User information for Steve

Real Name
Steve
Nickname
JediLuke
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
April 12, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
321 (Amateur)
User ID
20620
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older
4.
 
Re: Happy Days for my family
Apr 15, 2004, 11:47
4.
Re: Happy Days for my family Apr 15, 2004, 11:47
Apr 15, 2004, 11:47
 
100 a month? That's 3+ EVERY DAY...damn!

Live in a fraternity and that doesn't seem really impressive anymore...

~Steve

162.
 
Re: redefining marriage
Apr 14, 2004, 16:35
Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 16:35
Apr 14, 2004, 16:35
 
Let's play spot the hipocrisy!

I don't see how 90% of people agreeing on what is "normal" or not should dictate what rights the 10% have.

Obviously, since the term democracy, in its first usage, referred to precisely the form of government defined as "majority rules," I think it's safe to say that the statement "democracy is not majority rule" is incorrect.

...

Not that I'm arguing for "majority rules," but you're attacking your own argument.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 16:36.
157.
 
Re: redefining marriage
Apr 14, 2004, 15:15
Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 15:15
Apr 14, 2004, 15:15
 
His argument is only correct because he's phrased it to serve his purposes. Like I said before, if you change the phrasing to a more practical one, the flimsiness of his argument becomes clear.

Same-sex couples do not have the same right to be legally recognized in marriage as straight couples do.

~Steve

155.
 
Re: redefining marriage
Apr 14, 2004, 14:46
Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 14:46
Apr 14, 2004, 14:46
 
Why would you bother with a post that long which has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

If you'll observe that the first bit you quoted reads US democracy, you'll see that it renders a good deal of the ramblings you proceeded to share irrelevant.

Blah blah blah "you were right Morlock" blah blah blah.

I don't think anyone here believes that you're right. I believe that you're an irrational idiot with a horribly distorted worldview. I can only hope I don't have the misfortune of meeting someone like you in person and that you don't do the world the disservice of breeding and teaching your children to think as you do.

~Steve

75.
 
Re: Sigh
Apr 14, 2004, 02:37
75.
Re: Sigh Apr 14, 2004, 02:37
Apr 14, 2004, 02:37
 
I'm not defending or refuting his claims, since I'm not familiar enough with the technicalities of the issue. Like I said, I didn't buy Halo and would be the first to agree that the performance was unacceptable. It's still silly and rude to act like you're able to refute a developer's claims as to the workings of his graphics engine.

You posed your reply like you had all the answers and were going to prove him wrong or catch him in a lie, when obviously you're not equipped with the knowledge to do so. Saying "Halo ran like crap, I won't buy this unless it runs better" is one thing, saying "You're lying about why Halo ran like crap" while clearly being unable to provide support for your argument is another.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 02:40.
73.
 
Re: I don`t trust GearBox
Apr 14, 2004, 02:13
73.
Re: I don`t trust GearBox Apr 14, 2004, 02:13
Apr 14, 2004, 02:13
 
you said it best, you know fuck all about 3d engines. so i think you should be heeding your own advice and shutting the fuck up

Pardon me douchebag, but when did I comment on 3D engine programming? I didn't, I advised people to stop harassing a developer over a subject about which they are ignorant. If I want to talk about 3D programming I'll consult the 1000 page book on the subject which is sitting on my shelf.

besides, being a hardcore gamer you read rediculous amounts of articles that explain the nature of fps engines and how they work.

I doubt that the complainers I addressed could even give a semi-accurate description of the workings of a 3D renderer, let alone write one. Get your head out of your ass.

~Steve

71.
 
Re: Sigh
Apr 14, 2004, 02:02
71.
Re: Sigh Apr 14, 2004, 02:02
Apr 14, 2004, 02:02
 
So you're saying that a Radeon9800 or Geforce FX 5950 just CANNOT compete with the awesome graphics hardware of the Xbox. Is that what you're saying?

Again, give it a rest already. I doubt most people were running the game in 640x480 interlaced mode. Yes, the game performed poorly on a lot of systems. Feel free not to buy it, and even to warn prospective buyers that it runs poorly, if you should feel the need. But a developer who was cool enough to post on this forum doesn't need you browbeating him about the specifics of graphics programming, something with which I take it you aren't quite an expert on either.

~Steve

150.
 
Re: redefining marriage
Apr 13, 2004, 23:38
Re: redefining marriage Apr 13, 2004, 23:38
Apr 13, 2004, 23:38
 
Oh? Because children cannot provide consent, right? The problem with that argument is that their guardians can. There is no law of the universe that says pedophila is wrong - just popular consensus. What happens when parents and their children start agreeing to pedophilia? The fact is that this is CLEARLY the sort of legislated morality that is condemned on one hand by advocates of homosexual "marriage" and lauded on the other.

Just because you've decided not to reply to my posts doesn't mean they don't disprove your stupid arguments. A child's guardian does not own that child's body in the sense that he can give consent for the child to be subjected to sexual abuse. The same way a child's guardian can't sell the child into slavery or beat him. The government protects children from unscrupulous adults because children cannot protect themselves.

If a guardian would allow his child to be sexually abused, then the government must protect the child from his guardian. "Legislated morality" is not the issue. Outlawing murder is legislating morality, but we can all agree that murder should be illegal because it infringes on one's basic right to life. Forcing a child into sexual acts is infringing on the basic rights of the child, and the government's job is to protect those rights.

"Legislated religious doctrine" is another issue altogether.

Face it, this pedophilia argument goes nowhere. I'm sure that doesn't prevent it from being valid in your distorted worldview, however.

One person arguing against your position making an invalid point does not invalidate the entire opposing position. The main thrust of your arguments have been invalidated by several people, but you continuously choose to write long-winded posts disagreeing with secondary arguments (gee, let's spend 5 posts arguing technicalities about the definition of democracy!). Great tactics.

"Ehehehehehhe." Idiot.

~Steve

EDIT: You've now reached a total of 28 posts, 2 of which have been about computer games, 26 of which have been about why gay marriage should be illegal. What the hell are you doing here? Isn't there some right-wing nutjob message board you can post on?

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 23:42.
62.
 
Re: I don`t trust GearBox
Apr 13, 2004, 22:46
62.
Re: I don`t trust GearBox Apr 13, 2004, 22:46
Apr 13, 2004, 22:46
 
Personally, if Halo PC had the detail of Far Cry, Halo PC would probably run at about 1 FPS because again, its awesome engine is just not that optimized... or awesome for that matter.

Besides the fact that this sentence makes no sense, you armchair developers need to shut up already. Yeah, it annoyed me as well that Halo ran poorly on my machine. So I played the demo and decided not to buy the game. My knowledge of programming does not extend very far into the realm of realtime 3D graphics, so I didn't feel the need to spout a bunch of utterly misled judgements about the coding of the engine. Somehow I doubt that you have any experience writing 3D engines, and the wording of your complaints is presumptuous and idiotic.

Play Far Cry and don't play Halo if that's what you want, but leave the programming critiques to the folks who know what they're talking about.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 22:46.
45.
 
Re: I don`t trust GearBox
Apr 13, 2004, 19:56
45.
Re: I don`t trust GearBox Apr 13, 2004, 19:56
Apr 13, 2004, 19:56
 
lol Sorry.

hehehhehe Problems running a flat featureless no terrain detail game.

hehhehhhe Don`t pull a Halo. LOL

LOLZ!!!!!!111

Dude, it's not that funny.

~Steve

148.
 
Re: redefining marriage
Apr 13, 2004, 19:38
Re: redefining marriage Apr 13, 2004, 19:38
Apr 13, 2004, 19:38
 
Isn't Morlock opposed to the idea of redefinition of the word marriage?

He's yet to show that allowing gays to marry "redefines" marriage. The American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition, was published in 2000 and includes all of the following definitions for marriage:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

With any luck, the 4th definition will not carry the legality qualification in the next edition.

Also the point about pedophilia, why can't all the fervent arguments that go along the lines of homosexuality being biological apply here as well?

If anyone provided evidence that this is the case it might change the issue. I haven't seen any. You can't just apply that argument without any reason to believe it's fitting.

It was mentioned that children are determined to be unable to consent. What if the pedophiles work to push the age of consent lower to accomplish what they want?

And what would be their justification for doing so? They'd have to prove that younger children are sexually mature and legally responsible. I doubt that that's going to happen.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 19:42.
144.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 13, 2004, 16:38
Re: No subject Apr 13, 2004, 16:38
Apr 13, 2004, 16:38
 
He's still going folks. Amazing. Morlock, you've now become the largest source of meaningless "hot air" and ad hominem attacks here. You're still arguing tangential, unrelated, or just plain stupid topics ("What if, by the democratic process, America becomes a theocracy?") and ignoring the points made against your primary arguments.

~Steve

141.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 13, 2004, 15:06
Re: $0.02 Apr 13, 2004, 15:06
Apr 13, 2004, 15:06
 
bangersnmash: I looked at worldnetdaily. Now it's a fact that any and all news sources are biased, but these guys wear it on their sleeves. They're all but editorializing with their news articles and things like that shouldn't be provided as credible support.

~Steve

139.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 13, 2004, 12:57
Re: $0.02 Apr 13, 2004, 12:57
Apr 13, 2004, 12:57
 
Exactly. That is how we see it now, but how will some people view it in 20 years, or even now?

Children are protected under the law because by definition they are not yet fully formed physically or mentally. A child is called a child because he has not had sufficient exposure to society and sufficient education to be able to make responsible legal decisions for himself, including consent to sex. For the same reason, I can't try to convince a child to sign a legal contract which I might use to cheat him out of money or property, or bind him into service. There is no reason to believe that any new information or developments will change this fact.

Another definition of a child is not being fully mature sexually. Someone whose sexuality is not yet developed cannot be expected to make responsible sexual decisions. There is little reason to expect that this will change siginificantly either.

Mentally competent homosexual adults are both responsible for their own legal and sexual affairs, and thus cannot be compared to children. Children are protected by the law so that unscrupulous adults can't try to take advantage of them. Homosexual adults need no such protection.

Relativism is the "My truth is not necessarily your truth" and other such arguments which are automatically invalid.

How are they automatically invalid? You're talking about religious "truth," which is not truth at all, and is clearly relative. It is also clear that religion has no place in the laws of this country. Your religious convictions are not necessarily truth.

The following articles show this, explaining how a bill passed recently can be used to put the Bible into “hate speech” literature

You don't see how the Bible could be used as hate speech? The Bible is a product of ancient times, written by people who were ignorant to many of the things we know to be true today. Again, the Bible contains references to slavery; if I used the Bible to argue for my right to own slaves, or stone to death those whose behavior offended me, or to regard women as second-class citizens, is that not hate speech?

We are firm when it comes to morals, but we also believe that ANYONE can be forgiven if they ask. That is true love.

You can't generalize Christian behavior. You may apply Christian doctrine in a way that you see as loving, but there are many who do not do so.

If homosexuality is biological, then God created homosexuals. Why should they ask to be forgiven? Why is their nature sinful? Telling someone that they are a lesser person because of something with which they were born, be it race, physical/mental handicap, or sexuality, is not love, it's bigotry.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 13:00.
136.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 13, 2004, 11:29
Re: $0.02 Apr 13, 2004, 11:29
Apr 13, 2004, 11:29
 
Jump the shark? Are you trying to condone bestiality, nin? Are you?! HEATHEN!

~Steve

133.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 13, 2004, 11:13
Re: $0.02 Apr 13, 2004, 11:13
Apr 13, 2004, 11:13
 
So what about child molestation? Now although most cases are without choice on part of the child, they say, they are arguing the point of consensual sex and that there is nothing wrong with this.

Simple, children are not capable of legally giving consent, therefore no act of sex with a child could be considered consensual. Just as a child cannot vote or drink, a child cannot consent to sex.

In Virginia, however, it is legal for a man to have sex with a 14 year old girl if he marries her afterwards. And this is a state where I'm sure many people would like gay marriage to be illegal.

An act between two adults is on a completely different level. This is not moral relativism; we aren't steadily progressing towards the complete destruction of Christian morals. But as new information comes to light (i.e. the fact that homosexual is biological) it becomes clear that certain Christian morals contradict the ideas of liberty and equality on which this country was founded. As such, they cannot be enacted as laws.

The Bible condones slavery, and there were many Christian slaveholders in the US. Many argued that non-white races were naturally inferior and meant to be subjugated. This was quickly disproved, however, and it was very clear that slavery was an immoral institution. Therefore it was abolished.

Then there was discrimination against blacks to deal with, etc. Some found inter-racial marriage to be "against God's will," and it was considered a crime in some states. This, however, is also clearly discrimination and a violation of basic rights, and it too was struck down.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 11:28.
129.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 12, 2004, 23:12
Re: No subject Apr 12, 2004, 23:12
Apr 12, 2004, 23:12
 
Morlock, failing to respond to my points doesn't make them any less valid, but merely indicates that you are unable to compose an effective rebuttal.

~Steve

128.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 12, 2004, 20:48
Re: No subject Apr 12, 2004, 20:48
Apr 12, 2004, 20:48
 
Discrimination is just another word for choice. Someone else put it quite nicely:"When I order steak instead of hamburger, I'm discriminating."

Somehow I don't quite think it works the same way with steaks and hamburgers as people. A person is free to choose which food to eat, but the government is not free to choose which citizens to protect and provide with basic rights.

Who cares if homosexuality has biological origins or not?

Why do you always ask for clarification on the most obvious points? It's significant because were homosexuality chosen, we'd be talking about discriminating against a lifestyle choice, but instead we're talking about discriminating against people. They have no choice, this is who they are. If a gay man wants to get married, he cannot simply decide to become heterosexual and marry a woman. To suggest that a gay man should marry a woman if he wants to be married is to truly destroy the definition of marriage. Sex is a fundamental part of marriage. A gay man is not going to have sex with a woman any sooner than you're gonna beg a guy to fuck you in the ass. Two people that do not have sex don't have a very good chance for a successful marriage.

This is one reason why your "gays have the same rights" argument is idiotic.

Yes, they do. Repeating that lie will not make it true. The truth isn't invalidated by your refusal to accept it.

Good lord you're obtuse. Your claim is solely based on semantics. You say that homosexuals have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that anyone does. While this is true, it's obviously an attempt to be correct based on a technicality. A child could see the weakness of this argument. Can you dispute this statement?

"Homosexual couples are not provided the same right to officiate their relationship in marriage as straight couples are."

No, you cannot. Therefore, homosexual couples do not have the same rights as straight couples. QED.

Let me ask you, if *only* gay marriage were legal, would you feel you have the same rights as gays? You have just as much right to marry someone of the same sex as they do. This is every bit as stupid as your argument.

What about homosexuality requires that we destroy marriage to make homosexuals happy?

What about letting gays marry destroys marriage?

Why don't they come up with their own damn institution - Garriage, maybe?

Why would you throw something that stupid in there? What are you trying to say? Their own damn institution? First of all, you don't "own" marriage. Secondly, in what capacity would this institution serve? How would it differ from marriage? I suspect you were joking, but that's just a dumb thing to say.

now you're advocating redefining marriage (and destroying it in the process) as defending the sanctity of marriage?

The great thing about you is that you continue to rely on arguments that have already been disproven. We're glad you make yourself laugh, but you've yet to show that allowing gays to marry represents either the redefinition or destruction of marriage.

Face it, the only arguments you guys can come up with (after paring away all the obfuscation, ad hominem attack, and strawman argument), is "come on, be nice, why are you being so mean?"

No, not really. Several people have tried, with varying degrees of patience and tact, to show you the many fundamental flaws in your reasoning. You continue to hold the same false premises as truisms, however. You don't have a single rational support for your position. For fuck's sake, you've already given yourself away! Just drop the act already. You don't approve of gay behavior and you want to stick it to the liberals. I'm starting to suspect more and more that not only are you a bigot, but you've got a few marbles rolling around upstairs.

By writing the laws to exclude a natural state of being (homosexual)

That never happened, so the arguments based upon it are invalid.

How can you call them invalid when you've admitted that you'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? That would be a law excluding a natural state of being. Pull your head out of your ass.

The marriage laws don't care what religious means (ceremony) are used to achieve the end (marriage - woman and man).

Again you're supplying your own self-serving definition of marriage without citing anything but precedent as support. Face it, you're begging the question.

This sort of presupposes that the only reason marriage was gender-specific in the first place was to exclude homosexuals, which I find ridiculous.

Where are you getting this stuff? Talk about straw men. His point was clearly that when marriage was first made a legal process it was not known that homosexuality was as natural a state of being as heterosexuality. Now that this is known, it becomes clear that not allowing gays to marry is unfairly discriminating against them, and denying rights to gays because of their sexuality is just as bad as denying rights to blacks because of their race.

Morlock, in every single post you're making invalid assumptions which lead directly to your invalid conclusions. You have no argument. You're the worst straw man offender here. You pick apart replies and disagree with non-central points as though that destroys the refutation of your basic premise. Your position as you've presented it is utterly flawed. If you're not representing it properly, maybe you should do so rather than having a nice chucklefest with yourself over how smart you obviously believe yourself to be. You're currently saying nothing.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 20:59.
125.
 
Re: Holy Crap
Apr 12, 2004, 16:16
Re: Holy Crap Apr 12, 2004, 16:16
Apr 12, 2004, 16:16
 
The Nazis felt that there was "no reason" for the jews to live too.

Dude, I was refuting his position, not supporting it. You're preaching to the choir.

~Steve

122.
 
Re: Holy Crap
Apr 12, 2004, 15:52
Re: Holy Crap Apr 12, 2004, 15:52
Apr 12, 2004, 15:52
 
How are you gentlemen! All your gays are belong to us! You have no chance to marry make your time! HAHAHA!

~Steve

321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older