The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos.
Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.
You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism, not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel. And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment. You're focusing on what you allege my state of mind is, or what my impressions are, rather than the arguments I provided. As far as this tangent, you've only argued ad hominem.
You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.
Quote me. I remember my response being this:
And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.
Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.
You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic" in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.
Derailment from what?
Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.
You are intelligent Athias
when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say?
Where did I state that marriage was prostitution? I stated "legal marriage" is prostitution for the reasons I've already mentioned. "Legal" is an important qualifier.
You seem to believe
Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.
simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so.
No. Gauging an argument for its logical inconsistencies validates my rendering your argument one of "tone." It was not made on whim. My arguments are always logically consistent. Being aware of all of the logical inconsistencies comes with the territory. And yes, you did make a tone argument.
You are very intelligent
How are the two mutually exclusive? And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.
Which is why I didn't need to.
My explanation was provided after the fact.
It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do,
Once again, you are alleging this cynicism and using it to argue ad hominem.
and what motivates people to marry.
Non sequitur. I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage.
You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.
My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.
How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?
I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.
Not everything is win or lose.
Don't remember stating that it was.
But if you look at a young couple in love,
Couples shouldn't be "in love." "In love" is like an adrenaline rush--it requires novelty and escalation. One ought to "love" like one loves a family member, the characterization of which would include loyalty, intimacy, and consideration.
willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.
What is that you saw when I stated this?:
But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.