption that if you hold up a person for one thing, then you are a hypocrite if they have positions you disagree with. Lemmie see - I take it JFK is no longer a hero of the left? After all, he was hawk on using the military. I guess using him as a shining example for anything would be, well, hypocritical. George McGovern? Against the union card checks. Bill Clinton? Did not believe in negotiating with Iran.

 

Tell you what - why don't you tell me who you hold up to represent your cause, and I'll find some aspect of his beliefs that makes you a hypocrite by your logic.

[elegantelliotoffen]

 

The reason you don't supply the names of the 16 civilizations is because you can't.

 

 

 

 

Let's see there was research that said blacks were less intelligent than whites. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are less intelligent. Lightning happened because the Gods were angry. Bloodletting was the way to cure disease. It would be impossible for man to fly. Breaking the speed of sound couldn't be accomplished. I guess you believe in those things too.

 

Here's one of my favorites-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[ExiledInIllinois]

If Joe is such a moron how does it prove that welfare helped him? Wouldn't it prove that welfare hurt him? He is a moron after all.

 

No. He is a moron because he won't pay his back taxes to help others. Joe is pretty smart at being a moron.