Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays Put to Death

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have absolutely no idea how disrespectful that is.

Please show the respect inherent in accusing him of everything from insanity to drug abuse like has been done in this thread.

Why should I? Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that is respectful.


(And he hasn't been "accused" of drug abuse, it's a statement of fact, one that he chose to bring into this domain. Do you want to tell him he's being disrespectful to himself?)

Seems a bit hypocritical to demand that he be respectful of your views when you show no respect for his, doesn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Seems a bit hypocritical to demand that he be respectful of your views when you show no respect for his, doesn't it?

Sigh. There really is a reason that a few people have been telling you to pay more attention to your reading comprehension lately, isn't there? Since you apparently won't understand this unless I take you by the hand and walk you through it, here it is:

I was not demanding that he be respectful of anything, and I was most certainly not demanding that he be respectful of me. I was pointing out that the thing he wants gay people to do in exchange for his respect ('Keep it secret because I think it's disgusting') is inherently incredibly disrespectful. Therefore his argument falls flat on its face.

Capiche?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems a bit hypocritical to demand that he be respectful of your views when you show no respect for his, doesn't it?

Sigh. There really is a reason that a few people have been telling you to pay more attention to your reading comprehension lately, isn't there? Since you apparently won't understand this unless I take you by the hand and walk you through it, here it is:

Yes, it got lost in the middle of the REST of the posts calling him insane, on drugs, etc.

Quote

I was not demanding that he be respectful of anything,

Really? So, what would YOU say that calling someone 'disrespectful' is doing, encouraging them to increase their efforts?

Quote

and I was most certainly not demanding that he be respectful of me.

Never said you were.

Quote

I was pointing out that the thing he wants gay people to do in exchange for his respect ('Keep it secret because I think it's disgusting') is inherently incredibly disrespectful.

His viewpoint on it is obviously different - not that it gets any respect from his responders.

Quote

Therefore his argument falls flat on its face.

Capiche?

In YOUR view.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seems a bit hypocritical to demand that he be respectful of your views when you show no respect for his, doesn't it?

Sigh. There really is a reason that a few people have been telling you to pay more attention to your reading comprehension lately, isn't there? Since you apparently won't understand this unless I take you by the hand and walk you through it, here it is:

Yes, it got lost in the middle of the REST of the posts calling him insane, on drugs, etc.

That makes no sense. No one else has posted on this thread except you and me since I made the post that you objected to. The argument has not been clouded or muddled by any other posts because there haven't been any other posts.

The only person responsible for your misunderstanding is you. (And at this point, the only way for you to keep on misunderstanding is if it is intentional.)

Quote

Quote

I was not demanding that he be respectful of anything,

Really? So, what would YOU say that calling someone 'disrespectful' is doing, encouraging them to increase their efforts?

I pointed out the complete lack of logic in his argument. If that's a demand for anything, it's a demand for well reasoned argument.

If your defence of your point rests on you saying that it was actually a cunningly disguised demand for him to be respectful to my views, then you should know that you're just going to make youself look silly.

Quote

Quote

and I was most certainly not demanding that he be respectful of me.

Never said you were.

"to demand that he be respectful of your views"

Close enough.

Quote

Quote

I was pointing out that the thing he wants gay people to do in exchange for his respect ('Keep it secret because I think it's disgusting') is inherently incredibly disrespectful.

His viewpoint on it is obviously different - not that it gets any respect from his responders.

His viewpoint is wrong. It is not respectful to demand that people keep certain behaviour secret because you think it's gross.

Quote

Quote

Therefore his argument falls flat on its face.

Capiche?

In YOUR view.

Republicanism is wrong. We should treat Republicans with respect, as long as they respect the Liberal social standard and keep their right wing beliefs private.

Make sense to you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NO. Marriage was invented by God. As was gravity.

Nope I don't believe so, well not in my world view anyway, sorry.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

I'm speaking to the entire thread, not just the part that lets you pretend that you've never made remarks about 'crazy religious bimbo' and 'religious nut-jobbery' (you specifically), as well as inferences about idiocy, insanity and paranoia ('you' generally).

In this thread and others, anti-religion people are telling pro-religion people that they should shut up, they're insane, deluded, on drugs.

So, tell me again where you (specifically) think that you (specifically OR collectively) have ANY sort of moral authority to call his view 'disrespectful'?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

I'm speaking to the entire thread, not just the part that lets you pretend that you've never made remarks about 'crazy religious bimbo' and 'religious nut-jobbery' (you specifically), as well as inferences about idiocy, insanity and paranoia ('you' generally).

I'm not 'pretending' anything. I'm telling you it's irrelevant to the point we are discussing.

Quote

In this thread and others, anti-religion people are telling pro-religion people that they should shut up, they're insane, deluded, on drugs.

So what? Are they trying to say that they are being respectful while they're doing it?

Quote

So, tell me again where you (specifically) think that you (specifically OR collectively) have ANY sort of moral authority to call his view 'disrespectful'?

a) Because it is. He is saying that he will respect gay people as long as they abide by conditions that are inherently disrespectful. It is an illogical stance.

b) You have been rude to people on these forums. By your standards, where do you get off calling me and others disrespectful to Ron? Where is your moral authority?

c) Once again: Republicanism is wrong. We should treat Republicans with respect, as long as they respect the Liberal social standard and keep their right wing beliefs private.

Make sense?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm speaking to the entire thread, not just the part that lets you pretend that you've never made remarks about 'crazy religious bimbo' and 'religious nut-jobbery' (you specifically), as well as inferences about idiocy, insanity and paranoia ('you' generally).

I'm not 'pretending' anything. I'm telling you it's irrelevant to the point we are discussing.

It may be to YOUR point (and quite conveniently, too), but not to the thread at large.

Quote

Quote

In this thread and others, anti-religion people are telling pro-religion people that they should shut up, they're insane, deluded, on drugs.

So what? Are they trying to say that they are being respectful while they're doing it?

Speaking of 'not applicable'...

Quote

Quote

So, tell me again where you (specifically) think that you (specifically OR collectively) have ANY sort of moral authority to call his view 'disrespectful'?

a) Because it is. He is saying that he will respect gay people as long as they abide by conditions that are inherently disrespectful.

And you and other anti-religion people are saying that religious people should abide by conditions that are inherently disrespectful.

Quote

It is an illogical stance.

Yes, it is - for both you and him to say it.

Quote

b) You have been rude to people on these forums. By your standards, where do you get off calling me and others disrespectful to Ron? Where is your moral authority?

Yup, I'm just as hypocritical as you are on that front.

Quote

c) Once again: Republicanism is wrong. We should treat Republicans with respect, as long as they respect the Liberal social standard and keep their right wing beliefs private.

Make sense?

Sounds like a post from funjumper - minus that whole respect thing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

It may be to YOUR point (and quite conveniently, too), but not to the thread at large.

Yes, it is my point. And it was my point that you took exception to, using that argument. The thread at large is irrelevant.

Quote

Quote

So what? Are they trying to say that they are being respectful while they're doing it?

Speaking of 'not applicable'...

Yep. Unless you can show where I, or any other person on this side of the debate has been disrespectful to Ron while saying that they are being respectful then your accusation of hypocrisy is totally unfounded.

Because, as hard as you try to ignore it, that was my point.

Quote

And you and other anti-religion people are saying that religious people should abide by conditions that are inherently disrespectful.

And those conditions are?

Quote

Yes, it is - for both you and him to say it.

For me to say what?

Quote

Yup, I'm just as hypocritical as you are on that front.

So you jumped into this thread solely to try and call me on using what you believe to be a hypocritical argument... using an objection based on what you think is a hypocritical argument?

Quote

Sounds like a post from funjumper - minus that whole respect thing.

Nice dodge, I'd have expected nothing less. Question remains, though, does it make sense to you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

In a perfect world only organizations predicated on belief in religion would be allowed to provide social services?

When you start with that as your baseline,.... etc., etc.

Not to sure where you are going with this. I was referring to the fact that the oldest social service agency in the USA is Volunteers of America. It started as a Christian service agency, in 1895, as an off shoot from the Salvation Army of England.

I remember when the hospitals were primarily a service provided by various churches. For example, in Tampa FL, St. Joseph's Hospital was under management of the Roman Catholic Church. In Plant City FL we still have the South Florida Baptist Hospital.

My ideological belief is that the less taxes are used to provide services the better. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists would all have the opportunity to provide for their own.

More donations less taxes, like I said, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Now, would you like to play the player?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Yep. Unless you can show where I, or any other person on this side of the debate has been disrespectful to Ron while saying that they are being respectful then your accusation of hypocrisy is totally unfounded.

Bullcrap, unless you're saying that Ron's comment was directly disrespectful to you. You demand that he be respectful in his opinion of a group while you have no respect in your dealings with him.

Quote

Does it make sense to you?

About as much as any of funjumpers' posts, and dependent on quite a broad definition of 'sense', given the author.

You seem to think that I share Ron's viewpoint - is that due to the sheer gall of mentioning that it's hypocritical to call him disrepectful of other's views when you and others have been disrespectful of him directly and his views?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

About as much as any of funjumpers' posts,

What the fuck does Funjumper have to do with it? Why are you talking about him? I must admit, this is an entirely new dodging tactic, so I have to applaud you for it but still the question remains - does the statement make sense?

Quote

You seem to think that I share Ron's viewpoint

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the only reason that you're arguing is because you can't bear to admit that your objection to my statement was based on a lazy misreading of my post.

(And it wasn't actually Ron, it was Airman)

Quote

is that due to the sheer gall of mentioning that it's hypocritical to call him disrepectful of other's views when you and others have been disrespectful of him directly and his views?

A)That's not hypocritical.

B) It wasn't about him being disrespectful of anyone's views, but being disrespectful to gay people. Being gay isn't a view.

C) You're still misrepresenting the point. By now, this is definitely intentional on your part. He said that he would respect gay people if they abided by conditions that are inherently disrespectful. This is illogical. This is what I pointed out.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Bullcrap, unless you're saying that Ron's comment was directly disrespectful to you. You demand that he be respectful in his opinion of a group while you have no respect in your dealings with him.

No. Once again, for the idiot seats, you are intentionally misunderstanding my point, simply for the sake of arguing with me.

I pointed out that preconditioning respect with acceptance of disrespectful conditions is illogical. Therefore my issue with Airman's post was that he was saying he was respectful while at the very same time being disrespectful. If you want to call me hypocritical for pointing this out, you must show not that I have been disrespectful, but that I have been disrespectful in the same sentence as I claim that I am being respectful. This is something you cannot do.

The only reason that you pretend that you don't understand this is that you can't bear to concede any point when it's me you're arguing against. It's very sad.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

God says homosexuality is wrong. He also says we should treat homosexuals with civility & respect.

"Respect" is a strange way to describe stoning them to death.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Unless you can show where I, or any other person on this side of the debate has been disrespectful to Ron while saying that they are being respectful then your accusation of hypocrisy is totally unfounded.

Let me try to help you out. My position is:

1. The Holy Bible says in the OT states homosexuality was a sin punishable by stoning.
2. The NT of the Bible states homosexuality is an abomination and a sin and the perpetrators will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
3. Jesus Christ was crucified as a once and for all sacrifice for all the sins of mankind.
4. Forgiveness of sin is available to all who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
5. Sexual behavior is a choice among humans, that is to say, humans have control over their sexual urges.
6. God's purpose for sexual congress was for procreation and bonding between a husband and a wife.
7. I have worked with homosexuals both as clients and colleagues.
8. The Holy Bible states that everyone will be judged upon death. When you leave your body you will be in the presence of the Lord.
9. Homosexual behavior is repulsive, ridiculous, sometimes humorous, weird, lustful sin to me because the act is never for procreation.

Now, do you want to play the player?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,564]

I meant to say Airman, not you.

My apologies.

Quote

Now, do you want to play the player?

Is that going to be your new sig line or something?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

In a perfect world only organizations predicated on belief in religion would be allowed to provide social services?

When you start with that as your baseline,.... etc., etc.

Not to sure where you are going with this. I was referring to the fact that the oldest social service agency in the USA is Volunteers of America. It started as a Christian service agency, in 1895, as an off shoot from the Salvation Army of England.

I remember when the hospitals were primarily a service provided by various churches. For example, in Tampa FL, St. Joseph's Hospital was under management of the Roman Catholic Church. In Plant City FL we still have the South Florida Baptist Hospital.

My ideological belief is that the less taxes are used to provide services the better. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists would all have the opportunity to provide for their own.

More donations less taxes, like I said, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Now, would you like to play the player?

I was addressing this opinion you stated: In a perfect world, all social services would be provided by individual churches, funded by their respective congregations.

My concern is that religious organizations that choose "take care of their own" would (and often do) set up religious affiliation-based litmus tests as to who would and would not qualify for their services. The end result would be huge holes in the social safety net, resulting in more people going un-served, as well as a great deal of inconsistency of services.

I don't have a problem at all with religious organizations getting involved in social services. On the whole, it's generally one of the things they do right. But if we're to have an effective services web with as few unwarranted holes as possible, the private sector and the public sector must both be part of the overall network.

As for your preference not to have your tax dollars allocated to social services, and how tax revenues should and should not be spent, that's a debate that has raged since long before either of our lifetimes.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Now, do you want to play the player?

Is that going to be your new sig line or something?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Now, do you want to play the player?

Is that going to be your new sig line or something?

No, Andy9o8 thinks that is against the rules, I don't. So, I am just openly declaring that playing field.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Now, do you want to play the player?

Is that going to be your new sig line or something?

No, Andy9o8 thinks that is against the rules, I don't. So, I am just openly declaring that playing field.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My concern is that religious organizations that choose "take care of their own" would (and often do) set up religious affiliation-based litmus tests as to who would and would not qualify for their services.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just your opinion?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

It's your prerogative, of course; but the more often you do that, the more people will just tell you to talk to the hand.

I guess that is why I became a counselor and minister instead of a councilor.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

My concern is that religious organizations that choose "take care of their own" would (and often do) set up religious affiliation-based litmus tests as to who would and would not qualify for their services.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just your opinion?

Life experience, observation and resulting opinion. It's natural for religious organizations to focus the greater portion of their funding/services to recipients who comport with their ideology. I'm not really criticizing that. But that naturally makes them less than all-inclusive.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It's your prerogative, of course; but the more often you do that, the more people will just tell you to talk to the hand.

I guess that is why I became a counselor and minister instead of a councilor.

Actually, a councilor is one who sits on a council; but I understood what you meant. You'd be surprised at how much of an attorney's job, at least in my career, is spent being a "counselor-counselor" (in the sense that you were one).

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My concern is that religious organizations that choose "take care of their own" would (and often do) set up religious affiliation-based litmus tests as to who would and would not qualify for their services.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just your opinion?

Life experience, observation and resulting opinion. It's natural for religious organizations to focus the greater portion of their funding/services to recipients who comport with their ideology. I'm not really criticizing that. But that naturally makes them less than all-inclusive.

My experience with food banks and similar has been the exact opposite, that's why I asked.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706