Oh, and another thing: I'm not going to read through this whole thread to see if someone's pointed this out yet, but history (by its most common definition) only encompasses recorded events. So all you "creation of the universe" smartasses can shut your faces.
As someone who pays for all (okay, most) of his music, I don't often buy full albums. I can totally understand the perspective that doing so can be a disservice to the artist, as albums are often crafted to be experienced (at least once) in their entirety, but I've only got so much money! And personally, I hate it when people get all pissed at this. I mean, if songs aren't meant to be heard individually, why are albums split into songs at all? If you're going to divide your album up, make some good songs and some not-so-good songs, and sell through services like iTunes that make it easy to get singles, you can't really be angry that I'm going to go for the cheaper option, even if I risk missing out on some greater level of your art. (As a side note, making the full album significantly cheaper than the sum of the singles is a good way to make me buy the whole thing; not only does the value attract me, but it also sends me the message: "Hey, I care that you hear the album start-to-finish, even if I take a financial hit." It tells me that the artist is confident in the additional quality of the full experience.)
Also, the people who criticize single-listeners are most often (in my experience) pirates who have never payed a penny for any of the full albums they treasure so much. How the hell can they look down at me and call me uncultured?! Half of them only get full albums because there's no cost difference! And if the other half truly cares so much, why aren't they paying the artists for their work!? Fuck those people! /end rant
" being gay is dumb. nothing against gays but... its kinda dumb. "
dun dun dun........ "
Haven't you had enough? I mean, you've utterly embarrassed yourself time and time again on this single thread. When are you just going to put your tail between your legs and walk away?
" @TwoOneFive: Judging from your grammar and your eloquently described position, you must be very glad you can marry in California now. Congratulations! "
" this is really stupid. marriage was created by religion. gays are mostly not religious. no religion would allow this to happen. so why do gay swant to be "married" so bad? its a religious ceremony. why cant they just call it something else? "
Marriage, while originating as a solely religious institution, has also for a long time held legal significance. For instance, the governments of most modern countries use marriage as a variable when calculating taxes; it can also play into certain types of legal dispute (ie custody battles), and can affect the rates of many types of insurance. The legal nature of modern marriage explains why even religious people are sometimes married in secular ceremonies by people with little-to-no religious experience or authority. It also explains why there are government officials paid to marry couples not desirous of any ceremony. I don't believe that this law would force any religious entity to perform gay marriages.
As long as there are laws regarding marriage in our supposedly secular nation, the religion argument holds no water.
" @EternalInfinity0: Really? It depresses the hell out of me. Makes me lose all faith in humanity for brief moments. Makes me want to hit something with the clue bat. "
Well, your first mistake was ever having faith in humanity at all. I mean, all you have to do is talk to guys like this for a while to realize that homophobia isn't going away any time soon, no matter how angry it makes you. So if you want to be a leader of gay rights reform, go ahead, good on you. I'm not that strong; I'm happier to see the good in things (in this case, that I can comfortably consider myself cognitively superior to millions of people in the US alone).
" @BlackJedi: Cite your source. Find me an example of a place with legal gay marriage where human animal marriage and polygamy have since become widespread as a result of that relaxation of the law. Then explain in what manner those things are harmful, citing appropriate social studies. I'll generously accept wikipedia links. "
I could explain that and waste time or you could look it up since you are a big researcher yourself. "
I was going to look up a facepalm pic, then I decided it wasn't worth it. Just thought I'd let you know. "
Thanks but its the truth. "
No... no, not so much, really. This concern is perfectly legitimate, given that, as I recall, the spark of this debate was your insistence that gay marriage legalization is a herald of bestial- and polygamous- marriage legalization. "
The spark in the debate was that it would never be legal in which case I debated it very well could. "
Well, anything COULD happen. Though, I imagine, if either of those things ever becomes legal, it will be because there has been a major revolution in popular thought regarding the topics. Who are we to say that, in 100 years, polygamists won't be fighting for marriage rights in the same way gays are now, or blacks did before them (that is to say, with decent people supporting them and bigots opposing them)? "
you saying anything could happen which as well could we semi agree on something... "
Could have sworn that it was a brief back-and-forth between the two of us, but I guess I was wrong.
" @BlackJedi: Well, I gave you far more chances than you deserved. I probably didn't agree with you because you haven't presented a single logical argument backed up with facts. If you did have any sources, (and here's a pro tip: you don't) then I imagine it would be easy to knock it down. And imagine I'd have to, because all your credibility is in your tiny mind. "
You haven't made not one logical arguement since you started writing in this thread, I guess you have a tiny mind as you say to others. "
"as you say to others"? Is English even your first language?
Log in to comment