Uh you get that I said THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED in my very first response, right? Maybe you were confused. Maybe the distinction between an interest and policies that enact that interest was unclear to you at first as it wasn't made explicit. But at the very first response back, the very first clarification, I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USE. And the kicker? You don't even seem to be disagreeing that I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED. You are just mad that I only said THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED in my very first response...the thing we have been talking about ever since?

Then you turn to this:
Wow. So despite using THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED...you are now playing the oh-so-pathetic semantic game of saying that when *I* use THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED I must magically not mean the plain meaning of THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED I must instead be magically meaning your wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong interpretation of the phrase that I clarified - immediately - with...wait for it...THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED.

Oddly, you can't even seem to admit I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED....you just circle around the point. Maybe if I type out THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED a few more times you will get the point.

Personally, I would suspect that almost everyone understand the basic idea that a state interest (a somewhat vague and wishy washy thing) is fundamentally connected to the actual laws and policies that enact it. That "State Interest: A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy.". I wouldn't have dreamed someone was such a semantic nit that I needed to make the distinction explicit. But hey, looks like you WERE such a semantic nit so...in the very first clarification...I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASING YOU USED.

Vintage. Aaron.

The only thing of actual substance in your post that isn't just your ridiculous semantic game is this: This is complete nonsense. If it makes it difficult for the government to issue marriage licences then this is considered a burden. That is the whole point, that there is various costs, some financial, some operational, and so forth that poses burdens on the government from doing whatever it is trying to do. In this case issue marriage licenses.

edit: even the exact word of "difficulty" is literally in the very definition that google pops up when you type in undue harship: "Undue hardship" is defined as an "action requiring significant difficulty or expense""

Its no in the way i thought was.

You've moved your entire position from "Promote LGBT tolerance" to "issue marriage licenses."

I win.

Lol. Amazing. There appears to be complete and utter capitulation on the entire semantic nonsense where you took THE EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED and magically tried to interpret as different. Instead you are obsessing over which particular state interest is being talked about. If you can't wrap your head around the idea of burdening the ability to enact a state interest, the particular choice doesn't really matter. Or at last, can't wrap your head around it when I say it. When you say THE EXACT ****ING PHRASE I USED you get it just fine.

Not to mention your objectively false statement in my second post that went completely ignore.

Lol Aaron.

I like watching you make a fool of yourself. I hope you keep responding.

I mean, really. Inability to promote LGBT rights has nothing to do with it. And pretending like your usage of "state interest" magically morphs from things like "promoting children, or marriage, or lgbt acceptance" to something else is hilarious.

It's funny because you can't believe how wrong you were, so you're going to cling to some imagination of being right. You were wrong from the outset, and you can't stand it.

This is completely wrong. Wrongitty-wrong-wrong. Undue hardship cannot be understood in this way.

You posted an interesting thread, made a few arguments where you weren't properly reflective (I suspect you didn't properly read the source material, but quotemined it instead) and then spent the rest of the thread ****ting on people who, though no legal experts, have a far better approach towards legal matters than you do.

If that is your definition of winning, I'd rather lose.

I guess the only redeeming factor is that your argumentation is so lazy these days that your insults have long since lost all sting.

Well I agree, your wrong interpretation of my statement would indeed be wrong. Thankfully, in the immediate response I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED which is, right, rightitty right. Which led to you playing hilarious and ridiculous semantic games....and then making objectively false nonsense like that baloney in 177 that you seem to be completely ignoring now. Just as you are ignoring your long attempt to try to hide the fact that I used THE EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED and you (almost certainly an innocent mistake) didn't notice when you called that phrase wrong. So well done, I suppose.

Nah. The difficulty of enacting a generic state interest isn't the proper consideration. If you want to use "state interest" (perhaps one of the broadest terms) to mean "exactly the behavior in question" (the absolute narrowest phrasing possible), then you've completely abandoned all hope of your original position (#147 -- a full 30 posts prior) makes any sense at all. The *ONLY* "state interest" that matters in this instance is *EXACTLY* the state interest of giving marriage licenses (not something I would use generic "state interest" language for), which is *EXACTLY* what I've been saying without deviation since post #144. And nothing that you said in #147 or #151.

This is funny, because all you're doing is confirming that you were wrong and accidentally backed into my position.

Right. Because claiming that the courts made a first amendment ruling between two private parties is a really solid approach to understanding the law. And that "undue hardship" is something that applies to the population at large and not the employer. And suddenly realizing in the middle of this thread that the First Amendment applies to atheism.

That's some solid legal analysis.

Just lol. Well you are certainly correct, you have been confusing the most basic of points without deviation since post 144. And you are certainly correct to recognize a state interest as a broad term. What you seem to miss is that there is a fundamental connection between the broad term of "state interest" and the specific laws and policies that enact those state interests. Seat belt laws to enact a public interest in public safety, marriage licences to enact a state interest in marriage, nondiscrimination campaigns at schools to enact a state interest in nondiscrimination, and so forth.

Perhaps the first post confused you. Perhaps you didn't understand the connection. Perhaps the distinction between a state interest and the laws that address them needed to be made explicit to you. Hence, in the very first response back I ended up using the EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED that explicitly talked about the ability to enact these interests.


Backed into it? It was my first response back to you. Ya know, when I used the EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED? The phrase you laughably told me was wrong, despite being the EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED.

But of course the semantic games must continue. Even when I use the EXACT ****ING PHRASE YOU USED, the semantic games must continue. Tame deuces has just nailed the quality of your posting ITT.

And then the kicker: you telling us that "difficulty" didn't come into it, when it is right there in the quoted definition. Amazing.

It was about creating legal precedents. You misunderstood this and went into some childish "durs" and "lols" because you thought it was about the outcome of the trial. I suspect your eagerness to belittle people made you forget to be reflective.When this was pointed out, you simply carried on with insults and still did not even stop for a second to consider neither your position, nor your understanding of the subject.

Now you actively lie about the exchange (suddenly claiming it was I and not you who made the error about it being about the outcome of the trial) and continue with the insults. This doesn't need nor warrant a reply. I know very well that your behavior will just repeat itself.

Your behavior in this entire thread has been abysmal and I suspect that to anyone but yourself it is clear that your addiction towards quarreling and belittling people have at this point made you incapable of addressing quite a lot of issues properly.

I mean, you have spent thousands of posts harassing Mightyboosh (and I still think you should have been banned for this a long time ago), arguing that his ignorance makes him deserve it.

Perhaps you should take a long good look in the mirror.

The lol was literally because it's a hilarious case law to read. The dur was because upon reading it, very little seemed to be relevant and the guy lost his case in a spectacular fashion. Not the sort of thing that one often points to in order to support their case position.

Right... it's not like you didn't literally say:

Are you trying to tell me that this conclusion in bold is not expanding on the claim in the underlined? That I'm supposed to read that paragraph at the top and bottom and take that middle chunk as being utterly unrelated?

You can say that. And I'll let it go if you do. But up to this point, your claim about the Reed case is planted right in the middle of a paragraph about the first amendment.

Quarreling only followed after you stopped making sense. You argued with me from Post #74 that atheism couldn't be understood as a religion. This is nothing more than ignorance of the thing you're talking about. You also accused me of making an "implicit premise" in #66 that not even Uke was able to support.

And you know that he would be on board with you if he could be.

And even before that, you made the claim that the author didn't talk about X but he clearly talked about X. It was even a numbered point in the article!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=41

Every new thread is a new thread. Errors carry forward until corrected, but the level of belligerence level starts at zero every time. If you're going to accuse me of making "implicit premises" and things like that, I'm going to play right back at you. You're the one who went first in this thread.

If you don't want to tango, then don't and I won't. But if you do, then I don't mind the dance.