Page 62 of 205 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112162 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 2045

Thread: Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

  1. #611
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,619
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    So, you equally condemn Tassman for coming here day after day and spewing forth his anti-Christian bigotry, yes?
    I have no opinion because I seldom read Tass' posts, so I have no idea if he is actually "anti-Christian" or just expressing a non-christian viewpoint.

    I will say that I am not "anti-Christian" and have been accused of so being many, many times. So...
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. #612
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,511
    Amen (Given)
    11875
    Amen (Received)
    25289
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post


    You do have a way of bringing a bit of light into a room, CP.


    Now and then, anyway!
    Yeah, a lot of folks here tend to take themselves WAY too seriously.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. #613
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,619
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    OooooooooK How did that get posted twice?
    I didn't see a duplication...



    Oops... now I see it...
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-13-2019 at 01:08 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  4. #614
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,619
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yeah, a lot of folks here tend to take themselves WAY too seriously.
    Yeah... I know...








    Now THAT is hypocritical!
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  5. #615
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,588
    Amen (Given)
    1091
    Amen (Received)
    18768
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    OooooooooK How did that get posted twice?
    [*Rogue Powaz Activate!*]


    What double post?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  6. #616
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,851
    Amen (Given)
    1680
    Amen (Received)
    5018
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I'm pretty sure my posts said "opt out." It was in reference to the entire school, not just a single class. I'm not sure I would be behind letting people "opt out" of a single class because of prejudicial and discriminatory views. Then we can have the white supremacist wanting to opt their child out of American history because of how it teaches the civil war, and the Klansman to opt out of world history because it teaches that the holocaust was real, and so forth. It's a formula for a mess. A school has a curriculum - some courses are mandatory - if you don't like it for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons - take your child elsewhere.
    There you go again, bringing supremacists into the discussion. And it is not a mess, nor has it been. Most states allow for opt out, and have for years, and it has not been a slippery slope. So it is just a canard on your part in view of forcing your relative opinion on others.

    https://family.findlaw.com/reproduct...n-schools.html


    To you, clearly. People with prejudices and discriminatory views seldom like to be called on them.
    Whom is forcing whom on this sex ed thing Carp?


    I'm not going to go round and round on this again. My preference tends to be to let the market speak, but the fact is there are still too many people like you for that to happen. The anti-LGBTQ person will still find plenty of advocates for their position. Hopefully, someday, there will be so many of us that anyone trying to pull this prejudicial/discriminatory crap will simply find themselves without customers and that will be that. Until then, as with the laws that made it illegal for the "white only" counters and bathrooms, we need those legal protections. Today, in most of the country, a "white only" bathroom would cause that business to fail almost immediately. That was not so when we were first beginning to make the change.
    There you go equating religious beliefs with racism. But again one side is doing the forcing here...


    Can't speak for the "leftists." I can speak for myself. The Constitution permits you to say what you think without the government taking action. So you can preach your anti-LGBTQ vitriol on the main street and not be arrested for it. It does not protect you from the rest of us saying, "we don't want to hear it." And it does not protect people who wish to treat other fellow citizens like trash, or restrict their access to the same rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy.
    But you don't have a right to my labor - we have a word for that. Again it is your side that is doing the forcing here - by law.


    I will always seek to marginalize those who speak to diminish others, Seer. I am not shy about it, and not embarrassed about it. Your complaints echo the complaints of every oppressor who has ever lived: "I have the right to be hateful to others if I so choose."

    You're right. You do. You just can't enshrine that hatefulness in law or public practice. Those of us who stand against such things will always speak out against it - even if you cry, scream, call us hypocrites, and make every other effort that oppressors have taken throughout history.

    Resisting oppression is not bigotry or prejudice. It is taking a stand for justice. If your god actually does exist, I suspect he/she/it would approve.
    Like I said you seek to marginalize groups and people your disagree with so your claim of being accepting or inclusive is just bull.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  7. #617
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Yes - rights associated with the benefits of marriage, including medical and inheritance rights, etc. In some cases, rights to freely raise a family. In some cases, basic parental rights. The list goes on.
    To the best of my knowledge, and I admit to not reading everything that gets posted, no-one here has advocated denial of those rights to gays. What has been advocated, is that people be left free to decide to opt out of endorsing or taking part in gay life-styles.

    Of course. Apparently - they DID make an (indirect) comment: they said they would not include such couples in their magazine. I find that no different than saying "we will not have black couples in our magazine." They are free to do so - but I'm not going to buy and I'm going to get behind any initiative that pressures advertisers to go to more inclusive magazines.
    They got flooded with demands on their facebook page, to feature gay weddings, which they spent some time ignoring before they said finally said no. And if a magazine decides that it does not want to cater to particular demographics, I would say they have the right to make that decision without interference. Perhaps I would not consider buying such a magazine - but that is as far as I consider it reasonable to go unless the magazine in question starts making unfavourable comment about the groups in question. And I adopt that same attitude when I encounter even shops that refuse to serve foreigners (which includes me) when I am overseas. I'm willing to let people who neither actively promote violence against others nor subject others to gratuitous insult live in peace. If I don't - I give them good reason to get offended and act against me. That is something that witch hunters never understand, and witch hunters by their nature keep pushing ever increasing numbers of groups around until they offend enough people that a backlash follows. McCarthy did it last century, and there are a number of groups following the same pattern this century (to date.)

    The magazine was about weddings - not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. If someone starts a magazine called "Heterosexual Today," and focuses it on issues related to heterosexuality, I would find it odd for them to be asked to include homosexuality in their coverage.
    What someone calls his business or magazine is up to him. In any event, it would not have mattered what the name of the magazine was, their failure to endorse gay issues was enough to get them targetted.

    The magazine "Black Enterprise" does not usually contain articles about white businesses - it deals with the challenges of starting a business faces by black people, and champions the businesses that have been started. Personally, I don't like either and won't buy them, but I also won't pressure advertisers to avoid them. But a magazine that promotes weddings and then refuses to allow black people or gay people is explicitly practicing discrimination: I will not buy, and I will pressure advertisers to take their money elsewhere. The same would be true of a magazine promoting architecture who refuses to include the works of black people or gay people, and so forth.
    Yup - you're quite happy to pontificate about what kinds of discrimination are acceptable. So am I, come to that. There are certain people I don't want in my house, and certain people I choose not to deal with. Those decisions are based largely on whether they are willing to leave others in peace.
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  8. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  9. #618
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,619
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    There you go again, bringing supremacists into the discussion. And it is not a mess, nor has it been. Most states allow for opt out, and have for years, and it has not been a slippery slope. So it is just a canard on your part in view of forcing your relative opinion on others.

    https://family.findlaw.com/reproduct...n-schools.html
    Not a canard - my opinion, as an educator. You don't have to agree. I don't think people should be allowed to opt out from a required class for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Whom is forcing whom on this sex ed thing Carp?
    Nobody is "forcing" anyone, AFAICT.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    There you go equating religious beliefs with racism. But again one side is doing the forcing here...
    Religious beliefs are not equated with racism, Seer. Religious beliefs have been used by some to defend racism, and now (and for many centuries) are being used to defend discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Neither is acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    But you don't have a right to my labor - we have a word for that. Again it is your side that is doing the forcing here - by law.
    No one is forcing anyone to any labor. What is being set are the bounds in which labor is conducted. This is a canard.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Like I said you seek to marginalize groups and people your disagree with so your claim of being accepting or inclusive is just bull.
    The oppressor is ever the "victim." Sorry, Seer - I have no sympathy for you or those who think like you with respect to this issue. Abandon discriminatory positions and you won't find a problem. Persist in them and expect to be called out for it.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  10. #619
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,511
    Amen (Given)
    11875
    Amen (Received)
    25289
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I have no opinion because I seldom read Tass' posts, so I have no idea if he is actually "anti-Christian" or just expressing a non-christian viewpoint.

    I will say that I am not "anti-Christian" and have been accused of so being many, many times. So...
    What a weenie response.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. #620
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,619
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    To the best of my knowledge, and I admit to not reading everything that gets posted, no-one here has advocated denial of those rights to gays. What has been advocated, is that people be left free to decide to opt out of endorsing or taking part in gay life-styles.
    If anyone were ever "forced" to participate in a homosexual lifestyle, I would be right beside you defending your right not to. I would be doing the same thing if anyone were "forcing" you to participate in a black lifestyle, or female lifestyle, Muslim lifestyle, or any other lifestyle you don't want to make part of your own. The line gets drawn when this is turned into "I'm going to deny rights/services to others who practice that lifestyle."

    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    They got flooded with demands on their facebook page, to feature gay weddings, which they spent some time ignoring before they said finally said no. And if a magazine decides that it does not want to cater to particular demographics, I would say they have the right to make that decision without interference. Perhaps I would not consider buying such a magazine - but that is as far as I consider it reasonable to go unless the magazine in question starts making unfavourable comment about the groups in question. And I adopt that same attitude when I encounter even shops that refuse to serve foreigners (which includes me) when I am overseas. I'm willing to let people who neither actively promote violence against others nor subject others to gratuitous insult live in peace. If I don't - I give them good reason to get offended and act against me. That is something that witch hunters never understand, and witch hunters by their nature keep pushing ever increasing numbers of groups around until they offend enough people that a backlash follows. McCarthy did it last century, and there are a number of groups following the same pattern this century (to date.)
    Then we disagree. If someone wants to promote a prejudicial/discriminatory position in public, they should expect a reaction from those of us who do not want that kind of thing in our public lives. As I said, if a wedding magazine decides not to include black couples and says so publicly, few of us would have a problem with calling them on their racism and even advocating for advertisers to go elsewhere. The situation is no different with the LGBTQ community.

    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    What someone calls his business or magazine is up to him. In any event, it would not have mattered what the name of the magazine was, their failure to endorse gay issues was enough to get them targeted.
    Their refusal to include a segment of our population for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons is what got them targeted, and justifiably, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Yup - you're quite happy to pontificate about what kinds of discrimination are acceptable. So am I, come to that. There are certain people I don't want in my house, and certain people I choose not to deal with. Those decisions are based largely on whether they are willing to leave others in peace.
    We all have people we don't want to see around. The loud mouth. The glory hog. The chronic liar. Everyone has a right to choose who they want in their home. The leaders of this website have every right to determine who they do and do not want on their forum. Facebook has every right to set the bound on who can post on their servers. "It's a free country" does not mean anyone can do anything in anyone else's space. If you decide you do not want black people, gay people, or women to be in your home - that would be your right to do so.

    However, if someone goes beyond that to suggest that people have a right to bring these bigoted views and into the public sphere with impunity - on that we disagree. A black man should be able to get food from a business that serves food. A woman should be able to get employment from a business that hires people (assuming she can do the job and is the best qualified). A gay person should be able to buy a cake from a business that sells cakes. And those businesses that refuse to treat people without prejudice and discrimination are justifiably targeted by the market and (when possible) by our laws and civil practices.

    We're not going to agree on this Tab. I'm not expecting to. I realize the cards are stacked against me here, because it is the prevailing view here that people are justified in limiting the freedoms, rights, and experiences of the LGBTQ community in a way they would not do for black people, women, or Jews. I reject that justification. I always will. I will always speak against it.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •