Saturday, May 10, 2014

She's the Apple of his eye

Man's Court Battle To Marry His Laptop
...He added: "If anything, my marriage to a machine possesses less of a risk, since a possible acrimonious divorce proceeding could be avoided, if the marriage fails."
I don't know. His spouse-to-be seems awfully calculating to me. I think she's just attracted to his power. 


  1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM

    Seems logical to me.

    * A computer never forgets your birthday
    * A computer won't ask, "Is there another computer?"
    * A computer won't shave with your razor
    * Computers do everything you tell them to (even if it's wrong)
    * Computers don't get upset if you use other computers
    * Computers don't mind if you share them with a friend
    * You can log into several computers at once
    * You can get a new computer if the old one gets slow or buggy
    * You only have to buy the accessories you like
    * Computers are easily turned on at the press of a button

  2. Can we be sure the computer consents to this marriage? Clearly this man knows how to push her buttons. Will he give her the space she needs, not expecting her to shift too much? Will he enter into her world, and not just constantly be trying to find some escape?


  3. I don’t know if this guy is trying to be funny or make a point, but a defining feature of the gay marriage debate has long been conservatives arguing that if gays can marry, then there’s no logical reason people shouldn’t be able to marry anything they want, their kids, multiple spouses, pets, farm animals, and now perhaps their computers.

    Now that gay marriage is becoming more acceptable this slippery slope argument has the potential to backfire dramatically as many of the people that accept this argument resign themselves to its prominently featured logical inevitability. Seriously, if you don’t want to see polygamy make a return, stop arguing for it.

    As for computers, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?


  4. Many esteemed modern thinkers will find no fault with this man. Consider the following three syllogisms, whose premises have been defended by many big names in the business (Churchlands, Dennett, Putnam)

    M: You are your brain
    m: your brain is a computational device
    C: you are a computational device

    M: A computer is a computational device
    m: you are a computational device
    C: you are a computer

    M: If you are a computer, you can marry a computer
    m: you are a computer
    C: you can marry a computer

    Iron-clad, this logic.

    1. Actually the second one is invalid, but that hasn't stopped anyone yet


    2. Thanks for making my point Curio. If you really don’t want people marrying computers you shouldn’t be the only ones making the argument for it! I suspect this guy is a conservative or mocking conservatives, either way he’s making the anti-gay crowd look like fools.


    3. Call me cynical, but at this point I'm just curious to see how far down the slippery slope we go. I'd like to believe there are enough vestiges of common sense left to slow the tide.

      As I read JH's humorous comment above, I felt a cold chill. KW, what do you make of this chain of reasoning?

      The golden rule of all modern sexual morality is consent. If two people consent, who are you to tell them not to?

      But free will doesn't exist.

      You can't have consent without free will.

      No one is ever consenting to anything, ever.

    4. It's funny when it's computers, but what about these guys?

    5. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 10, 2014 at 10:21 AM

      Popeye, how is it possible that you are ALWAYS wrong? This guy is just your typical Proglodyte loon:

      By contrast, another lawyer has recently done a great job convincing judges across multiple jurisdictions that his law license should never have been granted in the first place. Attorney Chris Sevier gained notoriety last year for a suit against Apple in which he alleged that the company didn’t adequately protect him from using his computer to become addicted to Internet pornography. Sevier has made headlines for various other legal antics and issues, and is now moving to intervene in several state same-sex marriage cases, “on behalf of the other minority sexual orientation groups.” His complaint in a Florida case appears to be an elaborate and colorful treatise on the alleged evils of same-sex marriage, couched in an effort to be granted the right to marry his “preferred sexual object.” Yep, you guessed it, that would be his “porn filled Apple computer.” A Florida federal judge denied that motion, calling it “satirical” or “perhaps only removed from reality.” The Tenth Circuit has also put a halt to Sevier’s attempt to jump into the Utah same-sex marriage litigation. What Sevier will do next is anyone’s guess, but he certainly won’t be practicing law. The Tennessee Supreme Court placed him on disability inactive status in 2011 because of “mental infirmity or illness.”

      Sevier was also in the news for stalking a Nashville celebrity.

      Maybe he can get a job on MSNBC. He's certainly qualified.

    6. You’re too eager Boggs. Nothing in your tiresomely typical cut and paste contradicts a single word I’ve said.

      Curio, JH’s comment look like a joke, not a scary chain of reasoning. And what about what guys? If you want to make the slippery slope argument on behalf of pedophiles, go for it.


    7. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 10, 2014 at 2:17 PM

      Popeye's Point: "I suspect this guy is a conservative or mocking conservatives"

      Reality: "[disbarred due to] mental infirmity or illness"

      Love ya, Pops.

    8. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM

      By the way, Alex Baldwin lost his job on MSNBC and they have a stalker slot open. This guy would be perfect, don'cha think?

    9. Perhaps you should read what you cut and paste.

      “His complaint in a Florida case appears to be an elaborate and colorful treatise on the alleged evils of same-sex marriage, couched in an effort to be granted the right to marry his “preferred sexual object.”

      What makes you think crazy and conservative gay marriage opponent aren’t mutually exclusive?

      It must eat you alive to be repeatedly bested by such a poor speller.


    10. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 10, 2014 at 4:27 PM

      Popeye Point: "What makes you think crazy and conservative gay marriage opponent aren’t mutually exclusive?"

      I didn't say anything about mutual exclusivity. But you don't have to be conservative to be against gay marriage.

      Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.
      --- Hillary Clinton

  5. "A Florida federal judge denied that motion, calling it “satirical” or “perhaps only removed from reality.”

    Yeah, ya think? What amuses me is the vain attempts of fools like KW to challenge reality and claim that a man can 'marry' a man. The judge's reasoning in his denial of a man/computer 'marriage' applies as well to the man/man 'marriage'. It has the wrong ingredients and simply does not exist. And no matter how many times you say that orange soda/yogurt is a 'martini', it just isn't so. Pass all the laws you want. Subvert the intellects of all the judges you want. Starting screaming 'Christians to the lions! None of your foaming-at-the-mouth insanity will overturn reality.

    1. Your problem, KW, is that your 'new reality' isn't real at all. It simply does not exist. A man cannot 'marry' a man. You can 'make believe' and play 'pretend' all you like, but P.I.V. is where it's at, and you can't change that. Gaia is heteronormative.

  6. @KW: I believe you are correct that this guy is trying to make a point *against* gay marriage: "The Utah claim, which in reality is an attempt to throw a spanner in the works of a gay marriage case in the federal court, runs to 50 pages." (

    @Curio: I hear you. I think the next decade will see more people arguing that "teens and pre-teens are sexual beings too," and that the decade after that will see the same people stroking their beards with serious expressions and questioning "what is consent, really?"


    1. I was thinking more along the lines of "who are you to judge?" sort of rhetoric. As of now there's a common consensus among liberals, conservatives, Christians, agnostics, etc. that having sex with children is wrong, full stop. I'm not sure that those who forfeited the natural law arguments have a rational way to support their position. Ditto those who deny free will.

      Imagine the following:

      You bigoted ass. Who are you to tell me that teens can't consent to recreational sex with responsible adults? You're just like the older generation that thought gay sex and interracial marriage were wrong!

      It'll likely take longer than a decade. We'll see polygamy first.

    2. I really don't think your going to have to worry about polygamy any time soon.

      Polygamists aren’t polygamists the way homosexuals are homosexuals. Homosexuals really don't have a choice about their orientation and some percentage of people will always be homosexuals. The same can't be said of polygamy. I've never heard a woman claim that she was born with an innate desire to be with a man with multiple wives, and while some men probably fancy the idea of having multiple wives, they are not denied the institution of marriage the way a homosexuals are.

      Also, because homosexuals are a relatively fixed and large percentage of the population we're much more likely to know one. Whether your sympathetic and accepting of them is up to you, but many people are sympathetic and support their gay friends and family members. No mom ever said “my son just came out as a polygamist”. Polygamy just doesn't have the same level acceptance as homosexuality and probably never will.

      Polygamy and homosexuality are apples and oranges. I don't see any reason I have to be in favor of polygamy because of gay marriage, and the only people I hear making an argument for polygamy because of it's equivalence to gay marriage are conservatives. Please stop, your only helping the polygamists.


    3. Regardless of numbers, our society has no remaining arguments for marriage being a contract between two parties. I'm not exactly worried about polygamists, and there's already some movement in this direction.

      Pedophilia is likely about as fixed as homosexuality, maybe their big movement will come sooner rather than later.

      All people are born with genetic predispositions to a variety of behaviors. More important than that, we choose who we are by exercising our will. The debate as to whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental has always been a red herring. If you think it's ethical and just to allow same-sex couples to marry, you likely do so for reasons other than "homosexual orientation is fixed and genetic". Same goes for those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral.

    4. “Pedophilia is likely about as fixed as homosexuality, maybe their big movement will come sooner rather than later.”

      Rest easy, no one will support them, and vast majorities will agree on the compelling reasons why it shouldn’t be allowed.

      Accepting that homosexual predisposition isn’t a choice but insisting that acting on it is immoral or sinful is based on religious doctrine. Many if not most people don’t find the secular arguments against gay marriage compelling, and no one should have live according to someone else’s religious doctrine if they don’t want to.


    5. I'll sidestep all that about religious doctrine. If Christian doctrine is true, then it'd certainly be to everyone's benefit to follow it. Still, Thomas Aquinas argued convincingly that not all sins should be illegal and certainly no one can be convinced of the truth of any religious doctrine by legal fiat. So I mostly agree.

      Where I disagree is the bit about the argument being religiously motivated. This is why the Catholic Church lost the whole issue big time and will never win it back lest there be some sort of revolution or direct intervention by God. The teaching that certain sexual behaviors are moral or immoral is as arbitrary as the teaching that eating arsenic is bad for you, and nutrient rich vegetables are good for you. Granted the former issue is of greater moral import than the later.

      For someone just starting out in natural law philosophy, Ed Feser has done a commendable job of translating Scholastic to readable modern English.

  7. I was surfing net and fortunately came across this site and found very interesting stuff here. Its really fun to read. I enjoyed a lot. Thanks for sharing this wonderful information. Laser Eye Surgery Michigan