Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Cow Poke]

Well, as you phrase it, your statement is false. Please mod yourself for the infraction, or get one of the other mods to do it to you. I'm serious.

I do not "support the murdering of innocent children". That is an absurdly and willfully misleading and deceptive statement. It's like saying "CP supports murder" on the grounds that you believe in the possibility of a legal "self-defense" exemption for murder. It would just be an outright lie. That is what I consider you to be doing with regard to my position on the subject.

Condones? Advocates? Justifies?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
Ding, ding, ding. Another winner.

It's no secret that I believe homosexuality is a sin, goofus. Nothing new here. Now, in your sick little mind, that automatically makes me what?

Yeah the entire lawsuit against the Houston lesbian mayor just totally slipped your mind. You're just soooo innocently confused about what I'm talking about.

Ah, you mean where she had her thugs raid the Christian churches and pastors and tried to subpoena the sermons, notes, and personal journals of pastors because she was so rabidly anti-Christian? Yeah, I haven't actually been dwelling on that - that's been some time ago.

[Starlight]

Why would I be on this campaign to demean them if I didn't hate them?

Those are different things. e.g. consider again those who think black people can't look after themselves so it is more loving to do it for them. That's demeaning them without hating them.

"Homophobia" is a word the left perverted to justify their hate of people who disagree with them, because everybody knows that a phobia is an unreasonable fear.

A hydrophobic surface doesn't have an "unreasonable fear" of water. Suffixes are not the same in meaning as separate words.

I simply believe homosexuality is a sin.

It's more complex than that: You have political and social positions that arise from that belief.

If I'm a homophobe, the you're a Christophobe.

Ok, that's not really a word. I guess you can make it up if you like.

"Owning people" is nowhere near on a scale of believing that a particular conduct is sin.

The similarity lies in opposition to the human rights of a massive group of people. The scale of mass human rights violations are quite different to individual criminal acts. That's why the international laws about Crimes Against Humanity cover the first and not the second. That's why people like Tassman and I consider things like opposition to gay rights or support for slavery to be worse than pedophilia, as previously mentioned.

[Cow Poke]

Those are different things. e.g. consider again those who think black people can't look after themselves so it is more loving to do it for them. That's demeaning them without hating them.

Yeah, liberals are evil that way!

Ok, that's not really a word. I guess you can make it up if you like.

You'd like it not to be a word, but that doesn't make it not a word.

Christophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Christianity or Christians. While Christophobia is a real thing, it is usually used as a snarl word by some Christians with a persecution complex and (at most) only a passing familiarity with reality. There's probably a good overlap with the people who claim there's a liberal bias in the media. For whatever reason, the term hasn't really caught on well as more verbose alternatives such as "anti-Christian bias."

In the footnotes, for examples, it says "see Starlight on Tweb".

[Starlight]

Condones? Advocates? Justifies?

If you want you could say "Starlight has said he would support the legalization of infanticide with the consent of parents and doctors" or somesuch. Any statement that suggest that I consider the act itself moral or wish for it to happen more often, are false (just as I think cheating on one's spouse is immoral and have no wish for it to happen more often, but still think it should be legal). Any statements that fail to acknowledge that I am suggesting a legal exemption in certain circumstances and present it as if I am open to anyone being able to murder infants anywhere anytime, are grossly misleading and deceptive (akin the the "CP supports murder" because he supports a self-defense exemption).

It's no secret that I believe homosexuality is a sin, goofus. Nothing new here. Now, in your sick little mind, that automatically makes me what?

Unfortunately most US evangelical Christians seem to think what God thinks should be used to control not merely their own lives, but wider society in general. So despite starting at "homosexuality is a sin" they rapidly progress to "and thus I don't think it should be legal for even non-Christians of the same sex to marry each other".

Ah, you mean where she had her thugs raid the Christian churches and pastors and tried to subpoena the sermons, notes, and personal journals of pastors because she was so rabidly anti-Christian? Yeah, I haven't actually been dwelling on that - that's been some time ago.

Uh huh. Yeah, and totally no part of it was you pastors persecuting her...

[Cow Poke]

If you want you could say "Starlight has said he would support the legalization of infanticide with the consent of parents and doctors" or somesuch. Any statement that suggest that I consider the act itself moral or wish for it to happen more often, are false (just as I think cheating on one's spouse is immoral and have no wish for it to happen more often, but still think it should be legal). Any statements that fail to acknowledge that I am suggesting a legal exemption in certain circumstances and present it as if I am open to anyone being able to murder infants anywhere anytime, are grossly misleading and deceptive (akin the the "CP supports murder" because he supports a self-defense exemption).

That's reprehensible enough, so I'll go with that.

Unfortunately most US evangelical Christians seem to think what God thinks should be used to control not merely their own lives, but wider society in general. So despite starting at "homosexuality is a sin" they rapidly progress to "and thus I don't think it should be legal for even non-Christians of the same sex to marry each other".

And, as a citizen of the US, I have every right to vote for or support or oppose any policy I want to.

Uh huh. Yeah, and totally no part of it was you pastors persecuting her...

"you pastors"? So, now I'm responsible for anything any group of pastors does? OK, maybe I need to go back to "you baby killers".

[Adrift]

A hydrophobic surface doesn't have an "unreasonable fear" of water. Suffixes are not the same in meaning as separate words.

The similarity lies in opposition to the human rights of a massive group of people. The scale of mass human rights violations are quite different to individual criminal acts. That's why the international laws about Crimes Against Humanity cover the first and not the second. That's why people like Tassman and I consider things like opposition to gay rights or support for slavery to be worse than pedophilia, as previously mentioned.

This new thing you're on...that those who find homosexuality sinful are literally worse than pedophiles is about the dumbest thing you've said in a long history of saying dumb things on this forum, which is especially sad, because I don't think you're a dumb person. We'll put it up there in your hall of shame with things like: infanticide up to 4 years is acceptable, dolphins have greater value than children, we should think about allowing pedophiles access to child porn, and there ought to be co-ed nudity in elementary schools. I'm beginning to notice a theme here.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's reprehensible enough, so I'll go with that.



And, as a citizen of the US, I have every right to vote for or support or oppose any policy I want to.



"you pastors"? So, now I'm responsible for anything any group of pastors does? OK, maybe I need to go back to "you baby killers".

Come on now, there are 3 lights. Say it already before the thought police come after you.

[lilpixieofterror]

[Adrift]

Ding, ding, ding!

[Cow Poke]

Uh huh. Yeah, and totally no part of it was you pastors persecuting her...

I realize that you think you know far more about the US than any of us who actually live here, but Houston / Harris County is not where I live, and Annise Parker, the former mayor of Houston, was not my mayor. I don't mean in the sense that your liberal buddies claim Trump is not their president - I mean in the very literal sense that she has never been my mayor, and I had not been overly concerned with what she did in Houston.

It was her jackass (jillass?) attempt to subpoena the sermons, journals, sermon notes, and writings of Houston area pastors that got my ire up, along with a whole bunch of other pastors in Houston. So, your screwed up version of this was that I was part of some group that was "persecuting" her?????

Perhaps, rather than derail this derail, you'd like to start a thread on your goofy version of this attack by Mayor Parker on religious liberty.

[Cow Poke]

Come on now, there are 3 lights. Say it already before the thought police come after you.

Are they yellow?

[Tassman]

I'm calmly posting facts, and you're making all kinds of false allegations and jumping to wacky conclusions.

AGAIN: WHY

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

In short, your argument is dishonest.

[Jedidiah]

LOL. It is true that most of what you say about homosexuality usually would qualify as hate-speech in countries that have such laws. But it's not as if I am the arbiter of that.

Fortunately America is still a free country. At least more so than the ones you seem to prefer.

[Starlight]

I am interested in seeing CP directly address the issue.

CP, do you see any lessons, implications, or social concerns relating to the historical connections between NAMBLA and ILGA that you have been arguing about in this thread? Do you see it as being as irrelevant to the present day as a historical debate about how well Napoleon's horse was fed (to pick a completely random example) might be? Do you see it as telling us something about the motives and tactics of gay groups in the present day? Do you see it as telling us something about what the average gay person believes or wants in the present day?

Earlier in the thread, MM wrote this:

Read the stuff rogue06 has repeatedly posted. The homosexual community distanced themselves from their pedophile counterparts not because of moral conviction but because of public pressure. I guarantee that they will openly embrace them again once they think they can get away with it. Remember, it was just a short decade ago that nobody ever thought homosexuals would make the inroads they have, and pedophiles are eager to follow the trail that has been blazed.

What do you think of that comment? Do you mildly or strongly agree or disagree?

Do you think the average gay person living today has a desire to promote of legalize pedophilia? Do you think that gay people or groups on average more than other social groups are likely to want pedophilia to be legalized or think pedophilia is fine or be happy to be associated with pedophile groups?

You've certainly strenuously denied claims that Tass and I have made about what you think (not that either of us have been buying the denials), but I would be interested to see you, in your own words, set forth clear and lengthy explanation of what you do think, rather than simply giving brief denials to our claims.

[Jedidiah]

AGAIN: WHY

Because you kept pushing the lie.