Ultima Ratio

OMG yes. Last time I had it was as a teen. Cheerwine and feeling fine!

An extra quarter of a plate is sitting in the LH batter's box apparently. Come on , double steal.

Ok, now looking for the double steal.

So you send Doumit here, right?

I don't really care for the little kids announcing players at bat. I can never understand them.

That would have been a super easy out in Oakland.

Do you only appreciate two things?

True or false, Parmelee will hit above .270 for his career.

I've always used Florimon in sentences with Cabrera... rbi kings, the pair.

Conclusion to a really bad AB in 3,2,1 ...wait, what? He did get the runner over.. Ell Ile bee!

I'd be interested in how many meat of the plate pitches are thrown in 0-2 or 1-2 counts. I can't stand that.

That's what we mean when we say pitching.

I'm no help.

3 out of?

Way too good a pitch with on ball, two strikes and base open. That's horrible command or strategy.

Twins BaseballTM

Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible. I hope Chief reads this when he says that maybe we shouldn't allow two 70 year olds to marry. Fair question but I've answered this so many times I don't know what else to say. Age is accidental to one's nature. Some 30 year olds are infertile. 70 year old women can no longer bear children. "In principle" kinda means what is the case "generally" -- I purposely don't use this word though, because in principle is stronger but maybe that will help. You see, it's not just that most, any or a few homosexual relationships can never end in procreation. It's all. Horribly, some babies are born with mental disabilities. The fact that some humans are mentally disabled does not change the nature of man as a rational animal. Man is, in principle, a rational animal. Marriage as one man one women is, in principle, a union that begets children. Unions of one man to one man are, in principle, unions precluding procreation. Now that I think about it, using the word "unique" is better, and definitely better than "in general" which connotes likelihood and empircal counting to see what's the case. So scrub that. Moving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I agree its at least arguable, where the simple fact of procreation or not is a physical impossibility. I agreed that some homosexual couples may very well out-parent single and some heterosexual parents. Great. We don't, at least I don't, argue from accidents and exceptions. Ok, I'm bored. Fly those colors brother.

But you've shown us how to ride so beautifully. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Yes, "no one with a brain" and people who disagree with you "have no conscience" are tame but your most recent attempt at decorum. I only treat a couple posters this way, following their lead in the futile attempt to put a mirror up - but all too ofter we love what we see regardless.

Go argue for polygamy then. I've already said that a culture of polygamy is not one that survives and thrives because it doesn't foster a healthy masculine identity, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults, and certainly doesn't foster the bonding of fathers to their boys -- it alienates them, they are in competition. I want to point out that were spending a lot time nitpicking this one argument, but again, the onus is on you to argue why polygamy or SSM should be incentivized by society. This is strategically nice to be on the offensive, I know. It makes it look like you have a stronger position if you discuss someone else's argument rather than shoring up you own. Yes, both heterosexaul monogamy and polygamy are relationships that produce progeny in principle. I still don't think you know what "in principle" means so I'll say it another way. Progeny is the natural consequence/end/goal/purpose -- the greek is 'telos' of heterosexual monogamy and polygamy. Progeny is an impossible consequence/end/goal/purpose of homosexual relationships regardless of number. The only principle guiding the acceptance (and approval I guess) of homosexual relationships as marriages can be love or fairness or something like that. There are some who think we shouldn't look at essential differences, natural law, and argue from principles so who knows. I don't. I know you haven't said this Levi.

Since your aren't aware, I'll tell you that there are plenty of arguments against polygamy too. And I already noted that 3-5 aren't well met if a culture were polygamous.

No. One wonders how your mind works, making enormous leaps of logic. You asked: "Who cares?" I don't know of many people who care about things they know not of. Only in your world.

Now that you've had a chance to critique the argument and my rejoinders, I'm very glad that circular reasoning was never charged. At last. Progress.

I'll reply in red, I hope this shows up.

Bingo

You are aware that many left-wingers are leading the charge now, right? Concerning the MSM, I'm not personally defrauded by their censorship of the news, but am very worried about low info votes being even less informed. I think only 40% of the country knows who the VP is. That is very scary for a republic.