Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Yup, that's religious protesters having their speech infringed upon. Those attacking them should be ashamed of themselves. I'm happy there wasn't any police action that I saw....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"The very fact that they attempt to indoctrinate children into thinking homosexuality is normal proves my point."
And the fact that you refuse to understand that homosexuality is a naturally occurring event, MAKING it normal, proves mine about you.
"Who is the state to take taxpayer money and use it to push something that goes against many people's beliefs?"
Uh, you do realize they do this ALL THE TIME, right? How many people disagree with socialized medicine? They're still implimenting it with your tax money. Get serious.
"Quite honest of you to expose your own bigotry against religious people, calling them "poorly evolved primates,"
Way to miss the point, friend. We're ALL poorly evolved primates. I was describing humanity, not just the religious.
"Christians are being persecuted around the world simply for their beliefs, yet I don't hear a peep about it in the mainstream. (Do we get to lobby for special rights on account of our suffering?)"
We're talking about American government, not the world. Describe how Christians are "suffering" in the same way as homosexuals and I'll defend the hell out of you from that suffering. And, no, being told your beliefs are silly is not the same as having your life, livelihood, or rights threatened.
"The risks of sexually transmitted diseases are much greater within the LGBT community."
Patently false. The demographic with the lowest risk of STD infection are lesbians. The highest risk is homosexual men. Straight couples are right in the middle. If you can't see what the major factor in STD infection rates are from that evidence, you need remedial logic. Either way, it ain't the homosexuality aspect.
" Also, just because animals do something doesn't suddenly make it OK if we, being CIVILIZED creatures, do likewise. e.g."
No, it just makes it NATURAL. Something that occurs naturally and doesn't harm in and of itself simply CANNOT be perverse. Also, as a theist, you must believe that God created all things that are natural. Why are you railing against God's creations?
"All you're showing is that your opposition is against Christianity."
100% correct. I find your beliefs to be distasteful. That said, I'll defend your rights to believe what you like and practice any religion you like to my death. That's the secular humanist way. It also SHOULD be the way of the religious. Sadly, that often seems to be not the case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"I couldn't help but notice how you omit the fact that homosexuals aren't being *punished* for any thought crimes"
Right, because gays haven't been persecuted just for their being gay. What the fuck are you talking about?
"yet if someone protests at a gay pride parade by holding up a sign with a quote from scripture on it, the police might come over and attempt to take it away, perhaps even charge with a 'hate crime.'"
Citation needed. As someone who has attended gay pride parades and has seen protesters, I've never seen this. Nor have I ever heard of it happening, so please cite an instance. If you do cite an instance, I'll criticize the police action. Free speech should be protected for all, even when I disagree with the speakers. Doesn't mean they aren't bigots, just means they're allowed their bigotry.
"Homosexuals like to preach tolerance while themselves being intolerant of anyone with a dissenting opinion of their lifestyle."
You like to claim that you aren't a bigot and then you make sweeping generalizations about an entire group. Hypocritical irony at is finest....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"The homosexual movement has nothing to do with 'treating them equally' and everything to do with shoving the lifestyle in everyone's face, including children in schools."
If by shoving the lifestyle into everyone's face you mean convincing society to welcome homosexuals as full and complete members of society with equal rights, then yes, that's true. As they should be.
"Also, the state altering the definition of marriage is in no way an equal rights issue."
Excuse me, but we live in a secular society. Ergo, the state cannot rule with a nod to ANY religion. Therefore, if the state is going to be involved in marriage at all, and by regulating licenses and benefits for married couples they are, then they MUST do so in a secular way. That means God doesn't enter into the equation. Ergo, marriage is open to all. It's really just that simple. Private religions don't have to do so, since the state can't infringe upon their separation either, but from the state's perspective, homosexuals are simply citizens and ought be afforded all of a citizen's rights.
"Nobody is allowed to disagree with their lifestyle without being labeled a bigot or homophobe (which BTW is a nonsensical term: a phobia is a fear)."
Sure you can, but you have to do it scientifically. If your statement is, "God does not agree with homosexual's lifestlye", or "Homosexual sex is a sin", that is an obviously bigoted statement that doesn't even jive with general religious thought as is. An example I gave in another thread:
"For this belief to make even a lick of sense, you have to dismiss the science. Follow along the religious thought here if you did accept scientific evidence:
1. God created all beings in their total
2. Some beings (not just humans) are inherently homosexual, meaning they were created that way, or else developed that way long before any choice in sexual preference could be made (i.e. some scientific thought suggests that homosexuality develops between the ages of 3-5)
3. The religions of man say God says some of these inherently gay beings are not sins in and of themselves, but their natural inclinations are.
4. Conclusion #1: God created some beings flawed at their most basic level and commands them not to be who he created them to be.
5. Conclusion #2: If #1 is true, God is MASSIVELY capricious and cruel on a level shared by young children frying ants with a magnifying glass or torturing animals. This is a SHITTY God.
Or, you can take the coward's way out, throw away the scientific evidence on sexuality, and wave your hands around about faith and sin and choice and blah, blah, blah, all while the rest of the sane world passes you by.
Either way, things don't look too good for religion on the question of homosexuality. There's a good reason for this: religion is made by scared, poorly evolved primates that are subject to their own prejudices, fears, and fallacies. The problem is they seem to think they have the divine on their side, which is a kind of hubris normally reserved for sociopaths...."
"If anything, they are treated as exceptional, special-class, protected citizens, and all for what? Their perverse sexual preference?"
This is an INSANE thought. Homosexuals are still a minority that suffers. Not as much as in the past, but they are SPECIFICALLY a disadvantaged minority because of the way the majority treats them. To insinuate otherwise is done absolutely without merit.
In addition, homosexuality cannot be perverse when it exists naturally. And it does. This is inarguable. It is a naturally occurring thing, not only in our species, but in other animals as well. It has not been shown in any way to be harmful in and of itself. Ergo, it cannot be perverse.
Your statement, on the other hand, CAN be described as bigoted. Calling something perverse just because you don't like it? Perhaps your time would be better spent with the WBC cretins....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
"Blame God for everything, or deny He exists."
Here's the wonderful thing about being a deist: I don't do either, so I guess I'm not harming myself.
I don't disbelieve in a creative force and I don't believe any creative force that might exist has any impact or interest in our lives or his/her/its creation. You know, because there's no evidence that that's the case. In one fell swoop, I've solved most of the ontological problems of existence without having to buy into any of the nonsense of prayer and mythos around certain personalities.
Ah, neat and tidy little boxes. How I love thee....
"With regards to slavery in the Old Testament, 'slavery' was not the same thing per se as the 'racial slavery' we're more familiar with. Back in old times, some people willfully sold themselves into slavery, often to pay off debts and whatnot."
Given how much you spoke of context, this is an incredibly silly argument to make. When the bible discusses and advocates the enslavement of others, it does so in the same language as it discusses the Jews' enslavement in Egypt. We're not talking about willful bondage, though that obviously is a core religious concept. We're talking about the active enslavement of a previously free people. Don't dodge the facts.
"As for your Exodus quote where God was telling Moses how He wanted to kill the idol worshippers, He had a reason. The Levites were told to wait while Moses went up to the mountain but grew impatient and Aaron couldn't control them. They decided to create their own false deity -- a golden calf, and that made God angry."
And that's apparently reason enough to commit mass murder? Wonderful God you have there. I notice further down you mention how people will use ANY justification for war and murder, even crazy bullshit justifications. How can you POSSIBLY not believe that the murder of the Levites wasn't one of these cases?
The good news is, you'd be correct that it WASN'T a bullshit excuse, because it never happened. Or, rather, the entire Exodus story of the Jews escape from Egypt never happened. This has been proven by Israeli archaeology teams years ago.
And let's not forget why we don't see many Amalekites these days, who were murdered for the same made-up Exodus story....or not, their murder might have been simply made up as well, another pretend victory.
"Funny you should mention that as that pretty much sums up the strategy of the homosexual movement. "Agree with us or else you're a *attach label* and we'll try to punish you (read: thought crimes)."
Oh, come on now. You can't be both arguing for religion AND arguing against thought crimes. Religion is the mother of all punishing thought crime. It was mentioned higher up in the thread: adultery isn't when you bang your neighbor's wife, it's when you THINK about banging your neighbor's wife.
Pick a lane, TRM. Either we can punish thought crimes or we can't....
Re: This IS a new low in stupid even for you, Timmy.
Oh, gee, OOTB didn't like my article. Thank God I've been tempered in your distaste by, you know, every other article I've ever written in which you say essentially the same thing. Otherwise, gee, I just wouldn't know how to deal....
"Bush never got involved with a land war in Asia during his presidency."
Bwah!?!? In what way is Afghanistan not in Asia?
"and a lot of his antics were due to the extreme pressure from liberal media outlets who seemingly went out of their way to report every gaffe he had."
They certainly reported all his gaffes, but not because the media is liberal, they're just sensationalist assholes. Or have you missed all the fun Joe Biden has provided us?
"Learn your history, don't reinvent it to fit your political bias."
This from someone who previously said Clinton was a good President and Bush had his heart in the right place. Bullshit. Clinton was a narcissistic liar, money-corrupt to the bone, ran his White House the way he ran Arkansas (open to the highest bidder). Oh, and he committed sexual assault and/or rape in Arkansas on top of it. That the economy happened to do well during his Presidency due to an exploding internet market and good fiscal policy from Congress is his only real claim for strong governance. And it's a shitty claim.
As for Bush, I'll never forgive him for taking a perfectly necessary war that could have been honestly sold to the public, if not the world, and fucking it all up with talk about WMDs. True, Iraq had used them before and wanted to use them again, but that wasn't the only or even primary reason to oust him. That, coupled with Bush's insane love for Reaganomics puts him squarely in jackass territory. Granted he didn't rape anyone, other than the economy.
You know, upon reflection, you'd think it couldn't get more disgusting and duplicitous than Bill Clinton's term, or as misguided and mistrusting as Bush's, but here's Obama to beat both of them in both areas.
"Still, lumping every religious person as sociopaths seems to me a sociopathy in itself (no, I'm NOT calling you a sociopath but some non-religious people are)."
You're making a fundamental flaw and an incorrect assumption in the above. The assumption is that I'm an atheist. I am not. I'm a deist. The flaw is that you're attacking my assertion that the religious are on some level sociopathic by saying all you said above about believing in God, except everything you stated in your beliefs is neither religious nor theistic. You've gotten exactly as far as I have, deism. You seem to be asserting that there may have been a creator, but that creator doesn't influence our realm of existence.
That is EXACTLY what I believe. That belief also automatically dismisses any and every religion in existence, since they rely on the notion that they can interpret God's will, wants, etc. There is zero reason to believe any single religion, but plenty of reasons to believe in God.
On the post: Worst Woman In The World Burns Dog Alive, Is Caught After Bragging About It On Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Don't feed the troll
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
And the fact that you refuse to understand that homosexuality is a naturally occurring event, MAKING it normal, proves mine about you.
"Who is the state to take taxpayer money and use it to push something that goes against many people's beliefs?"
Uh, you do realize they do this ALL THE TIME, right? How many people disagree with socialized medicine? They're still implimenting it with your tax money. Get serious.
"Quite honest of you to expose your own bigotry against religious people, calling them "poorly evolved primates,"
Way to miss the point, friend. We're ALL poorly evolved primates. I was describing humanity, not just the religious.
"Christians are being persecuted around the world simply for their beliefs, yet I don't hear a peep about it in the mainstream. (Do we get to lobby for special rights on account of our suffering?)"
We're talking about American government, not the world. Describe how Christians are "suffering" in the same way as homosexuals and I'll defend the hell out of you from that suffering. And, no, being told your beliefs are silly is not the same as having your life, livelihood, or rights threatened.
"The risks of sexually transmitted diseases are much greater within the LGBT community."
Patently false. The demographic with the lowest risk of STD infection are lesbians. The highest risk is homosexual men. Straight couples are right in the middle. If you can't see what the major factor in STD infection rates are from that evidence, you need remedial logic. Either way, it ain't the homosexuality aspect.
" Also, just because animals do something doesn't suddenly make it OK if we, being CIVILIZED creatures, do likewise. e.g."
No, it just makes it NATURAL. Something that occurs naturally and doesn't harm in and of itself simply CANNOT be perverse. Also, as a theist, you must believe that God created all things that are natural. Why are you railing against God's creations?
"All you're showing is that your opposition is against Christianity."
100% correct. I find your beliefs to be distasteful. That said, I'll defend your rights to believe what you like and practice any religion you like to my death. That's the secular humanist way. It also SHOULD be the way of the religious. Sadly, that often seems to be not the case.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Right, because gays haven't been persecuted just for their being gay. What the fuck are you talking about?
"yet if someone protests at a gay pride parade by holding up a sign with a quote from scripture on it, the police might come over and attempt to take it away, perhaps even charge with a 'hate crime.'"
Citation needed. As someone who has attended gay pride parades and has seen protesters, I've never seen this. Nor have I ever heard of it happening, so please cite an instance. If you do cite an instance, I'll criticize the police action. Free speech should be protected for all, even when I disagree with the speakers. Doesn't mean they aren't bigots, just means they're allowed their bigotry.
"Homosexuals like to preach tolerance while themselves being intolerant of anyone with a dissenting opinion of their lifestyle."
You like to claim that you aren't a bigot and then you make sweeping generalizations about an entire group. Hypocritical irony at is finest....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
If by shoving the lifestyle into everyone's face you mean convincing society to welcome homosexuals as full and complete members of society with equal rights, then yes, that's true. As they should be.
"Also, the state altering the definition of marriage is in no way an equal rights issue."
Excuse me, but we live in a secular society. Ergo, the state cannot rule with a nod to ANY religion. Therefore, if the state is going to be involved in marriage at all, and by regulating licenses and benefits for married couples they are, then they MUST do so in a secular way. That means God doesn't enter into the equation. Ergo, marriage is open to all. It's really just that simple. Private religions don't have to do so, since the state can't infringe upon their separation either, but from the state's perspective, homosexuals are simply citizens and ought be afforded all of a citizen's rights.
"Nobody is allowed to disagree with their lifestyle without being labeled a bigot or homophobe (which BTW is a nonsensical term: a phobia is a fear)."
Sure you can, but you have to do it scientifically. If your statement is, "God does not agree with homosexual's lifestlye", or "Homosexual sex is a sin", that is an obviously bigoted statement that doesn't even jive with general religious thought as is. An example I gave in another thread:
"For this belief to make even a lick of sense, you have to dismiss the science. Follow along the religious thought here if you did accept scientific evidence:
1. God created all beings in their total
2. Some beings (not just humans) are inherently homosexual, meaning they were created that way, or else developed that way long before any choice in sexual preference could be made (i.e. some scientific thought suggests that homosexuality develops between the ages of 3-5)
3. The religions of man say God says some of these inherently gay beings are not sins in and of themselves, but their natural inclinations are.
4. Conclusion #1: God created some beings flawed at their most basic level and commands them not to be who he created them to be.
5. Conclusion #2: If #1 is true, God is MASSIVELY capricious and cruel on a level shared by young children frying ants with a magnifying glass or torturing animals. This is a SHITTY God.
Or, you can take the coward's way out, throw away the scientific evidence on sexuality, and wave your hands around about faith and sin and choice and blah, blah, blah, all while the rest of the sane world passes you by.
Either way, things don't look too good for religion on the question of homosexuality. There's a good reason for this: religion is made by scared, poorly evolved primates that are subject to their own prejudices, fears, and fallacies. The problem is they seem to think they have the divine on their side, which is a kind of hubris normally reserved for sociopaths...."
"If anything, they are treated as exceptional, special-class, protected citizens, and all for what? Their perverse sexual preference?"
This is an INSANE thought. Homosexuals are still a minority that suffers. Not as much as in the past, but they are SPECIFICALLY a disadvantaged minority because of the way the majority treats them. To insinuate otherwise is done absolutely without merit.
In addition, homosexuality cannot be perverse when it exists naturally. And it does. This is inarguable. It is a naturally occurring thing, not only in our species, but in other animals as well. It has not been shown in any way to be harmful in and of itself. Ergo, it cannot be perverse.
Your statement, on the other hand, CAN be described as bigoted. Calling something perverse just because you don't like it? Perhaps your time would be better spent with the WBC cretins....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Here's the wonderful thing about being a deist: I don't do either, so I guess I'm not harming myself.
I don't disbelieve in a creative force and I don't believe any creative force that might exist has any impact or interest in our lives or his/her/its creation. You know, because there's no evidence that that's the case. In one fell swoop, I've solved most of the ontological problems of existence without having to buy into any of the nonsense of prayer and mythos around certain personalities.
Ah, neat and tidy little boxes. How I love thee....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Given how much you spoke of context, this is an incredibly silly argument to make. When the bible discusses and advocates the enslavement of others, it does so in the same language as it discusses the Jews' enslavement in Egypt. We're not talking about willful bondage, though that obviously is a core religious concept. We're talking about the active enslavement of a previously free people. Don't dodge the facts.
"As for your Exodus quote where God was telling Moses how He wanted to kill the idol worshippers, He had a reason. The Levites were told to wait while Moses went up to the mountain but grew impatient and Aaron couldn't control them. They decided to create their own false deity -- a golden calf, and that made God angry."
And that's apparently reason enough to commit mass murder? Wonderful God you have there. I notice further down you mention how people will use ANY justification for war and murder, even crazy bullshit justifications. How can you POSSIBLY not believe that the murder of the Levites wasn't one of these cases?
The good news is, you'd be correct that it WASN'T a bullshit excuse, because it never happened. Or, rather, the entire Exodus story of the Jews escape from Egypt never happened. This has been proven by Israeli archaeology teams years ago.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
And let's not forget why we don't see many Amalekites these days, who were murdered for the same made-up Exodus story....or not, their murder might have been simply made up as well, another pretend victory.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Oh, come on now. You can't be both arguing for religion AND arguing against thought crimes. Religion is the mother of all punishing thought crime. It was mentioned higher up in the thread: adultery isn't when you bang your neighbor's wife, it's when you THINK about banging your neighbor's wife.
Pick a lane, TRM. Either we can punish thought crimes or we can't....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Proper context
On the post: Boston Radio Station Shutters Online Contest To Meet Taylor Swift Because Of 4Chan Shenanigans
Re: This IS a new low in stupid even for you, Timmy.
On the post: Boston Radio Station Shutters Online Contest To Meet Taylor Swift Because Of 4Chan Shenanigans
Re: This is really stupid...esp for Techdirt
On the post: Irony Alert: Obama Opposes Amash Amendment Because It's A 'Blunt Approach' And Not A Product Of 'Open' Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asshole alert
Bwah!?!? In what way is Afghanistan not in Asia?
"and a lot of his antics were due to the extreme pressure from liberal media outlets who seemingly went out of their way to report every gaffe he had."
They certainly reported all his gaffes, but not because the media is liberal, they're just sensationalist assholes. Or have you missed all the fun Joe Biden has provided us?
"Learn your history, don't reinvent it to fit your political bias."
This from someone who previously said Clinton was a good President and Bush had his heart in the right place. Bullshit. Clinton was a narcissistic liar, money-corrupt to the bone, ran his White House the way he ran Arkansas (open to the highest bidder). Oh, and he committed sexual assault and/or rape in Arkansas on top of it. That the economy happened to do well during his Presidency due to an exploding internet market and good fiscal policy from Congress is his only real claim for strong governance. And it's a shitty claim.
As for Bush, I'll never forgive him for taking a perfectly necessary war that could have been honestly sold to the public, if not the world, and fucking it all up with talk about WMDs. True, Iraq had used them before and wanted to use them again, but that wasn't the only or even primary reason to oust him. That, coupled with Bush's insane love for Reaganomics puts him squarely in jackass territory. Granted he didn't rape anyone, other than the economy.
On the post: Irony Alert: Obama Opposes Amash Amendment Because It's A 'Blunt Approach' And Not A Product Of 'Open' Process
Asshole alert
And to think, I used to like this jackass....
On the post: Maybe The Answer To The $200 Million Movie Question Is To Not Focus On $200 Million Movies?
Mother of God...
Boom. Death Star shot....
On the post: Head Start: College Kid Gets Prison For Rigging Student President Election
Re: One day
On the post: Fire Sale: Pope Francis Trades Indulgences For Twitter Followers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're making a fundamental flaw and an incorrect assumption in the above. The assumption is that I'm an atheist. I am not. I'm a deist. The flaw is that you're attacking my assertion that the religious are on some level sociopathic by saying all you said above about believing in God, except everything you stated in your beliefs is neither religious nor theistic. You've gotten exactly as far as I have, deism. You seem to be asserting that there may have been a creator, but that creator doesn't influence our realm of existence.
That is EXACTLY what I believe. That belief also automatically dismisses any and every religion in existence, since they rely on the notion that they can interpret God's will, wants, etc. There is zero reason to believe any single religion, but plenty of reasons to believe in God.
On the post: Fire Sale: Pope Francis Trades Indulgences For Twitter Followers
Re: Massively misinterpreted
Next >>