One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Viral
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16 next>>
Jun 8, 2014 12:57:40   #
B****sheep wrote:
I really don't give a tattered fuck what you say. You're a bonehead and not worth more of my typing time.


Taken right out of your guide for radicals. When you can't disprove, discredit and throw personal attacks.
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 12:10:42   #
So I am assuming you have no problems with homosexuality since Jesus fails to mention it?

By your logic, Christianity is a religion founded upon, and entirely based on terrorism. Remember the Crusades? Torture anyone who is an "infidel" until they confess their crimes and then k**l them anyway.

You are correct, He is without sin should cast the first stone. So why then do you condemn all Muslims?

Sorry, but I don't believe your terrorist rantings of Muslims coming for me some day. I will not live in fear as you want me to.

bdamage wrote:
Maybe you are the one who should do some "actual studying" and keep up with the "actual" accounts of thousands of violent acts being committed by the followers of Islam all over the world including here in the states.
Your pseudo-intellectual babble precedes you.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Leviticus is in the old testament and I am a follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If you know anything of Him you should know how everything changed with His coming.....like the stoning thing you mentioned.

John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

But, I am not here to discuss the Bible, which I would gladly do on a private message term.

It's the intolerant followers of Islam who will be coming for YOU some day V***l.....and be as complacent as you want, since that is what THEY want....easy targets.
Maybe you are the one who should do some "act... (show quote)
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 12:05:30   #
You say Muslims all over the country were celebrating, I say they weren't.

Trust me, there is no inability to search out facts, merely a lack of facts themselves that support your position.

You heard something from a truck driver. Did he "actually" see this, or was it a lie to hurt someone that looked like the terrorists? Perhaps even they slighted him in some way, and this is how he got back at them. Wh**ever his motive, his method worked.

Vicious rumors are spread all the time. That's why I don't necessarily believe the few bad/good reviews among a host of the opposite oriented view.

B****sheep wrote:
No, it's not false, and your inability to search out the facts has nothing to do with the facts themselves. That liquor store never made even the local news but we all heard about it from that truck driver, and that store went out of business from lack of customers.

There were Muslims celebrating all over the country and much of that did make the news, and there was retaliation, with mosques being vandalized and in some cases set on fire.

How old are you that you don't know any of this?
No, it's not false, and your inability to search o... (show quote)
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 11:22:22   #
B****sheep wrote:
No it isn't. When 9/11 went down, Muslims all over America danced in glee, including a couple who ran a liquor store in Quartz Hill, CA and were caught doing it by the driver of their main supplier. Guess what liquor store stopped getting deliveries? They're all a bunch of Terrorists-in-waiting, and any group that gives Muslims hell is a friend of mine and a friend of America, I don't give a crap if it's a s**m or not. As far as Dearborn is concerned, I hope they go bankrupt.


That's quite the accusation. If true, would certainly be a terrible thing. The only thing I found regarding anything arab owned in Quartz Hill, was a gunman shooting into a dairy(with customers inside) on 9/11 and again on 9/13.

The accusation that they are all terrorists-in-waiting is again, patently false. It would be akin to me making the claim that all gun owners are terrorists-in-waiting.
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 11:03:43   #
bdamage wrote:
Is this "juicy" enough for you?


Any actual studying of the Koran would enlighten you to the fact that it was written in war time and does give instruction for how to wage war in accordance with the faith. Misconstruing that as instructions to wage a holy war against everyone is simply false.

Perhaps we should look at Leviticus? If a woman is raped in the city and does not call out, she should be stoned to death. I'm sure I could cut and paste out of context things from the Bible in much the same manner you've found from the Koran. But then, I try really hard not to spread lies around, and actually make some attempt to check my sources.
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 10:58:07   #
cold iron wrote:
What does the location matter? They have done it many times in the past, plus hung Americans on a bridge and set them on fire with TV camera's running. Is your name Mohammed?


Again, you are trying to equate terrorists with all Muslims. The terrorists that you seem so fond of talking about do this to incite fear and anger.

This behavior is very similar to what these "Christians" were doing at the Islamic festival, inciting anger and public unrest (which is why they were asked to leave or they would be cited for disorderly conduct).
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 10:38:31   #
cold iron wrote:
:thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Seems you are out of focus, the rags heads run around with American heads on a spike. Could it be you are blind?


Oh please, when has a group of Muslims walked into a Christian festival with a human head on a spike? Answer: never.

You are trying to equate terrorists with all Muslims and that is patently false.
Go to
Jun 8, 2014 10:28:11   #
This is by and large a non-issue. And thanks for posting *zero* footage of the alleged event.

This is a group of "Christians" that goes around intentionally provoking people. They record it and edit the footage to suit their own purposes. Their goal? To sue for damages. They are running a giant s**m, a brilliant s**m, but a s**m none the less.

I've personally seen groups like this before. They spew a message of h**e and intolerance and target a specific group... the young. Young people, teens, and young adults are the easiest to get a reaction out of because they don't know they are being manipulated, and they are trying to fit in with the group (although in the unedited footage, one kid clearly does understand what's happening).

A group like this showed up at my college a couple times, but they weren't targeting Islam, they were targeting the quintessential "college lifestyle". A couple of plastic water bottles got thrown at them. And you know what? No media coverage, but then we had forewarning as there was nearly a r**t from these guys at a nearby university a few days before.

If you have the time, peruse the hour-long un-edited video to see the t***h. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_8MO7IIlCw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I mean really, they have a guy walking around with a severed pig head on a stake, because (paraphrased) the Muslims are petrified of pigs and the pig's head will keep them at bay (towards the end of the footage).

Does any of this excuse their behavior? Certainly not, but we definitely get a better picture of why it happened. And when you get a clearer picture, it's easy to see why big media never picked up the story. There really isn't much of a story, or at least not as juicy a story as it is made out to be.

To cap things off, they get pulled over as they're driving away because they didn't have their plate on the vehicle, AND a Fox affiliate news van catches up. There is no footage of an interview.
Go to
Jun 7, 2014 22:32:15   #
By that logic any person that is not involved in anything that's not politics should avoid any sort of political statement.

So the lady at the store that sent me on my way saying "have a blessed day" I should have, according to you, turned to her and told her to go eff herself. As that is not the time or place to engage in such discussion, or is that ok because it falls in line with your beliefs?

I did nothing of the sort. I recognize that not everyone believes the same things I do. This fact, is wherein the real problem lies. Not everyone gets it. Just because you don't agree with someone's stance doesn't make you superior to them, nor does it mean that just because they are focusing on one subset doesn't mean they deserve any less respect.

Contrary to a popular anecdote, there do exist atheists in foxholes. This group chose to remind people that they exist, and should be given the same respect as any veteran deserves. There was no, "the christian soldiers c***ted, they used god mode" banners flying (although that would have been really funny).

I remember another popular anecdote, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

rhomin57 wrote:
It was a day of celebration to be a "VETERAN." Nothing else, but a Veteran.
To make "political statements" out of the affair, rather than the yearly flowing of honoring our Vets, was wrong, and those who did this- got told so.
If you can't see this, than you are part of the problem that was being boo'd.
There is a time and a place for all things under the sun. This was the wrong day to try and show supremacy in Atheism.
That's exactly what it was: "HEY LOOK AT US, LOOK AT US, LOOK AT US!" TO HELL WITH YOUR HONORING OF VETERANS; LOOK AT US, LOOK AT "A T H E I S M."
Selfish bastards!

The actual meaning of the word bastard per God, is a man with out a Father God.

You didn't see me in the parade carrying a banner saying that!
It was a day of celebration to be a "VETERAN.... (show quote)
Go to
Jun 1, 2014 19:38:49   #
Btfkr wrote:
THANK YOU BRIAN!!! As I recall the first pilgrims came here to ESCAPE the oppression of the Church of England. Some of our Founding Fathers were agnostic.


These pilgrims became the Puritans to start a whole new oppression here.
Go to
Jun 1, 2014 19:01:36   #
I wonder what the frequency is of someone that is adamantly anti-gay having a gay child, and then changing their mind when they see the torment in their child. Similarly, the frequency of of the same, but then disowning the child.

I too wonder why bestiality inexorably ends up in a conversation about homosexuality.

The age of consent thing I can see being a tricky topic if it was to actually be reconsidered. You can have two consenting kids, one 18 the other 16. Both are dumb kids, yet one will be breaking the law as the one cannot legally consent. Then I've heard of instances (anecdotal, so take it for what it is - hearsay) where a girl using a f**e ID at the bar gets picked up, he saw her drinking so how would he have known she was under 18? Technically, he broke the law (is there leniency in this situation?). Things are a bit less muddy when the age gap is much wider, or the child's age is much less.

There's a reason for the term, "jail-bait".
Go to
Jun 1, 2014 13:46:14   #
You're far too funny, AA is for quitters. And the browns? Really? Well, I can't really knock you, die hard Eagles fan here. At least you picked up Johnny Football, hopefully you guys can reign in that wild stallion.

Thinking back, I don't remember getting taught, specifically about being a man or g****r. Only specific I remember is never hit a girl. Other than that, I learned guy stuff, car maintenance, yard work, wood work, plumbing, electrical; but I also learned cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. Add in the stuff I learned in boy scouts, and there's not much I can't take care of myself.

No experience with marriage yet, close once, but communication stopped for some reason and neither of us was mature enough yet to recognize the problem and talk about it. Live and learn.

Current gal does appreciate all the things I do: fix just about anything, preventing problems, cooking the majority of meals, cleaning dishes, murdering defenseless little bugs (spiders freak me the hell out too, thanks to a camping trip when I was younger), she gets the bathroom (she likes cleaning the bathroom and h**es dishes, I chalked one up in the win column) and the majority of laundry. I do find the traditional vows off putting. Respect and love should go both ways, but thinking about it the point of emphasizing dulls.

I don't consider myself an atheist. I don't believe that God exists, but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I tend to be on a pendulum, swinging from agnosticism to a form of Christianity and back. I used to use Pascal's wager to justify believing in God, but I later decided that was disingenuous. Currently, I'm of the mind that if I behave in the manner that Jesus told everyone to, and if that's not good enough for God, but those that ignored the lessons but "accepted" him into their hearts are, then I'm fine with wh**ever consequence I earn. Maybe I've just accepted Him in a different way, without acknowledging His presence.

My ongoing joke is that I gave up Catholicism for lent. Just never picked it back up.

kmikale wrote:
Well V***l, if this how you define you cutting down, we'd better forget that beer or, we're both going to be replying from a local AA Chapter (grin).

I want to apologize for sounding gruff to you, I sometimes either stay up too late or rise too early. When I do that without the benefit of my three gallons of coffee, I can get more impassioned than what might be called for. I think you definitely need to write that book, but don't ask me to do your typing for you, I may not have that kind of time left and I'm only 35. Okay, may have strectched a tiny bit on the age, but you get the point?

When you said "Is it completely fair to then force somebody, a homosexual, to alter their view?", of course not. I sure have never taken kindly to anybody trying to force me to think or do anything. Do you think it fair NOT to teach a boy about his g****r? I'm pretty sure that my mother could have raised me just fine and, that my wife could have raised my son without me. I'm just grateful that I had a father around to teach and show me what it means to be a man, from a man's persepective. How else could I have known how to drink two cases of beer and, get through a DUI checkpoint without a hitch every holiday? No, never watched South Park, but hope you know I'm a huge fan of humor.

I've both ragged and chided Singularity on here about her post. We've exchanged ideas before and, it had been unpleasantness, followed by respectfulness. I've found most, although not all exchanges to be like that on OPP. This is a mainly "grownup" forum and, though everybody brings with them ideas from two very different ends of the spectrum and everything inbetween, I feel very blessed to have the opportunity to have these exchanges without censorship. We have a truly great country, just ask anybody who would risk life and limb to be here what it means to them. Further, I love Americans. We can fight like cats and dogs, but then if asked to, would lay down our lives for one another. Pretty cool right?

If NPP replaced his Christian view with a man's view, would or could Singularity have protested? Would you find that immoral or illegal too? Understand something important here, I, NPP and many, many others see God's view and that of being a man, inseparable. If you were a believer, you'd understand this. Can you argue against teaching boys to prepare to be a man in this world? How cruel, unusual and abusive would that be, to both the boy and women in general? Ask your girlfriend if she appreciates your masculinity or, if she'd rather have you act more feminine and be a better girlfriend for her. I can't even get my wife to k**l a bug, no way she would have my other roles. She loves me being a man and I her, being a woman. If a boy or girl reaches adulthood and find their g****r to be not quite the right fit or heterosexuality just a d**g, not my worry. Have you ever had something to eat that was so freakin' good that you just had to say to somebody next to you, "Here, ya gotta try this, it is so great"? Well, that's what I feel about heterosexuality and Christianity. I can't make you eat, don't want to either? Just more for me then, but am I wrong for asking you to take a bite?

You say, "I seek understanding with those that use faith as a reason to ostracize." and so do I. If you figure them folks out, please write a book so I can learn too. I loath those people who speak without being spoken to. Is loath too strong a word? I know you must have encountered a lab rat, (teasing again) at some point that never shuts up about their findings or, just seem to be a real Mr. or Mrs. Know-it-all? We all have, they're everywhere exercising that First Amendment right of theirs to everyone else's sometimes horror. We just deal with it and thank God or Darwin or whoever you feel is the responsible party and move on.

Oh my, that explains volumes "having been raised Catholic", I too am a recovering Catholic. They say you're never truly cured. I was raised as such, even went to Catholic high school and, knew more about rock music and the offensive and defensive lines of the Cleveland Browns (no wise cracks please, I still believe in them) than Jesus Christ, God or, faith. No wonder you h**e religion and the religious in general, me too and you're not going to believe what I say next, SO DOES GOD!

"Why is it that people need to conform?', too easy V***l, to keep those in power well fed and happy. All depends who you talk to I suspect. I'll try and make this my last reference to God okay and, just try to keep this all secular and friendly, so I can get my beer paid for by you, while watching football and, at that strip club this fall.

Jesus was a total radical, nonconformist (there I said it). He would go h*****g out with all manner of societal garbage, would even have a glass of wine sometimes with them too (but just one) He knew His limit. I heard last time He got wasted, He rained fire and brimestone down on a bunch of homos and, it just ruined their pumps ALONG with their cities. Man, I sure do pray God has got a warped sense of humor like I do or, I'm in for a world of hurt. I knows He does, He made me and, my wife finds that's funnier then heck. Don't know your experience with marriage, but if you've never been and, find your current gal to be "The One", you'll find she'll come to regard you with all manner of contempt too someday.

Why do you think God's word says, "Husbands, LOVE your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," and "Wives, RESPECT and obey your husbands in the same way."? God is pretty sharp, men find it really easy to give respect, the love thing, we really need to work on that. Same way, women can and often do, love like they're breathing free air, it's that R-S-P-E-C-T idea they just don't get very well (hey, you plugged Obama, so that was only fair). How do I know the Holy Bible is creditable? First thing I checked on was that and, deduced if that subtlety was indicated in there, all the rest had to be true!

Allow me to answer you in this fashion where you said, "I also don't believe that homosexual parents teach homosexuality to their families, I do know that heterosexual parents have homosexual offspring.". Really? Ever see that commercial awhile back where the little boy watches his dad and then mimics his behavior? It was the "Like Father, Like Son ...". Come on V***l, I believe you to be a pretty sharp guy, kids don't exist in a vacuum. Ever hear "Watch What You Say or Later You'll Pay", little ears are listening? Yes, kids say and do the darndest things and parents provide much of that early training. Now when they hit puberty all bets are off. Heterosexual couples wake up one day to find that little Johnny wants to be little Jenny. And with homosexual and lesbian couples, I suspect it has or will go the sameway. Kids rebel against their parents, against society, against God, it is what they and just about everybody else does. What did you do to piss off your parents at 14 or 17? I know you said, "Look Ma, no Catholicism", right? If not it was something. Don't quote me on this, but even Jesus split until He was out of his teens, before He truly embraced being Savior of the World.

You said about p*******es, "they are unlikely to succeed though.", I think they once said that about gays too. We can hope though and, v**e against anybody who thinks that is a great idea. After that, it's lock and load time, for me anyway.

Now, "not saying that it's impossible to find happiness by making such a decision.", I agree V***l, sin is VERY pleasurable. I know that gays can be very happy, it's just not profitable. As in "what does a man profit if he gains the whole world, but loses his very soul". If we are just highly evolved animals, great, "no hay problema", I take my eternal dirt nap and I am no more. Now, what if I'm right? What if I'm even aware in the next world, that I could have tried harder and quite possibly helped you to make a wiser decision than going to school even, but didn't? What if I did try harder and you and I had get to have that brew in heaven! False, in heaven there is no beer, that's why we drink it here, I know that song too. You see every believer's dilemma I hope? We really do care, we're not being mean or judgemental, understand?

I really enjoyed your insights V***l and efforts to explain what you believe and feel. Thanks!

Oh and, tag you're it buddy!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :wink:
Well V***l, if this how you define you cutting dow... (show quote)
Go to
Jun 1, 2014 00:14:26   #
I saw one the other day, much like the Jesus fish, but the FSM. It made my day. Then I saw the license plate holder said "My other car is a TARDIS". Then I had some scotch. Altogether a conglomeration of awesome.

If it exists at all (even in thought alone), it probably has a wiki page. Ok, I couldn't find a wiki for "flaming cheese balls" but it did get me a reference in wiki for "Rudy and Gogo's New Year's Eve Flaming Cheese Ball" special for 1995/1996. I was exaggerating about everything having a wiki page... but uh... yeah...

no propaganda please wrote:
I was aware of that and its still funny but does go to show that the strangest things can show up on Wikapedia. Was almost thinking of getting a bumper sticker for the flying spaghetti monster.
Go to
May 31, 2014 16:47:14   #
Thanks for the response, I really do appreciate it. :thumbup:

If you're allowing the kids to come to their own conclusions, pressure free, then I can't say that I have anything further.

My thoughts on Common Core are conflicted. I'll leave that at that.

no propaganda please wrote:
No it is not fair to try to force someone to change his or her sexual preference. It wouldn't work any way. If someone wants to change it is still a hard struggle to do so, and may take years. however, there is a decided difference between forcing a grown person to try to change, and telling a 12 or 13 year old boy who has been molested that just because the assault caused him to have an erection doesn't make him a homosexual, it may indicate that the rapist is, but not the child. At that age, sexual preferences are not established and most boys question their feelings for a variety of reasons. Explaining to the child that his body's response does not indicate he is homosexual any more than a nocturnal emission indicates a preference for sheets, is not an immoral thing to do. If instead of teaching children in grade school all the different things to do while having sex, they explained better, particularly to the boys, why their bodies physically react as they do, much of the doubt would not be there to start with. Don't expect the Common Core training to do that, and that type of "education" has been going on in many schools for ten to twenty years, just not as intensely as it is now.

Does that help you understand where I am coming from on this issue? I really don't expect you to necessarily change your mind, just perhaps understand it a little better.
No it is not fair to try to force someone to chang... (show quote)
Go to
May 31, 2014 15:47:53   #
I guess you're not a fan of "South Park". (You're not my buddy, friend... you're not my friend, guy... you're not my guy, buddy... poking fun at the courtesy of Canadians). You did take a few things contrary to how I intended, in jest. Maybe I should resign myself to labeling them or inserting emoticons. But a cold one, or several is not off the table.

Yes, I do write a lot. I don't know, I guess I like to touch base with everything so it doesn't appear that I'm avoiding a topic. If only I could apply that veracity to writing a book.

It's completely fair for you to have a different view of the world. Is it completely fair to then force somebody, a homosexual, to alter their view? If they want that, then that's a completely different story. The fact remains though, that a homosexual's world view may differ from yours. Changing them would be no more right than me forcing my world view on you, which is not my intention.

I seek understanding with those that use faith as a reason to ostracize. The reason is that, having been raised Catholic, I understand the tenants of Christianity (and no, not touched by a priest either). What bothers me is the plethora of actions taken in the name of God and Christ that are easily perceived as hypocritical (or counter indicated in the manual). It is this perception that drove me from the church, and very likely many others. It is my belief that "love thy neighbor" doesn't have an understood exception clause (unless they're different from us).

Conformity is an interesting idea. Non-conformists are interesting too, mostly in that they conform to the idea of not conforming. Why is it that people need to conform? What do they conform to? To what degree should we conform? Should someone be prevented from walking around with a hot-pink-polka-dotted, purple mohawk? Things change. Lefties (southpaw) aren't evil anymore (although some might make an exception for one, hint: he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).

You mentioned indoctrination of kids. I'm very hesitant to believe that homosexuals go around teaching kids to be homosexual, or in some way brain washing them into doing it. I am aware of people encouraging kids to be who they are (mostly teachers (friends)). I also don't believe that homosexual parents teach homosexuality to their families, I do know that heterosexual parents have homosexual offspring.

As for p*******es in general, of course they want to be accepted (do you want to be a pariah?). Unfortunately for them, a minor is not legally capable of giving consent. This makes sex with a minor illegal (statutory rape). They can seek wh**ever legal matters they wish to correct the injustice according to their vantage point; they are unlikely to succeed though.

Humans do have the power and ability to choose to do things that flies in the face of their nature. People choose not to eat, they choose to jump on grenades (although the argument could be made that these people are heroic in nature), they choose suicide, they elect not to breathe (until their brain turns of their consciousness and makes them breathe again), they choose not to reproduce. So while, yes, someone could choose to live as a homosexual, or choose to live as a heterosexual, neither decision necessarily meshes with who they are physically attracted to (thus they may not be happy with themselves, not saying that it's impossible to find happiness by making such a decision).

I find the similarity of the persecution of handedness and homosexuality to be quite striking. Both are (or were) treated as evil, both are (or were) attempted to be beaten out of kids (physically and verbally). Both scenarios result in failure in removing the predilection all together. The science behind handedness and homosexuality caused both to get excluded from the list of mental defects.

To be a science, all the subject matter has to do is follow the scientific method. The specific discipline doesn't matter. Baking is a science (a delicious, delicious science), there's even sabermetrics now (uses statistical analysis to compare baseball players). Psychiatry is a science with a long history. Some methods have been more questionable than others (mostly due a lack of ethics), but you'll never figure out 10000 ways to not make a light bulb if the method is never tried.

Going back to Singularity. She is or was a psychiatrist (or something very close), so she would have a good insight to the specific legalities and ethics associated with proselytizing kids through therapy. I'm not a therapist, so those specific insights I do not have. I do know that medical professionals are not to do any harm. The questions she raises are interesting, and I would hope that there are direct answers that don't involve "you're one of 'them'" and other such methods of avoidance. Does this mean that I believe that NPP has broken the law or violated some code of ethics? No, I don't have the knowledge to make that conclusion yet. I find his teaching to be wrong, but incorrect teaching has permeated civilization throughout written history and is unlikely to stop, ever. We figure things out eventually.

You're right, we really need to cut down on the verbosity (I'll see what I can do in the future). We all got things to do.

kmikale wrote:
Dang it, I've said something to hurt or offend you, "I'm not your buddy, friend.", ooooops.

"This physical, forced change does not change a person from what handedness they are, they just learn to use a different hand". I can already tell we're off to a bad start and will never have a meeting of the minds. You have a humanistic world view and I don't, what can I say? You stated "then why try to change someone else into something that is more kosher for you?". I don't know v***s, conformity? Seriously, if you took the time to read my previous comments here, you'd know some of my underlying reasons for why I find homosexuality wrong. I could give you my moral reasons why, but you don't strike me as somebody who would appreciate a sermon.

Sorry V***l, when you said "you're going to have to point out which logic I used would require me to be a biblical scholar." all I can say is, "It popped in there and then I read her post... mental juxtaposition fail.", to error is human right?

You say, "If people really had a choice", leads me to think you hold that it is NOT a choice. People are then like animals and only act on their instincts?

"In the western world, heterosexuality was attributable to what God had ordained as natural and good, and all deviations from it … were seen as … evil."

"In the West, this position has been the majority view for most of the last two millennia. What changed this view to the degree that in some countries homosexuals now receive special protection under civil rights acts and those who object to homosexual behaviour are labelled psychologically maladjusted, namely homophobes? A major factor has been the secularization of society and the teaching of naturalistic evolution."

I have real doubts as to the validity of any "so-called" science that can change the diagnosis of a mental illness based upon activism. That's exactly what psychiatry did with homosexuality. The goal of p*******es and pederasts today is to do that with children, make sex with them normal (please see the article I posted here earlier). Not only did psychiatry reclassify homosexuality as normal, they then claim that those who reject their new findings have a mental illness. Talk about junk and pseudo-science. I asked for anybody here to defend psychiatry as science, I got no takers, wonder why?

You say, "Make the choice and live as a homosexual,". Now you're being facetious. I don't need to stick my hand in fire to believe I would be harmed. Forget my biblical beliefs on the matter, just because something can be empirically determined Mr. Virologist, it doesn't mean it is always advisable or profitable to, with all due respect.

I saw some previous post of yours, I knew you weren't a homosexual, I was just having a little fun. I will assume then you demoting me from "buddy" to "friend" all but rules out us guys catching a brew together at a strip club? I know, your girlfriend would k**l you, it's okay so would my wife.

My handlers huh? V***l, just two kinds of people, not two sides. I merely used the main stream media to goad you into researching your point of "no creditable evidence" further. If you've made your mind up, then what would anything further of an evidentiary matter do to convince you otherwise?

And to your "data doesn't lie... people do.", I spared you my statement of faith, please do me the same?

"Singularity was also informing of the potential legal questions" and distorting the t***h by attacking a view she doesn't hold and, failing to support the one she does by providing proof that psychiatry is science.

She copied a post from NPP to Tasine that states,

"I worked with a few Christian organizations that were helping kids that had been in foster homes with horrible people, or in homes where drugs and alcohol were important But the kids were left to fend for themselves and were therefore very needy"

She gave her clearly ignorant view by asking,

"Wouldn't these children have already been in state custody if they were coming from terrible foster homes? How does this "Christian community" obtain them?"

In a word Sin, ADOPTION would sure exempt them from state custody. Did she ask NPP if that were the case? That's a big NO. She chose to begin a thread on the attack, accusing one professional of quackery and then refused to defend hers. The words, "kids that HAD been" should have cued somebody with such superior intellect?

More? Okay, NPP said "the Christian community doesn't want them to get into the state's care and indoctrination."
and then, "in some states therapists could loose their license.". Maybe NPP lives in a state that has a zero tolerance policy for quackery? Just a thought. One last thing, being an unpaid therapist could just mean a charitable action, not any illegal one on anybody's part. If the legal parents or guardians request Christian counseling then, as of now, state rights don't trump parental rights in anyplace here I know of.

You said "As for the media shouting bigot" "I'm confused." and it shows. Insert "use" someplace in there and ask yourself this, didn't a Boston mayor, a Chicago alderman and NYC councilman use the media to tell a certain chicken vendor that their kind are not welcome in their cities or was I having a bout of paranoia? They said they'd ensure that Chick-fil-A never got a franchise there. Is that suppression, bet your Petri dish on it!

Let's see, theocracy, as the belief in government by divine guidance, were those your words? As to "we don't live in one", "go to the Middle East" did I misspeak? I don't know v***s, "In God We Trust", "One Nation Under God" anything there sounding your Pavlov buzzer?

"If you would like to have a more scholarly debate, one can be arranged.", terrific, you're buying dinner if your reply is any indication of how long this might take...Jezzzzz, you're a loquacious one.

Uh oh, can you show me where I ever did this, "it makes things exceedingly frustrating when one party just outright denies science"? Now you're ad libbing to make a point, no harm, no foul. It's a typical atheistic claim.

"A van line?", is this a trick question? If I told you to take a very, very slow boat to China, you would have whined that you'd need a mover to get you to the port. Don't be a jack-ass, as one famous doctor once said,

"No, no, no. You were doing fine,
you'd been courteous and receptive
to courtesy, you'd established trust
with the embarrassing t***h"

"and now this ham-handed segue
into your questionnaire. It won't
do. It's stupid and boring."

Sorry, thought we both needed a break.

Fin-a-freaking-lly, "These tangents have been fun.", spoken like a true scientist!
Dang it, I've said something to hurt or offend you... (show quote)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.