Special Ops Paintball: Eros - Viewing Profile - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content

Eros's Profile User Rating: -----

Reputation: 0 Neutral
Active Posts:
74 (0.04 per day)
Most Active In:
The Lounge (23 posts)
06-March 10
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Mar 12 2010 03:16 PM

My Information

Member Title:
Super Serious Absurdist
103 years old
January 1, 1911
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

Website URL:
Website URL  http://

Previous Fields

Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: This is an epic fail. . .

    12 March 2010 - 03:16 PM

    View PostMaDuce, on Mar 12 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

    View PostEros, on Mar 12 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

    View PostAshrak, on Mar 12 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

    Hi Deus.


    :huh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    Good call, Ash. So much fail in this thread.

    Damn you Ash.

    I was setting up the perfect troll and you just had to go ruin it.

    See you in another three to six months.
  2. In Topic: This is an epic fail. . .

    12 March 2010 - 10:58 AM

    View PostAshrak, on Mar 12 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

    Hi Deus.

  3. In Topic: This is an epic fail. . .

    12 March 2010 - 09:51 AM

    And we've been pointing out how it simply hasn't worked so far in America. Don't let your Canadian arrogance and superiority complex get in the way of seeing that because it worked for you means it automatically will work for the rest of the world.

    It hasn't worked in America, because you haven't worked solution. Notice that at no point in American history, have people advocated for the Canadian system, and then attempt to get it codified in to law. Instead, they've spent the majority of their time working on things like the enforcing and repealing DOMA laws, then complaining about states' rights.

    The Canadian arrogance and superiority complex is satire and bait. You people bite way too easy.

    Because, our politicians are pushing well beyond what you yourself said was ideal.

    As much as I may disdain American politicians, even I know they're not as thick as we both claim.

    No. We want government to get their collective noses out of it altogether. No enforcement from them of any kind.

    Problem is, they want to enforce it their own way.

    That's like saying that you want the government to get their collective noses out of racial segregation. Left to their own devices, one group will create a non-governmental enforcement over others. The law I purposed addresses this.

    And the downside is politicians who represent very different people from thousands of miles away can mandate to you what must be good for your area, without ever seeing it or being there.

    The Constitution does not lay down any rules, other than the ones that apply to interstate affairs. States are free to do what they want in their own land.

    The Bill of Rights also specifically addresses the federal government's limitations, not the states. The fourteenth amendment is the one that made the Bill of Rights apply to states, and that was passed as an amendment agreed upon by the states, per our own Constitution's laws regarding amendments.

    Thank you for the history lesson.

    Considering I've basically been advocating ignoring the constitution, what was your point again?

    In other words, let's just ignore the mentioned problems that the Americans have experienced, because we're not Americans. We're Canadians, and oh so infinitely superior to the rest of the world. And because we're Canadians and better than everyone, we'll ignore the problems the Americans have because they must be wrong anytime they disagree with us. because they're Americans....

    Like I said, "Woosh". :(

    My point has always been that the Canadian version of the law addresses every problem you've encountered. The issue that has been coming up is federal enforcement, which is a problem with the American system, NOT a problem with the law itself.

    You know what? Not one of us has said that here in this discussion. Using one extreme as a means to justify the other extreme is simply idiotic. None of us have argued that. The pro-homosexual marriage politicians are taking one extreme (force it on everyone so we must all say it's acceptable for all cases for all faiths). We're not taking the other extreme, yet somehow because another extreme exists, we're in the wrong?

    And for the umpeenth time, I'm not talking about you. For all of your complaints about Canadians having a superiority complex, you seemingly posses an ego the size of something rather large. I'm pointing out that as there are people who call people against same-sex marriage bigots, that there are people who act in a bigotish way. Something you managed to completely dodge that within my post. I mean, seriously, I said it three times, and it's not in a single quote you chose to fight.

    I'm directly accusing you of cherry picking.

    That doesn't follow. At all.

    No wai.

    Once again, because the Canadians passed that law does not mean America will ever do the same.

    And actually, Massachusetts did pass a law redefining marriage. And California passed a law defining it in the opposite direction.

    And don't tell me because a national law solved Canada's problems, that it will do so here as well. Try to get it through that thick layer of arrogance that American politicians are different.

    Washington DC is not a state. It is a federal territory, and only has federal government as an authority. And you know what? Churches are being forced into accepting homosexual marriage there, by the federal government. So, if the same governing authority is is doing this in one location where it has sole jurisdiction, what makes any of us believe they magically won't do it elsewhere?

    Read the comment in context: I was talking about Canada. No one in Canada passed a law redefining marriage. For all of your, "OMG you've got a Canadian superiority complex", you would figure this is the one point that you'd accuse me of being Canada-centric.

    Again, my point is that Canadian law has a solution to the problems experienced in Washington DC, Massachusetts, and California, but you're refusing to contemplate it. I'm not advocating for a half-butted implementation of the law, so playing on fears of the federal government enforcing a version of the law I'm not advocating makes no sense.

    It is not mentioned by what names the military branches must have.

    That, and the USAF is originally the Army Air Force. So by your argument, the Marines are also unconstitutional.

    Nice try. Not working.

    Did you even read the article?

    No, I mean, seriously, did you? They happened to say the exact same thing. The point was, Americans haven't stuck to a completely literal or entirely faithful interpretation of the constitution, for good reason.

    And as we've been saying, it won't work, because that isn't the solution being pushed forward.

    Also refer to the part where DC is exclusively federal government.

    So your argument boils down too, "Your solution won't work because that's not the solution we're willing to try".

    Actually, not one of us are against the Arabs. I'd gladly help the Lebanese Arabs fight against their enemy if it was possible.

    You're looking for the word Islamist, which seems to be banned in places like Canada or the UK. You know, the term used to describe one who would spread Islam by violent means (notice that last bit, by violent means -- you cannot reasonably tell me I'm opposed to all Muslims unless you are also suggesting all Muslims spread Islam by violent means)

    But nice try -- also I like how you deliberately misspelled government in an attempt to demonstrate how those who disagree with the elite (in your mind) Canadians are just uneducated, racist rednecks.

    You're pretty much being trolled at this point. It didn't start out as trolling, mind you, but at this point, no one is making a coherent argument. For whatever reason, we seem to be talking past each other, so I'm just going to talk past you one step further.

    The point I was making with that statement, is that your arguments are entirely predictable, just like your political affiliation. It's also a comment on the type of dimensions Ashrak was trying to work on, including the "us versus them" sentiments.

    EDIT -- Disclaimer -- In case anybody else missed it, my comments are directed at one individual. I in no way am attempting to argue that every Canadian agrees with him or feels a sense of arrogance or elitism. I merely am pointing out what one individual's posts seem to have a significant quantity of.

    Here's the bigger discalimer: This is parody on how easily you'll bite, when given a tiny bit of disagreement, even if I'm purposing basically the same thing as you.

    This should be common sense from the context of the post, but in case it's not for some...

    Ah, so it's bad when I have a superiority complex, but when you start being condescending, then that's ok?

    Edit for posterity: I'm not trying to start a flame war, either. I'm more or less pointing out how low these conversations can fall.

    Edit for extra commentary: If we really want to make cultural commentary, then here's one: Americans can't take a joke. I'm being quite serious in this regard. Had I been having this conversation with a New Zealander, a Brit, or a German, then they would have instantly picked up on the underlying current of satire. However, talking with an American is quite different. As soon as I put in a trigger word like Arabs, or states' rights, or anything of the like, it instantly becomes a defending monologue about how awesome the American system works AND/OR we're doing the best with can with the system we had. It also them becomes a conversation of, "America is so unique that no other system tried in any other country could ever work", despite the United States essentially being founded by taking the best idea out of other countries and putting it together in a unique system. I don't understand how you could have thought what I said was anything but a joke.

    Edit for the sake of editing:

    Edit for lightening the mood: Never gonna give you up, Thalion. :P
  4. In Topic: This is an epic fail. . .

    11 March 2010 - 10:59 PM

    Ummm, bro, I'm not seeing it. He's saying marriage is a religious institution, and the government is now attempting to force churches to recognize something that is violation of their religious precepts. There is no wounded conservative there. It's that enough loudmouths have bitched long enough, that the rest of the populace is having to bend to their whim.

    Again, I'm not referring to him specifically. See the last half of my response to him.

    He is saying that, while the government may have the right to recognize a marriage-equivalent civil union, they do not want that. They want to make churches marry/recognize same-sex marriages, which, while first being none of their FRAGing business, is also quite possibly a violation of the separation of church and state.

    And I'm pointing out a viable, proven and tested compromise.

    He is not saying they do not deserve the same rights. The government can grant the same rights in a same sex union as a marriage. But they do not have the right to make churches participate in them.

    And I never said he did.

    Family values my ass.

    Chill out Broheim.

    You just want to believe that because your government pushed it on your population...

    You mean, "because the government you elected and have dissolved before for doing stupid things, did what you asked"...

    that other governments should do it as well to validate your state's policy.

    Yes, that's it. I'm doing it to make up for Canada's grand mistake. You have successfully psychoanalyzed me, oh wise one!

    Or, I'm doing it because I think it's the best possible solution that worked for us.

    Yeah, I think that's it.

    My best friend is a bi-sexual male.

    I have black friends! :D

    And if he and his partner want an equivalent tax policy and insurance coverage to a man and a woman living together, I say he should FRAGing get it. That is where the governments right to enforce this crap ends.

    Except when you use the word "marriage". Then you want a government enforcement of your definition of the word.

    Says the Canadian whose Parliament has been dissolved about three or four times over the past two years. ;)

    Retorted by someone who absolutely loves their own congress.

    Utterly brilliant. You would fit in with the fabulous company we've got running Congress these days.

    Well, you could dissolve it, if you wa... oh wait.

    While Thalion's sentiments are by no means an absolute rule, I do believe that they are correct more often than not. If I can't build a one story hovel correctly, would you trust me to build a luxurious lake front vacation home?

    Now, if you wouldn't trust me to build your vacation home, then why?

    What is it with you people and hyperbolic non sequitur analogies? Would you trust a random person from the department of highways or wahtever you call it, to pave your driveway? See, I can do it too.

    So, because a bigger man (the Canadian federal government) imposed a ruling by force, then “The System” works.

    Let me fix that for you.

    So, because a democratically elected agency (the Canadian federal government) who was granted the powers to impose national rulings via the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, imposed a ruling by force that the majority of you agreed too, then "The System" works.

    And yeah, actually, it does.

    Why should the people of one Canadian province (or American state) have the same laws by default as those in another province or state?

    Consistency? Why should the people of one American state have a different set of laws?

    Part of the strength in a decentralized system of provinces (or states) is that the people living in those states have the opportunity and luxury to try something different from their neighbors.

    And part of the strength of a centralized system is a set of consistent laws that can be relied on by every person within that country. If a decentralized system was truly superior, you wouldn't need a constitution to lay ground rules for every state to follow. Otherwise, the only "difference" you are trying is just minor variations on the same thing.

    Diversity for the sake of diversity, in this case, is a very good thing.

    Is it? So far, I'm unconvinced.

    If we're all moving toward location (y), but we're mandated only to travel path (x), then we completely miss all that we could be seeing and experiencing on the other roads. That is why, in theory, I am a strong supporter of autonomy.

    All you are doing is splitting dividing the problem up. You're still mandated to travel down a government path, whether it's the state travelling down the path or a federal government travelling down the path, especially when you're in the confines of a constitution. Unless you give the individual complete autonomy, you're not making as huge a difference as you would think.

    In practice, I support it because of massive failures on the part of massive federal governments


    whether we are referring to education

    Because the eras before nationalized education went along so swimmingly.

    economic planning

    Ah, now we're using the communist argument. All fear the commies!

    or whatever example you would care to think of.

    In other words, "I'm going to refute anything you say, so don't even bother saying, because I'll refute it. I'm warning you!".

    Five words: Education, Healthcare, Military, Border Guards. What do I win?

    Additionally, in practice, the population of American just flat out dwarfs that of Canada, so we are hardly comparing apples to apples in this exercise.

    Because comparing two largely homogenous cultures, with largely identical sets of laws, practices, and customs, who both share great influence over each other, makes population the one deciding factor in how different they are.

    But here is the real kicker in all of this. On the table, right now, we have a perfectly viable compromise between both sides.

    Says the person who made up the plan.

    Marriage, a religious sacrament...

    I thought religion was kaibosh on this board?

    Religious/Spiritual discussions are not allowed anywhere on the forum, due to the inflammatory nature of the topic.

    Whoops. Quick, before the mods see!

    ...is left to the religious community to practice as they see fit, barring stuff like polygamy – essentially, marriage equals one man and one woman.

    So basically, religions get to define what marriage is as long as their definition of marriage fits with yours.

    Civil Unions/Partnerships/ whatever fancy name people want to come up with is given the same legal protections accorded to marriage, and is reserved for the state to administer as it sees fit, be the applicants same sex couples, atheists, agnostics, or whoever wants it.

    Ah! So now you not only want to take refuse the rights of same-sex partners, but atheists, agnostics, buddhists, and all other religions except for whoever the state's dominant voting block is too. Or, did you have some other definition of "for the state to administer as it sees fit" in mind?

    Both marriage and civil unions have the same legal protections under the law.

    Except that they don't, because you can't call them identical and not have identical names.

    Everyone wins.

    "As long as they fit within my view."

    Same sex couples, professing to be Christian while simultaneously violating a key tenet of said religion...

    When was the last time you read the rules, mate?

    ...are ballsy enough to demand a state enforced ruling which redefines a perfectly legitimate religious sacrament to suit their own ends.

    Because no church is calling for a redifinition of that sacrament, and the Christianity you are practicising now is identical to the one practiced several thousand years ago.

    And in the American experiment, in the most recent instance, we have that state (well, federal district) using a billy club to try and force the Catholic Church to extend benefits to marriage that contravenes its core beliefs in the District of Columbia, the very seat of our illustrious and benevolent federal government.

    True, at this stage the ultimatum issued was simply one of: “If you wish to continue operating soup kitchens and homeless shelters on a public contract in the District, then you must abide by our committees ruling on gay marriage.”

    And notice that Canadians have a solution to that. Which I've been saying for the past set of posts.

    But in the American experience (notice we're not Candian)...

    You would have fixed this by now, if you were.

    ...one threat, one demand by the federal government is quickly followed by more of the same.

    Please, please don't bring up the whole, "It's us against the gummint/gays/arabs".

    But the truth is that this is part of a wider ideological battle and the “one word” is a mere distraction.


    So obviously, we have an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force.

    In other words, let's just ignore the purposed solution that the Canadians have, because we're not Canadians, because we ignored the purposed solution that Canadians have, because we're not Canadians, because...

    And this is where my compromise plan comes in to the picture.

    "See how smart I am?"

    I mean, honestly, the gay marriage folks have pretty much said “What can the big deal possibly be? It is just a word holding us up!”

    Yeah, that's it. Not that anyone has referred to gays as sub-human, at all. Nor have they insisted they're not deserving of Jesus' Love™.

    Exactly: one word. So why, I wonder, is there such a push over one word? If the same sex marriage lobbyists sincerely believe that one word does not, can not, possible matter that much...

    Except you just spent the past five paragraphs arguing that this word did matter, and that it was a huge sacred institution.

    ...than why not accept civil unions? After all, they are virtually the same thing, marriage and civil unions, save for that “one word.”

    You just said that they weren't the same, and then you said they were the same, and now you're saying that they're not the same. Make up your mind.

    More than anything, the same sex community wants the same sex lifestyle to be accepted, without question by everyone, everywhere. If they pass a law redefining marriage as between “one man and one man, or, one woman and one woman, or, one man and one woman” it would be a tremendous victory to that end. As the Canadian experiment has shown, “people live with it.”

    First of all, it's not "the Canadian Experiment". It's also the Belgian, Swedish, Spanish, Norweigan, and Netherlander experiment too. Give credit where credit is due.

    No one passed a law redefining marriage. They passed a law letting marriage be defined by the churches, then protecting the choice of those churches and then letting anyone get a marriage that is recognized by the state. This isn't some massive coup, gunning for your sexuality.

    Personally, I don't accept the same sex lifestyle – period, along with many other lifestyles and life choices (promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism, prostitution, etc.).

    "I'm not slipping in guilt by association. Nooooo."

    I doubt that I ever will accept any of the listed lifestyle with a favoring eye.

    Ergo, we should codify that disagreeance in to law!

    And I believe someone did point that we all have a right to disagree.

    And that wasn't me.

    So, I propose compromise and I'm not the only one to do it. The religious keep their definition of marriage, intact, and the same sex community gets civil unions, admittedly marriage by a different name. So really, the same sex community gets every legal protection they could want.

    And if the point isn't legal protections under a title, but actually being treated as equals? Then what?

    But they don't receive cultural acceptance. And in all honesty, that isn't my problem.

    So let's codify that problem in to law! Just like we should have done the same thing with the blacks in the 1960s! They'll never receive cultural acceptance!

    Because it is in our Constitution. (Ref. state autonomy, filed under 10th Amendment.)


    Because we all pay so much attention to things not in the constitution. I purpose we go after the Air Force. MDK will be thrilled!

    What? Smaller Government? You sir are speaking like a Terrorist!
    ...Say, a Terrorist in Colonial America...specifically around 1776 A.D....

    I totally agree. Why don't they worry about things like actually educating our youth and helping those who've lost their jobs to companies outsourcing to increase profits...

    Broheim, I hate to break this to you but:

    1.) You're arguing for smaller government that interferes with businesses, ergo interfering with free enterprise ™.
    2.) You're arguing for smaller governments that interferes with education, ergo interfering in free enterprise ™.
    3.) You're arguing for something the colonists weren't exactly privy to at the time.
  5. In Topic: kindergardener suspended for making a "handgun"

    11 March 2010 - 09:06 PM

    Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!


Eros hasn't added any friends yet.


Eros has no profile comments yet. Why not say hello?