Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Dfairlite

I only stated published facts about your source.

I myself said nothing about your source.

Although, I will be glad to ... when a source is obviously and routinely found to be overtly biased, factually errant and repeatedly dishonest ... then stating those facts is not ad hominem.

Perhaps you can find an internet course on basic forensics? I'm not sure you're exhibiting a strong basis in the basics.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's not even a small amount of fun to argue with you when you get stuck on one argument ...

"You're ad homineming me, and you're ad homineming me, and you and you and and ANYTHING I DON'T LIKE OR KNOW HOW TO ANSWER IS ad hominem."

... I quoted what Silver said which is that liberals are happier. Your source. You're not very good at spin ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

I only stated published facts about your source.

I myself said nothing about your source.

Although, I will be glad to ... when a source is obviously and routinely found to be overtly biased, factually errant and repeatedly dishonest ... then stating those facts is not ad hominem.

Perhaps you can find an internet course on basic forensics? I'm not sure you're exhibiting a strong basis in the basics.

Yes, any attack on source rather than substance is ad-hominem. Feel free to disagree though. You're a backwards thinker so it's expected.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

It's not even a small amount of fun to argue with you when you get stuck on one argument ...

"You're ad homineming me, and you're ad homineming me, and you and you and and ANYTHING I DON'T LIKE OR KNOW HOW TO ANSWER IS ad hominem."

... I quoted what Silver said which is that liberals are happier. Your source. You're not very good at spin ...

Yes, but mr silver is at odds with pretty much every scientist who studies the question. Read the NYT article. I took for granted your intelligence level. My apologies.

a reply to: Dfairlite

so you need someone to prove how happy one party isn't and one party is? was this study of every single person that associates with the given party?

and what does that have to do with Gay Marriage.. i said living in ignorance must be sad, no party affiliation involved

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL ... again read beyond the first few paragraphs:

People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

So, it is the extremists that are happiest, whether "red" or "blue."

Got anything else?

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Yes, but mr silver is at odds with pretty much every scientist who studies the question. Read the NYT article. I took for granted your intelligence level. My apologies.

Congratulations ... you finally discovered some actual ad hominem in this discussion!!!

Responding to your posts is a waste of my time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL ... again read beyond the first few paragraphs:

People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

So, it is the extremists that are happiest, whether "red" or "blue."

Got anything else?

Keep reading....

Whatever the explanation, the implications are striking. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may have looked like a miserable mess. In truth, they were probably happier than the moderates making fun of them from the offices above. And none, it seems, are happier than the Tea Partiers, many of whom cling to guns and faith with great tenacity. Which some moderately liberal readers of this newspaper might find quite depressing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Yes, but mr silver is at odds with pretty much every scientist who studies the question. Read the NYT article. I took for granted your intelligence level. My apologies.

Congratulations ... you finally discovered some actual ad hominem in this discussion!!!

Responding to your posts is a waste of my time.

Yes, I say the same about you. Yet here we are. Maybe we both like wasting time on the other side. Maybe we're crazy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Also, you should read your quote from the article and you'll see it's the conservatives that are still happier. Even in the extremist group.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

so you need someone to prove how happy one party isn't and one party is? was this study of every single person that associates with the given party?

and what does that have to do with Gay Marriage.. i said living in ignorance must be sad, no party affiliation involved

First, that's not how stats work. You don't need to poll everyone to have an accurate reading. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage I was simply correcting your post that it wasn't fun to be, in your words; "ignorant".

So, the Tea Party is an extremist group.

Who knew?

/eyeroll

So ... what have we learned so far in this thread?

1. There are a number of people who are offended by the mere existence of other peoples' sexual preferences.

2. Many of these same people favor ignoring the Constitution of the United States, the judicial system, in favor of imposing their own beliefs on everyone else.

3. When these individuals don't get what they want, they are willing to say anything, misrepresent any source, and put on display their own rampant irrationality.

Humans, eh? LOL

a reply to: Dfairlite

i said ignorance must be sad, that has nothing to do with Party affiliation, Liberal Conservative Democrat, doesn't matter... anyone can be ignorant. so living an Ignorant life must be sad

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

i said ignorance must be sad, that has nothing to do with Party affiliation, Liberal Conservative Democrat, doesn't matter... anyone can be ignorant. so living an Ignorant life must be sad

You realize you're shouting into an empty bucket, yes? *hug*

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, the Tea Party is an extremist group.

According to the NYT, yes.

1. There are a number of people who are offended by the mere existence of other peoples' sexual preferences.

Not I. Do as you will, but don't call unequal things equal.

2. Many of these same people favor ignoring the Constitution of the United States, the judicial system, in favor of imposing their own beliefs on everyone else.

The constitution had nothing to do with the decision made.

3. When these individuals don't get what they want, they are willing to say anything, misrepresent any source, and put on display their own rampant irrationality.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Yes, that is ad-hominem. As is attacking a source and not the data

No. It's the person.

edit:

From the Latin for "to the man" or "to the person.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Also, you should read your quote from the article and you'll see it's the conservatives that are still happier. Even in the extremist group.

I note that the poster boy in Nate's article is a smilin' Newt...the guy who was screwing around on his wife while chasing down Clinton on the Lewinski scandal.
And over to the Family Research Council where we learn...

On June 18, 2013, it was announced that Josh Duggar of the television show 19 Kids and Counting would serve as the executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit and tax-exempt legislative action arm of Family Research Council. Duggar resigned on May 21, 2015, when it became public and he admitted that he had fondled five underage girls, including some of his sisters, twelve years earlier, when he was between 14 and 15 years old. Duggar said he "acted inexcusably" and was "deeply sorry" for what he called "my wrongdoing". In reference to Duggar's resignation, FRC president Tony Perkins said: "Josh believes that the situation will make it difficult for him to be effective in his current work." wiki

Maybe we should all be concerned over what it is that makes these happy Conservatives so happy?

You know, as long as irrational beliefs are involved, and such "acts of faith" are given the same weight in our culture as scientific facts and rationality, I think we're always going to have these issues, so we might as well get used to them and find ways to transcend them and move on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh, i know... i think maybe one day people will see people for people. i do like reading your post though

*hugs*

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh, i know... i think maybe one day people will see people for people. i do like reading your post though

*hugs*

And I yours. OH, and congratulations on becoming a full-fledged citizen with all the rights and privileges obtaining thereunto.