Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Southern Man said:
You misunderstand the plain language definition of religion, argumentum ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

I have shown clear precedents to shoot down your claim that NC's restrictions on who can hold public office.

You argued that precedents don't mean much to you and that "religion" is the same as "religious". Both arguments are nonsense.

Belief in Almighty God is a religious belief. How much a state spent on a court case, how states did things 200 years ago, and your personal view of legal precedents do not change any of this.
 
Southern Man said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam, non sequitur, argumentum ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

You did argue that legal precedent did not matter to you, but it is a fact that it is used by the courts that will decide this matter.

You did use the word "religion" when the Constitution clearly says "religious" and the meanings are different enough. Belief in "Almighty God" is a religious belief, and therefore it would be a religious test to have that belief be the basis for serving in office.

You did try and claim that the amount of money spent or the resources used was relevant in the Torcaso v. Watkins case. When it is evident that the SCOTUS has ruled consistently on this type of case.
 
It is not "a fact that [precedent will be] used by the courts [to] decide this matter." Courts can, and do, rule using originalist interpretation instead of precedent. As a Conservative I prefer that for the reasons previously stated; precedent is also a form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

The noun and adjective forms of the word are basically the same, You're splitting hairs and getting nowhere since there is nowhere to go.

You've apparently unable to answer my relevant question on how much resources were expended on both sides on the case that you cited.
 
Southern Man said:
It is not "a fact that [precedent will be] used by the courts [to] decide this matter." Courts can, and do, rule using originalist interpretation instead of precedent. As a Conservative I prefer that for the reasons previously stated; precedent is also a form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

The noun and adjective forms of the word are basically the same, You're splitting hairs and getting nowhere since there is nowhere to go.

You've apparently unable to answer my relevant question on how much resources were expended on both sides on the case that you cited.
Click to expand...

Since the wording of the MD Constitution is basically the same as the NC Constitution, having had a SCOTUS ruling would mean plenty if NC ever tried to enforce that tidbit from their constitution. I am betting they would not even try.

You accuse me of splitting hairs, but claimed that belief in Almighty God was not a "set of beliefs" per your definition?? One is a set, one is a singular religious belief. It is not the same thing. And if you are trying to deny that belief in Almighty God is not a religious belief, you are lost anyway.

It does not matter what resources were expended on either side. What matters is the result. The results that fits with all of the SCOTUS rulings on this subject for the last 60 years have been consistent. But you want to maintain that NC's battle would end differently.





This is more about you not being willing to admit you are wrong than about you thinking you are right. That is painfully obvious to everyone.
 
I realize that it must be frustrating for you to argue with me and always lose, but no matter how much you wish and pray you ain't gonna win here either. You can just repeat the same things over and over if it makes you feel better.
 
Southern Man said:
I realize that it must be frustrating for you to argue with me and always lose, but no matter how much you wish and pray you ain't gonna win here either. You can just repeat the same things over and over if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

SM, you have been handed your ass on this topic. Damo even joked about it being like arguing with a 5 year old about Santa.

You want to sound like you are right. But every SCOTUS decision in the last 60 years backs my side. Sorry, but you haven't won. You have just stayed in the "argument" (and I use the term loosely) hoping that everyone else would tire of it and you could claim victory by default.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Click to expand...

Its funny, when you accused me of brown-nosing, you were quick to ask who thought I was a brown-noser. And now, when its against you, you rely on your logical fallacies. Just in case you were wondering, that is called hypocrisy.

Also, the appeal to authority is an interesting logical fallacy for you to use. Since you choose to ignore the highest authority of constitutionality (SCOTUS), but call me on using someone's opinion who is not an authority. I do so enjoy laughing at your attempts at debate.

But if you want to quote logical fallacies, lets look at the ones you used in this debate.

1) Argument to antiquity or tradition
2) Argument to ignorance
3) Appeal to nature


I am sure I could find more. I could also list the latin versions of these phrases, but I am not so pretentious.
 
I'm not sure what your brown nosing has to do with my citations of logical fallacies. The reason why you don't use the correct (latin) phrases is that you don't want to provide more evidence that you are Solitary. Perhaps you can be specific with exactly where I committed the fallacies that you accuse me of. Your appeal to ridicule is another point for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top