Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,277 Year: 5,534/9,624 Month: 559/323 Week: 56/143 Day: 18/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
Larni
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 151 of 313 (750213)
02-12-2015 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:27 PM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
As I said, YOU can't tell, you have to trust someone who knows, such as me.
Why did you not say this when you first came to EvC? It would have saved you a lot of time trying to persuade people that you are right through discussion.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 152 of 313 (750216)
02-12-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
02-11-2015 9:45 PM


absolutely no sense of humor?
Are you claiming that there are people in the US today that can actually read that silly list without breaking out into laughter?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 453 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 153 of 313 (750222)
02-12-2015 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:54 PM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
Faith writes:
I keep hearing how similar things are here and now to Nazi Germany in the 30s. Corner your opposition, marginalize them, do a big propaganda campaign to be sure they are hated as enemies of progress and prosperity, in this case known as "bigots" and backwards, perhaps low IQ and deserving of extermination. Well, we're the ones keeping you from "evolving" the Perfect Society, right? Homosexuality was a cause celebre then too.
Did you notice that in your long copy-paste about the comparisons between Nazis and the US, there was zero mention of homosexuality, in general, and gay marriage, in particular, being a cause gaining a lot of traction within the country. In fact, the Nazis tended to act toward what I could see many fundamentalists arguing in favor of, and in fact I do see it happening in other countries, which is executing homosexuals.
Wiki on Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany writes:
Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut fr Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."
Doesn't compelling people to comply to a societal norm sound familiar right now? Is it those who are trying to give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else that are really the best compared to Nazis, Faith?
Wiki: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
BTW - I don't agree with comparing either of the groups to Nazis because it belittles the terrible treatment of human beings that took place during that time and place. While your group may share some ideas, such as forcing individuals to conform to your group's personal concept of normal, you fundamentalists are in no way comparable to the evil that existed during that time.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1372 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 154 of 313 (750225)
02-12-2015 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
02-12-2015 1:13 AM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
So the only way for me to know whether something is biblical or not is to ask Faith, is that it?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 02-12-2015 1:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 155 of 313 (750237)
02-12-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
02-12-2015 1:13 AM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
Faith writes:
Message 96 is the answer, you aren't going to get a "general" answer whatever that is, the one I gave is the answer.
I explored a very similar issue with you in another thread, and you gave a very similar non-answer.
You have beliefs that you did not arrive at by any rational chain of reasoning, so the flaws and fallacies of your after the fact rationalizations are readily apparent, and when they're called to your attention you fall back on, "Trust me, I know."
But almost your every message is full of errors and fallacies. You know what you believe, but you seem to know or accept little about the real world. You live in a fantasyland and have taken on the impossible task of convincing everyone else that it is real.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 02-12-2015 1:13 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2015 1:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 156 of 313 (750255)
02-12-2015 12:43 PM


A Signer of the Declaration of Independence Says...
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence:
Rush writes:
"The human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject till it has first reached the extremity of error.
--Percy

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 157 of 313 (750259)
02-12-2015 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
02-12-2015 11:26 AM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
Of course Faith has no principles to guide interpretation other than "Faith is right" - she starts with the conclusion and attempts to justify it. A method antithetical to the search for truth.
Someone who does care about what the Bible actually says might note that baking the cake does not directly violate the proscriptions Faith chooses to point to. Not baking the cake, on the other hand, does directly violate the instruction to follow the law. Saying that the proscriptions which do not even directly apply should override an instruction which DOES directly apply requires more than a "trust me, I know" argument. Even if it did not come from someone who has already demonstrated a poor understanding of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 02-12-2015 11:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8615
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 158 of 313 (750275)
02-12-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:42 PM


I don't fail to comprehend, I disagree with you. VEHEMENTLY. I DESPISE what you are saying.
Not surprising since you actually do not understand the issues.
We're talking freedom of RELIGION here, not freedom of speech, which you keep trying to reduce it to.
Really, Faith, this should not be this difficult to comprehend.
In the case of the NAZI asking for objectionable decoration, which is a situation you brought up, I pointed out that any objections you may have to providing this is most appropriately a speech issue not a religion issue. There exists a clear and unambiguous right, in the "free speech" clause, to refuse.
I took away the offending decorations with no sign of political thought from the customer and asked if you think you have any right to ask about any political affiliation. The answer that should have come from you is, "No."
The reason is because without a justifiable legally recognized reason you have no right to refuse.
I then turned the table to the wedding cake.
This is the fine line which escapes you because of your religious blindness.
Without knowing the customer was gay you had no objection to service. Since the request involved no special decorations this takes away any possibility of a free speech objection. Now you find out the customer is gay. You think the First Amendment "freedom of religion" clause gives you some right to be bigoted, hateful and refuse this service. It does not!
Even with state laws saying such religious objections are legal, when a child dies because the parents refused to seek medical help based on their religious objection the parents go to jail!
When bigamists take multiple wives or under-aged wives claiming justification on religious grounds they go to jail!
When Christian preachers refuse to pay taxes claiming religious reasons they go to jail!.
The First Amendment, Faith, does NOT give religion carte blanche to justify actions that are considered illegal or abhorrent in this society. The First Amendment, Faith, does not give Christians carte blanche to be bigoted and hateful towards ANYONE.
You HAVE NO RIGHT regardless of what your abomination of the Christian religion may believe.
Actually, "We the People" have voted against gay marriage in state after state after state, but the SCOTUS don't LIKE "Us the People" so they make up their own rules.
Fool. We the People have been slowly but surely stepping in the direction of (finally) recognizing gay rights and gay marriage state-by-state for the past 30 years. Yes, with concerted bigoted Christian backlashes, but forward none the less. In the last two years the cause has reached a tipping point with, now, the majority of states and the majority of We the People recognizing that these basic human rights can no longer be denied to ANY American.
SCOTUS had plenty of opportunity to take a case and force a decision many times over many years, but there was then no recognizable consensus within the society. There is now. SCOTUS has yet to settle the question with the most obvious, the only, answer possible. That is yet to come.
Americans are ready. Court will now act.
Society is ready. Court to make shift.
Court ready to rule with national consensus.
Your abomination of the Christian religion will lose and the First Amendment is NOT there to save you but to save the rest of us FROM you!
Edited by AZPaul3, : added cites
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-02-2015 5:44 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 03-03-2015 12:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8615
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 159 of 313 (750277)
02-12-2015 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:54 PM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
I keep hearing how similar things are here and now to Nazi Germany in the 30s.
Then you and your inflammatory sources do not know a FUCKING thing about the Nazis.
How dare you compare this nation, this society, to that disease!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 03-02-2015 7:48 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 160 of 313 (750282)
02-12-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
02-11-2015 1:36 PM


But seriously, Faith
If a flamboyantly gay man walks into a bakery and orders half a dozen cupcakes who is more likely to refuse the order ?
A Christian ?
or
An anti-gay bigot ?
Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 313 (751394)
03-02-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by AZPaul3
02-12-2015 3:51 PM


I'll just say it one more time. I have not, nor has any Christian, argued for refusing service to GAYS. This is not about refusing anything but the specific providing of a specific service that legitimizes a specific event, the marriage of two homosexuals. Gays get any service or product anyone else does, just not a product that specifically legitimizes a gay wedding, nor could a heterosexual come in and order a service for a gay wedding. It's about the event, not the persons. Please at least get that much straight for a change.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2015 3:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2015 6:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 313 (751403)
03-02-2015 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by AZPaul3
02-11-2015 8:51 PM


But if you do the tyrannizing it's not tyrannizing, right?
Yes, AZ, societies do change over time, and that is why the founders expected changes to be made the Constitution over time and made provision for that to occur in a lawful and orderly way, reflecting the changing views of The People.
We haven't completed the process, there is still much to do, but We the People are making progress. You and yours are falling further and further behind. You really need to catch up, Faith
The problem is that changes these days are often being made by an elite cadre rather than by the People, whose views are dismissed out of hand by said elite cadre. Change should reflect the will of the people at large, whose will is NOT represented by SCOTUS' peculiar "evolved" interpretations of the "evolving" Constitution. Clearly the opinion of that part of The People of which I am a part matters not one whit to you or to SCOTUS or to other liberal elements in today's society. You don't even ask how many are represented in the different camps, so sure are you that "progress" is going in your direction and even if you represent only a minority you'd be for that "progress" because, well, YOUR camp has defined it as superior and fair (Politially Correct), so who cares what the rest of us think. You are calling the shots and you are calling us bigots and behind the times and you have the movers and shakers on your side and that's all it seems to take to establish a legal position these days. No need for anything properly democratic here, you just define us out of the picture. You appear to feel quite free to think of society's evolving without our input at all, but that doesn't strike you as even a bit tyrannical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2015 8:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2015 7:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 313 (751404)
03-02-2015 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by AZPaul3
02-12-2015 4:25 PM


The Nazi connection
There are either factual conditions and situations in America over the last decade or so that are similar to those in Nazi Germany in the thirties or there are not. This isn't a "how dare you" matter, it's similarities many people have been observing from different angles for some time now, including some people who lived through the Nazi era IN Germany. I've run across different lists from different sources. Perhaps I'll try to dig some more up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2015 4:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2015 9:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1562 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 313 (751414)
03-03-2015 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by AZPaul3
02-12-2015 3:51 PM


In the case of the NAZI asking for objectionable decoration, which is a situation you brought up, I pointed out that any objections you may have to providing this is most appropriately a speech issue not a religion issue. There exists a clear and unambiguous right, in the "free speech" clause, to refuse.
OK I get your point and I should have avoided bringing up issues that aren't central. The central issue is the Biblical position on gay marriage. However, since it has come up I do think that a business ought to have the right to refuse anything that offends their conscience, such as the request to make a cake with NO writing on it but say a swastika design. Not a speech issue, right? I'm sure there are other symbols that could be offensive to somebody in the same way. Hammer and sickle? Clenched fists for Black Power maybe. I don't know, you name it. Portrait of a smiling Hitler, or Stalin or Mao. Or George Bush? Not free speech though, right? But I think a business should have the right to refuse to create such things. And really, I think most could do that and not be persecuted for it. It's gay marriage that's going to get us persecuted.
I took away the offending decorations with no sign of political thought from the customer and asked if you think you have any right to ask about any political affiliation. The answer that should have come from you is, "No."
The reason is because without a justifiable legally recognized reason you have no right to refuse.
That's the way it was under the Inquisition too, you know, but of course that wasn't about running a business, but running a person OUT of business for failing to meet a "legal" standard does seem to me to be a fair comparison. Lose your life, lose your business, whatever. In the case of the Inquisition you couldn't deny transubstantiation, that was the "law" of the day. There was no "justifiable legally recognized reason to refuse" the authorities at the time, so off with your head, or your fingers or whatever. I really don't see a whole lot of difference between that and taking away a person's means of livelihood for standing on a conscience-defined position that is opposed to that of the authorities.
I then turned the table to the wedding cake.
This is the fine line which escapes you because of your religious blindness.
Without knowing the customer was gay you had no objection to service. Since the request involved no special decorations this takes away any possibility of a free speech objection. Now you find out the customer is gay. You think the First Amendment "freedom of religion" clause gives you some right to be bigoted, hateful and refuse this service. It does not.
I already objected to your identifying the Christian position as being against the customer. It's against a specific request for something that celebrates an event that violates the business owner's conscience.
But if you would say the same thing even when the terms are clear that we're talking only about refusing to validate an event, it still looks to me like the Powers That Be lording it over the average citizen's conscience and punishing them for having a different opinion than the Powers That Be. Which I would have thought the Bill of Rights was specifically formulated to protect us from. Guess not, huh?
Of course I agree with the State about bigamists and people who deny their children medical care and tax evasion, but that's because all those things are in line with my Christian conscience. They represent Christian standards as a matter of fact, though of course some would disagree and would disagree on the grounds of conscience too. But all those things have been clearly defined in American law forever, while gay marriage is a brand-new never-before-heard-of ridiculous "right" that was just about universally unthinkable a short time ago.
I haven't missed the point. You are now going to persecute Christians for opposing gay marriage, at least those who happen to be in a business that can be persecuted for acting on their belief, which they will do because the Bible requires it of us.
Actually, "We the People" have voted against gay marriage in state after state after state, but the SCOTUS don't LIKE "Us the People" so they make up their own rules.
Fool. We the People have been slowly but surely stepping in the direction of (finally) recognizing gay rights and gay marriage state-by-state for the past 30 years. Yes, with concerted bigoted Christian backlashes, but forward none the less.
Oh we've seen it coming for a long time.
I'm asking what makes those who favor gay marriage "We the People" instead of those who have tried to pass a law against gay marriage in state after state, and VOTED IT IN. Usually indicates a majority doesn't it? You call your team the "majority," but what's your evidence? The People who DON'T want gay marriage in their state and voted against it pretty clearly outnumber those who do, and it's only Political Correctness that denies them their VOTED opinion, not numbers.
In the last two years the cause has reached a tipping point with, now, the majority of states and the majority of We the People recognizing that these basic human rights can no longer be denied to ANY American.
Right. Except it's not a majority as you claim, it's strictly a political coup, an act of tyranny. You've defined a tiny minority as deserving of rights against the rights of a continuing large number of lawabiding citizens. That's all you've done. It's word magic, redefine things to suit yourself and you can disenfranchise a huge number of citizens and effectively deprive them of citizen status. And that's progress to you, social evolution.
SCOTUS had plenty of opportunity to take a case and force a decision many times over many years, but there was then no recognizable consensus within the society. There is now. SCOTUS has yet to settle the question with the most obvious, the only, answer possible. That is yet to come.
Yes, they had to wait for the engines of Political Correctness to do their work and corrupt enough minds to minimize the opposition to their dastardly intentions. A blitz of media propaganda etc and now the time is right.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2015 3:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2015 9:22 AM Faith has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8615
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 165 of 313 (751419)
03-03-2015 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
03-02-2015 5:44 PM


An event san people
It's about the event, not the persons.
Bull! You can fly that flag all day long and it still won't flutter.
The "event" is a wedding, Faith. Do you have some objection to weddings?
No ... unless it involves gays.
You object to the people, Faith!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-02-2015 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024