Mall

I think you're the first I've seen to admit that of people (liberals).

Yes.

It doesn't really matter at this point. This is another derailment. But go ahead and filibuster to avoid conceding.

Ok. Maybe you're lost because I was actually interacting with another individual that gave circular points on another relevant thread.

Your C that tried to get into an only A and B subject.

Another words equal partnership right, ok .

Hate is the result you say so the destruction of threats is what ? The real result so hate wouldn't be the result right, it be a means.

Nobody said you set the goalpost. It was already set and you moved it which is a fallacious way to argue your point.

Be better for the criminals. Tough for them.

How charitable. 

That's why I said it.

You don't know.

What so called assertion?

Conflicting position.

Well simply put so anyone can see there is actually no leap but a connected train of movement.

Can you support abortion without supporting the choice of it?

Being that you choose non reproductive use of reproductive capacity (abortion), that equates to a choice in homosexuality or homosexual behavior.

So I take it your not actually the head of your wife .

What you stated turned out to be circular so there's only so much I can get out of you on this subject.

Ok you done WHAT?

 Tell me exactly what you did?

One in the same. 

Operates from the same basis. You can't be for one without these other elements.

Notice how you moved the goalpost from health. It resulted in good health. 

When you conflate everything like you're doing, you can make anything that's actually good just appear bad so good and bad become meaningless. 

If that's the way law worked, we wouldn't have a justifiable means to charge one person directly responsible to a crime.

We can just pursue the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause convicting all of them.

No no.

Maybe you want to know what I mean.

When I say women and children, I mean the nature of saving others first.

 That's why I said " women and children first or self first ".

Because like anything else, it's for the ultimate constructive result.

How do you know?

Why didn't the goodness of consuming vegetables result in bad or poor health?

For those of you that are married, unmarried and have a viewpoint on this, I have the following questions.

You that has what you may call a "significant other", first of all, what is your definition of a simp?

Do you say this person is your "better half"?

Do you say or think you're nothing or you are not what you are without this person?

Is this person your other half?

Do you believe in "happy wife, happy life"?

If you are a married man, does your wife obey you?

Are you the head of your wife?

Do you correct her?

Do you lead, guide and protect her?

Are you submissive and subordinate to her?

Why or why not?

To the unmarried, what are your thoughts if you were married, what is your approach?

Are weddings pure materialistic shows?

This would include wearing what's on your finger.

Do you believe in working in the same space and place as your spouse?

Are you the type finding yourself constantly looking to occupy attention, yours and or the other person's attention?

Are there dates and anniversaries you use as a remainder to occasionally demonstrate love or how you feel?

Just look at these answers and things for what they are and just realize how much you may act based on culture, custom, tradition versus personal earnest sincerity.

One example of custom, a hallmark card.

How would you attempt to survive or how do you think you would survive the fall of the towers?

Is your mindset, women and children first or self first or defeatist mentality?

Why are the LGBT hated?

Why are there judgments made on the haters as well as non haters?

Finally, how can we extinguish the hate?

Do we copy the method of them pushing to extinguish the LGBT and reverse it, extinguishing them instead?

Do you mean once ordered to pay , child support is not optional?

Abortion should be legal only for saving a mother's life. We don't really need the "every pregnancy is a risk" argument, let alone it being not proven anyway.

But all that is really necessary is in a situation of life and death because you can say it's like self defense.

Good doesn't necessarily result in bad but good is a positive reaction to what is bad hence what makes it good. 

Hence we know what a positive value to a rainy dreary stormy tumultuous day with a sunny day.

Very good. Now seriously re-read all the comments I made regarding Jesus being involved in old testament scriptures. Highlight especially the one about Jesus saying they were concerning him.

What's your proof that the old testament scriptures are fictitious?

Your point is what?

The law says do not murder which reduces FREEDOM to murder. But wait , freedom is good. That's bad because freedom was reduced.

We can both pick adverse or favorable circumstances because freedom is NEUTRAL. It depends on how the freedom is used .

Drop the conventional thinking on this.

You saying it should be balanced out is a roundabout way of saying good or bad can be done with freedom so just balance out the reduction in freedom here and a necessary increase over there to adjust what amounts to good or bad.

Slavery falls in line the same way because there's a balance there too if you want to continue to use the word "balance ".

If the law doesn't harm , then there be nothing that isn't good or what you call bad which leaves the statement "freedom is good" baseless in context of that harmless law.

Jesus basically said the old testament was concerning him. You're saying it's not so you're saying he was wrong.

Scripture basically says fool and slow of heart to believe all of what the prophets have spoken .

Cursing people out don't change your error, now acknowledge your error and sit down so you can be taught.

Scripture basically says at the time you are to teach you need somebody to teach you .

So none of the prophets told about Jesus the son of God,is that what you're saying?

The law will enforce or deny rights and freedom based on speech for the good . So much for freedom being inherently good.

As far as so called whites saying what they wish to say , I don't think they'll have a problem with a system behind them working for them ultimately benefiting and privileging.

By doing what?

It all comes down to the reason you use any word. 

Somebody asked a question what is the point of freedom of speech?

Good question because what is the bottom line?

Some believe freedom itself is just good so therefore freedom in this, freedom in that.

Please rephrase.

There you go.

Right the behavior is a choice and that's plenty for anti-homosexual folks.

Why? Where we moving to ?

Ok this is not what I'm reading on Google point blank period.

It doesn't matter. Evolution is not a proven fact point blank period.