Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Lemming
Everything is "open" to interpretation, yet we often reach the truth. This is because logic is not open to interpretation. Interpretations can be run through a logic filter. This doesn't mean that people are not allowed to hold illogical interpretations, but that their rationality can be determined. Is that not what most thinkers here are interested in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One person has an axe to grind and so interprets the bible one way, and another person has a different axe and so interprets it differently.Same old.
I believe we can figure it out using objective logic, and I suspect that is what boards like this are designed for. If you find the topic old, you are free to ignore it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your questions were...
[Herod] appears to be frightened out of his skin. Why?
I answered: Herod was afraid because he thought Jesus was a resurrected John whom he had beheaded.
Your next question was: "So for anyone observant enough, they should be asking what were the "mighty works" that John had performed for them to be now "showing forth themselves in Jesus"?"
My answer was, neither the text, or Herod said that John had performed "mighty works" that were now "showing forth themselves in Jesus". If that isn't in the text, where do you get it? It must be your poor reading comprehension.
We have had it confirmed by a regular contributor to DebateArt, The lawyer and the Pastor and Chaplin, reverend Tradesecrete #20 that :There is no reason to assume that John ever performed any "miracles" mentioned at verse 13 above. And I too admit that I neither recall any miracles, or signs or wonders performed by John the Baptist. Indeed, we are told that John was not even a messiah!
Then your suggestion that , "...observant people should be asking what were the "mighty works" that John had performed" makes No's sense! Neither the bible or Herod says or imply John did any mighty works, Trade Secret confirms this, and you say you agree.
If this is so, why should "observant people be ask what were the "mighty works" that John performed?" What does "observant" mean to you?
....or simply leave the thread.
If board policy was you leave threads if you don't answer questions, you would not be a member here. None the less, I just posted your questions AND my answers.
I do not think thread makers have the authority to ask me to leave a thread. And I do not believe that posting to a thread a regular member has asked me to leave has any obligation for me. If that is board policy, I don't care to be here, but I'll wait till a mod expounds it to me.
In the main time, your reading comprehension is suspect.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Then why does the law allow for audits? You're saying Biden got more legal votes, but that is in dispute, and there is evidence to suggest that Trump's contention has merit. You may not believe Trump's contention has merit, but again, that is what the courts are for.
You are either arguing for the right to dispute elections to be done away with, or for your subjective view to be elevated to obvious fact. I reject both positions as irrational.
We have a system in place for disputes like this, and Trump violated no law by demanding that the discrepancies be addressed by a court of law. If his claims have no merit, they will be dismissed, but as we have seen, some of his claims were considered legitimate by the court and have resulted in new vote counts.
You should stop and consider that you are using the same people who gave us the bogus polls of 2016 and 2020 to declear that Biden won. Do you not find that problematic?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi Z-man,
No. As always, Ethan is rude only to the rude. Ragnar was untruthful in his rendition of what happened in our PM exchanges, so history will probably repeat itself - as dishonest people tend to be repeatedly dishonest.
How have you been?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, if you step down from your original charge I will consider your original charge no longer supported by you.
Israel was at war. Most times they were attacked. God never sent one man to go kill another. But that is what your initial scenario entailed.
If your position now is that God's decision sometimes resulted in the death of men, then the point in your OP is moot. The semantics are yours.
If you're saying now that God is sometimes immoral, I will have to ask you for a specific example and how you arrived at that conclusion given what you say you believe about subjective morality. As it stands now, you seem to have abandoned your original claim.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The bible (OT) covers a period of about 6,000 years. There is not one instance of God telling one person to go and kill another.
Yours is an old, lame, trick question.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's about the size of it.
- Old Sesame Street song.
Created:
Either way, the idea that one today would have always done what was societally acceptable at the time is a fallacy.
First the obvious. Not everyone follows society, not even religiously. That is part of the reason societies change.
Second, the question incorrectly assumes God told people to go kill others at that time.
The author probably is attempting to ask, "If God told you to do something you considered morally wrong, would you obey Him?"
That is a trick question that only works on baby Christians. The question violates the natura of God. Here is another example of a trick question.
If you were deep sea diving and and saw a dog swimming 2 miles under the ocean, would it be able to bark? The most reasonable answer is that what you see is certainly not a dog.
Questions like this also expose baby atheists.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The passage in Genesis does not condemn homosexuality. That is just due to sloppy thinking and biased thinking by atheists.
The passages condemns the act of copulation between people of the same gender. This act is possible regardless of whether the actors are gay or not, for example, as in some "gay porn" actors.
Another related point is that the Bible condemns extrajudicial killings. Thus, if I were to hear some voice tell me to go murder that person, I would immediately know that it wasn't from God because God condemns murder.
Which is how we know this is an old trick question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw
Stephen,
Your poor reading comprehension has mislead you again.
The bible does not say John performed miracles. Hero's was afraid because he thought Jesus was a resurrected John whom he had beheaded. He probably thought this "resurrected John" would be capable of miracles having been resurrected.
But you poor reading comprehension has tricked you once again into believing the passage, (or Herod) is saying that John performed miracles. That is only in your mind, not in the passage.
Trade secret and fauxlaw are correct.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Theweakeredge
It is directly related to Doc's opinion. Doc expressed an opinion which I'm sure he expects to be validated by the courts.
The facts that
servers have been confiscated
Switch Votes have been correctly reassigned to Trump
Governor have been reprimanded by the courts
Whole states have started recounts, and
Eyewitnesses have filed sworn affidavits in courts
Shows Doc is reasonable in his opinion.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That depends on whether the duck votes democratic or not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Good thread: So you see that logical precision only frustrates poor thinkers.
Big minds focus on Ideas. Small minds focus on people.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is what our courts are for. Due process is a right of every American citizen, from President Trump to Justice Kavenaugh.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If Biden got more legal votes, why are the democrats fighting to quash the audit? They should welcome it.
No Trump case has been dismissed. The fake news media are calling any case brought by individual citizens who are conservative, "Trump cases". Trump has won 3 judgements now in 3 states.
But the hard fact remains. Biden has not been declared the winner by any authoritative US election official. Any talk past that point is just Democrat attempts at misinformation.
Hi Doc! How have you been?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
TO/DNL -> Dart management to Mr. Chris on his 18th b-day.
Created:
Posted in:
After a 3 month ban, my thread is still 2nd on the CURRENT EVENTS board.
Can anyone see what this means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The moron Willows is not a member
It is not for you to push your own religious agenda either.
Board membership has nothing to do with religion.
Please stay off my threads in future.
No. Hey snowflake, you can block me, but you cannot control where I post. It would be more reasonable to ask me not to post TO you, but then why not just block me?
The trash you post will get exposed and dismembered. Deal with it.
Sorry, the board is not Nazi Germany.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Here are the stats that Stephen is afraid to show you. He can't fap anymore if he posts this.
Notice the link is from The Pew Research Center, a link Stephen himself used.. So he went to the site, but came away pretending he could not get global stats. And he calls others liars!
And note, Pew is a site hostile to Christianity.
The world’s Christian population is expected to grow from 2.2 billion in 2010 to 2.9 billion in 2050. Nearly one-in-three people worldwide (31%) are expected to be Christian at mid-century
Oops!
Christianity has spread far from its historical origins and is geographically widespread. As noted in a 2011 Pew Research Center report on global Christianity, it has become a more geographically diverse religion since 1910, becoming less concentrated in Europe and more evenly distributed throughout the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.
Europe is the only region where the absolute number of Christians is expected to decline by 2050. Europe’s Christian population is projected to fall from 553 million in 2010 to 454 million in 2050. During this period, the share of Europe’s population that identifies as Christian also is expected to decline, from 75% to 65%.
In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades.
In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades.
What will you do now festus? Spam your "reports" again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well I for one do not wish you to be around any of my threads...
Yet you @ me in every thread I make? I beat and shame you, so you hate me on your threads, but the board is not yours, and you aren't a mod. I break no CoC rules by posting to your threads, but Willows does.
...like a fly around shit.
An apt description of your tired, spam posts.
And you have the nerve to accuse others of "forcing themselves on people".
Why do you think the idiot has been banned more than 30 times? All you have to do is not post.... Sorry, not spam to me. No one is forcing you or forcing themselves on you.
It is not a pulpit for you ONLY...
It is ONLY for members. The moron Willows is not a member. I don't object to you, but you object to me, yet here you are defending a fake account CoC violator who has been banned over 30 times and saying you don't want the member. Would you like me to tell you your future?
If you come onto the board as a militant bully, you will get slapped. Deal with it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Mr Athias brought them to mind, is what I said....As Judaic influence became relative to the thread.
Athias said nothing about Jews or Judaism. Something else brought to your mind.
And just do a quick search....I'm not listing all the theories, there are too many to list.
You came up with only one, unprompted.
Data retrieval...Bias.....Undoubtedly....Applies to us all....Even you.
But not all bias is the same is it Adolf? Some people come up with the Pope, and some come up with anti-srmetism.
Racists one and all....Yep....Undoubtedly.
What race are Popes? Is that how you soothe your conscience - by rationalizing that everyone is a racist? Really?
Me, You, Triangle. Athias....We comment and develop threads....It's the nature of the exercise.
Only one person mentioned above consistently betrays his...... shall we say, .... Germanic tendencies.
Freud rambles as philosophers do.....Though develops thoughts and ideas as above....We are all philosophers.
But we are not all bigots. Thank God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He will then accuse you of spamming when forced to show him...
You can't force anyone to do anything idiot.
But you can spam stupidity over and over again. Has Christianity crashed yet?
Homer: The number of Christians are declining in every country!
Ethan: Untrue. The worldwide number of Christians is increasing.
Homer: Christians are being baptised less.
Ethan: How do you know?
Homer: Here is a report from the church of England
Ethan: What about the report from the Baptist church?
Homer: err...huh?
Ethan: The church of england is not the whole of Christianity.
Homer: Here is a report from the church in Australia.
Ethan: Where is the report from the church in South America?
Homer: errr...huh?
Ethan: The church in Australia is not the whole of Christianity.
Homer: You are a liar!! The reports are real!!
Ethan: The reports are not complete, they are not global.
Homer: You are denying the truth!! Here are the reports again!!
Ethan: Spamming them a 1,000 times will not make them global numbers.
Homer: *%#@&+ %*$&!!
Ethan: Is your Googler broken? Just query, "total worldwide Christian growth"
Homer: Respams his "report" from the church of England again.
Ethan: Can Christians be decreasing in a localized place and still be increasing worldwide?
Homer: Yes
Ethan: Then spamming "reports" from localized places is stupidity.
Homer: Respams his "report" from the church of Australia again.
Ethan: >>jumps out of the way<<<
Homer: Fap! Fap! Fap! Fap! Fap! Fap!
Ethan: Eew!
Homer: You're embarrassing yourself patal!!
Ethan: I hear ya Mr. Flynt. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlowsi9
Is spamming the same thing over and over for 7 years rational?
Is breaking into an obscure website more than 50 times because you are "exposing" Christianity rational? No churches have websites loser?
Is denying your obsessive compulsion rational?
Never mind, you're to loony to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlowsi9
At least my life isn't so pathetic I have yo force myself on people who don't want me around.
Internet anonymity doesn't hide your shame Willows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The loon got all that from one single question.
This isn't 1935 Germany Adolf. Take your jackboots off and let rational people discuss topics.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your last 3 posts should convince anyone with a cursory knowledge of Edward Bernays.
I like you, so I think I'll stop here. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Masterful hair-splitting!
Homosexuals and homosexuality are not the same thing. Just like human and humanity are not these same. I understand you want to call it "hair-splitting" for political reasons, but the fact remains, they aren't the same thing.
What is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?
This is called "NORMAL CONVERSATION".
With a liberal atheist yes, but what is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?
I don't understand your question, can you please be more specific or rephrase or provide an example to illustrate.
You wrote...
We must insist on a policy of + proFAMILY.
I asked..... "Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?"
You gave your definition of + proFAMILY.
+proFAMILY means you should love your family unconditionally.+proFAMILY means you should protect your family by any means necessary.
Nothing about homosexuality. I did not ask what +proFAMILY was, I asked if homosexuality was compatible with the "policy of + proFAMILY" that you want us to "insist" on.
Is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You are quite humble.
I do apologise.
No need to. Humility is a virtue, even when it is misdirected.
To be clear you're delusional.
Lol. Delusion and clarity. OK festus, you seem like the paragon reality.
Come November, we'll see how much clarity you had.
Created:
Mr Athias moved them temporarily to mind, as is the nature of data retrieval.
Lol. Mr Athias said nothing about Jews.
Judaic influence in U.S. affairs is a well known and well evidenced, "conspiracy theory"......
Well evidenced? Can you share some of that evidence with us? The rage right now is Russian influence. And I notice you have conspiracy theory in air quotes. Do you consider it to be more than just a CT? Considering all the evidence you claim for it.
What are your pearls of wisdom in relation to this subject?
I think the "nature of data retrieval" is closely tied to our biases. For example, you should see how quickly racists "retrieve" racist information.
But triangle.128k (a conservative, not a racist) retrieved neo-liberal.
Athias, (a Catholic Church CT, not a racist) retrieved the Pope.
You ever read Freud?
Created:
Posted in:
So then why are you taking it up on yourself to disqualify these groups as Christians?
I'm not disqualifying anyone jedthro. The definition of Christian is not decided by me.
Yes you are and you have.
No Sir. Your poor reading comprehension is tripped you up again.
You have said "Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians" and followed that up with and "neither are Mormons".
This is true.
That is you dismissing and rejecting both these religious groups from the Christian community.
I have no authority to dismiss or reject anyone from the Christian community. What god do you imagine I am? All I've done is stated a truth. JW's and Mormons remain as they were before.
You are now trying to deny you have said this but it is far too late for more of your denials.
I have not denied I said it, I denied that I "dismissed and rejected both these religious groups from the Christian community". Your poor reading comprehension confused a simple stated truth with rejection and dismissal.
It was ONLY you who have told the forum that neither Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are christian...
You're only talking to me loser.
I am pretty sure that there are a few others READING your lies apart from me , petal.
Tell me you see the stupidity.
NO ONE can know the time of the 2nd coming,
I got that.
And how did you know that?
I got it because I don't believe anyone in the whole world can predict the future, you idiot. I certainly didn't get it from the bible.
And yet here you are shouting that it isn't in the bible! Did I not say you were bible ignorant? See now why I do not throw my pearls to swine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
They were the titles of books , you idiot ! They weren't names.
Flavius Josephus is a name, college graduate.
Looking through this thread I have noticed "other people" gave the same or a similar answers to mine.
Then your answer was redundant wasn't it?
My, you expose your own ignorance by the second of every day.
Lol, If you say so flavius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you have asked for my evidence AGAIN that Christians are on the decline.
And AGAIN you have given local numbers and tried to pretend they represent global numbers. Lie much?
I have given it to you repeatedly...
Watch the atheist with article lie. "I have given "IT" to you...." What's "it"? Certainly not global numbers. For a guy who accuses everyone of lying, you sure do lie a lot.
The question remains, is your Google broken?
Since you're obviously here only to spam, I will allow you to emotionally masturbate on your repeat spam, you obviously get an emotional orgasm from spamming.
Go ahead, knock yourself out. When you get global numbers, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the twin dilemma, the duality of man
Deep Doc, very deep.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
No. The creation events of Genesis 1 and 2 are different.
But not contradictory.
For example, Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created at the same time,...
No Sir. Genesis 1 does not state that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, that is just something you assume.
while Genesis 2 states that Adam was created first, and then Eve was created from his rib.
Genesis 1 is a prologue, and does not go into detail. Your assumptions should not be placed on the texts.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Athias
Enjoying and loving it.
PGA, I can vouch for Athias, he is dead serious and does not play games. But it's his very intellectual rigidity that makes him vulnerable. Trust your instincts.
Entertaining and enlightening exchange.
Created:
Posted in:
Countries plural.
Unless it's all, it isn't global goober.
Your weak and feeble attempt at watering down all the facts do not and will not alter them.
Your "facts" are not global, thus I need not water them down. Not being global, they do not say anything about overall Christian numbers.
Christians numbers are falling fast and are giving way to Islam willingly. ON EVERY CONTINENT"
Keep spamming it. Maybe the spam will magically make it true without you ever posting any evidence for it.
If you had the global numbers, you wouldn't have to spam all that stupidity would you? But you're not really interested in the topic are you? You just want to spam antichristian rhetoric like a dweeb spray painting vulgarity on a church wall.
Go ahead loser. See if your lame spam can hurt Christianity. When you lose your fear of googling the global stats, we'll be here waiting for you. While you repeat your tired spam, Christianity will remain #1, still be growing, and you will remain just a rat in a cage, dispute all your rage.
Knock yourself out. You're even too puny for Christianity to take note of you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A Judaic influence in U.S. affairs is often proposed,....
Proposed by whom Z-man? Who proposes a Judaic influence in U.S. affairs?
Some propose a sino (Chinese) influence, some, a Slavic (Russian) influence. But you mention only those who propose a Judaic influence.
What is it about these proposers that moved them to the top in your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Name dropping will not trick the educated into thinking you've been to school.
You gave us your opinion. Other people gave different answers. I don't have to accept your answer or agree with it.
Like all poorly educated people, you think the stuff you read online is absolute truth because some academic wrote it.
It's actually cute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is that meaning?
Of Christian? You don't know?
And why does it - ACCORDING TO ONLY YOU - disqualify over 8 million Jehovah's witnesses from being Christians and also disqualify over 15 million Mormons from Christians?
Start another thread. Try to stay on topic in this thread.
So then why are you taking it up on yourself to disqualify these groups as Christians?
I'm not disqualifying anyone jedthro. The definition of Christian is not decided by me.
It was ONLY you who have told the forum that neither Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are christian...
You're only talking to me loser. The truth does not depend on numbers.
NO ONE can know the time of the 2nd coming,
I got that.
And how did you know that? Because it is at that same place in the bible that Jesus predicted many would claim He had come again. So how can you know where the bible says that no one knows when Jesus will return, but not know the same passage predicting that many would claim he had returned?
Would you like a quarter to purchase a clue?
No need.
Lol. Clues are useless without the IQ to process them. My bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's probably all that angst.....Worrying about all those other scary people out there....Democrats, Muslims, Atheists, Chinese to name but a few.
The only thing scary is when think of all the people put with delusions like you and how some of them might be near my kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So are you saying that although a once christian person renounces his religion for another religion or renounces their religion altogether they will still remain Christian. Is that what you are actually claiming here?
No poor reader. I'm saying that whether he attends church or not is not the determinative of whether he is a Christian or not. You dishonestly want to equate church membership to being a Christian.
They are statistics from the church leaders from around the world themselves.
They are local statistics goober.
Jehovah Witnesses getting in on the failed prediction bullshite act has it. They are Christians, aren't they?They are Christians aren't they?
Err. No. But even if they were, it would still not be the bible (Christianity).#14
Nice one Einstein. It is always your own lies that bring you down to earth and make you look absolutely stupid.
JW's do not believe in Jesus festus. The only one looking stupid here is you.
..the rapid decline of Christians isn't helped any by you claiming that 8 +million Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians , either.
Lol. Neither are Mormons,
That's another 15 million Christians wiped of the books.
If you are going to call anyone Christian, why limit it to JW's and Mormons?
MY! you are good at rejecting those that say they are Christians and say they want to be Christians.
No one rejected them doofus. And no human acceptance can make them Christian either.
Is it any wonder that your church and its members are in a steep decline , with your help.
Lol. Stupidity like this only shows you have no argument.
So more outrageous claims without a single piece of supporting evidence.
We're used to that from you.
Decline of Christianity in various countries
In various countries is not global jedthro.
But go ahead, your thrill is in spamming what you think hurts Christianity. After all your idiot spam, Christianity will still be #1, and still be growing. You will remain a bitter loser who could not post global numbers and could not understand that local numbers mean nothing.
Go ahead. Spam. See if Christianity comes crashing down. You are like a gnat shouting at the sun from a dark room. Board entertainment.
Created:
Posted in:
The claim here is that Christianity won't be #1 for too much longer.
Yet you cannot say for how much longer or show any evidence that Christianity's global numbers are declining.
So now is all you have to do is show us, as you claim that you can show me the "many church services" where up to "5,000 people every morning and twice a morning and not just Sundays but regularly"
Sure I can, but it is irrelevant to my argument. Showing full churches or empty churches men nothing to global numbers loser. My point was that my full churches mean as little to the argument as your empty ones. Show global numbers, not a snapshot of a local situation.
You said you could "show me", and now you are refusing to "show me".
Because you have shown me, and are asking me to show you, irrelevant information. Show me global numbers doofus. You already agreed that Christianity's global numbers could be increasing while local numbers in a limited area decrease. If this is true, it is stupid to keep spamming local numbers, or asking me to post local numbers.
Show me global numbers. Your claim is not that Christianity is declining in England, but that it is declining worldwide. Where is your evidence? Until you show some, I have nothing to dispute. Your unsupported claim get thrown out with the other of today's trash.
They claim the number of Christians is declining worryingly fast.
They claim the number of Christians [ in their community ] is declining worryingly fast.
Corrected for stupidity.
No. In their respective COUNTRIES.
They claim the number of Christians [ in their countries ] is declining worryingly fast.
Corrected for stupidity. In their countries still isn't global.
A christian remains a Christian inside or outside of a church loser.According to who?The bible. The only authority.Post up your evidence for that ridiculous claim or STOP TELLING LIES!!!!
Wait, are you trying to be stupid as a joke? If not, who do you think is the authority on the definition of Christian?
What about an apostate?The apostate remains an apostate inside or outside of a church too loser.Do you actually now what an apostate is. it is a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
And if he then enters a church, he remains an apostate. Church building are not magical homer.
...is this just more lying shite made up on the hoof?
No. It's just your poor reading comp.
They are statistics from the church themselves.
They are local statistics goober, not global stats. If I am wrong, why can't you show some global stats showing Christianity declining worldwide? Is your google broken?
..the rapid decline of Christians isn't helped any by you claiming that 8 +million Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians , either.
Lol. Neither are Mormons, or Buddhists, or Scientologists, or Hindus. So? Christianity is #1, your butthurt notwithstanding. I need not lie, our numbers are already high enough.
I don't have to.
Yes you do.
Nope. I don't need to prove anything you have not challenged. You want me to address and rebut something, claim it, prove it. Otherwise, it's just some silliness you've said.
Give me some evidence that Christianity is globally in decline, not some math challenged stupidity about local numbers. Ethan is entertaining, but does not entertain irrationality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you had attended college, you would not now be thinking google is research.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Muslims never say "1934" to me....
No one asked you if they ever did.
And a Muslim might be female.
Lol! Ever hear the one about a poor aim not being able to hit the side of a barn with a shotgun?
The topic of our exchange is the side of the barn, guess who the poor aim is?
Lol! Rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Apparently, you have no way of determining opinions from reality.
Your opinions do not make reality true
Nothing makes reality true. Reality IS truth. But since your opinions are not reality, you should have s way of determining your opinions from reality. You currently don't.
May I humbly suggest you provide those facts when you state those opinions?
As was done from the outset. It cannot be helped with your twisted interpretation of reality
You didn't post facts. And you cannot post reality.
None the less, you have strayed far off topic, but every claim I stated at the onset of our exchange has remained true and unchallenged.
Rather demonstrably proven false
Too bad then that you chose not to demonstrate it.
You have admitted yours are opinion, but insist they are true. When you demonstrate them so, I will agree with you.
Ah yes, more delusion
I was too charitable to say outright that thinking you could demonstrate the truth of your opinion was a delusion. But thank you. You are quite humble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
What the hell is this? I thought you weren't doing Ad Homs? Lol
If you thought that was ad hom, it's no wonder people call liberal snowflakes.
Your entire worldview of political liberalism and conservatism is immature and simplistic. I will leave you to that, you will mature.
BTW, are you African American?
No.
Then you're a very passionate white liberal. I like the cut of your jib. You are totally wrong, but you kept your head and held your own. God speed to ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I get you outplayz, and that was a good post, but you seem to be talking about homosexuals and I was asking about homosexuality, the condition, not people. But thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Black People were literally disallowed....
Our disagreement is not about whether blacks were discriminated against, but about whether they disrespect America.
I have no clue what the policies were towards black people.
Then you aren't qualified to speak on the matter.
Why is "Black Lives Matter" considered a leftist/liberal concept? Why were the leaders of the BLM foundation described as "trained Marxists"?
BLM is not FOR the advancement of Black people. It never has been. It's to keep them poor, angry, and in the fold of the democratic/socialist/communist party.
We're looking at who SUPPORTED black people through the years, not who gave them the best results.
It NOT been democratic/socialist/communist party.
Republicans then were some of the biggest progressives of their time.
I rest my case.
Conservatism always changes what it means to adjust to societal trends.
As it is supposed to.
Back in the 60s a Conservative would've told you "I don't hate black people, I just think that God intended us to be separate" or some other BS.
Nonsense. I was alive in the 60's, and even back then, racist was not synonymous with conservative.
Conservatives during the French revolution would tell you "I don't hate poor people, I just think that we need a King". It's always marked by an opposition to progress, they just change the rhetoric.
What you call "progress". What makes your idea of "progress" better? Your progress has brought us mass murder of babies, molesting priests, and children killing children in schools. Liberals think all progress is good. Conservatives know that some "progress" is actually steps backwards.
I don't need to tell you that.
OK then. Forgave me if I don't think your assumption that hierarchies are intrinsically bad is worth accepting.
Heirarchy and equality have historically run in opposition to each other,
This comment means nothing. Your terms hierachy and equality are not defined. And equality is not always good.
and most historical events can be seen through that lense.
Historical events can be seen through any lens. Your lens distorts.
Conservatives support the former, liberals/leftists support the latter (almost always, just in case you want to give one counterexample that you think will destroy my whole point)
Your point is not only untrue, it's nonsensical. You've simply nebulously defined some concept you call "equality" and then said liberals are for it. The funding fathers of America were conservatives, and risked their lives for freedom. You've been attending too many left wing college meetings.
The fact that even now you see so much value/necessity in heirarchy..
You have no idea how much value I see. All I did was ask you why was hierarchy always bad. You have assumed I see "so much value and necessity" in it because your position is emotional, not logical. When did I mention necessity?
...and yet claim that conservatives were the ones fighting against it is absurd to me.
Because "hierarchy" is your leftist code word. I have no clue what it means to you. You refused to tell me what you found objectionable about hierarchy. And I am under no obligation to accept your private definition of it, whatever it is.
Like most young progressives, you seem to have gotten your history from a cartoon. You probably just need the perspective experience brings.
BTW, are you African American?
Created: