Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

let's talk about ******Follow

#152 Dec 29 2006 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Thanks, mat, for bringing the thread to a grinding halt with all of your reasonableness.

Sheesh.
#153 Dec 29 2006 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
But oops, if you do happen to find an angry God looking at you when you die. What then, my friend? And that's not faith mumbo jumbo, that's just playing the odds. So for the count, I'm at +1 +1 while you're at +1 -1. Use your logic and reasoning here because there's absolutely no way you can refute this.


sooo 17th century.

It's nice to frame it that way but as several have already shown, it's not exactly easy to force one's self to believe in something for quite selfish reasons, which more or less defeat the purpose of belief in the first place.

The probability doesn't take into account the myriad of other religions also, which if all were qually applied, then you're looking at basically an equal shot as an athiest has.

Quote:
"ZOMG prayer isn't compulsory in schools! Christianity is being persecuted!"
"zOMG my religion isn't being taught in science class! I'm being persecuted!"
"Oh noez people don't conform to my religion in their recognition of the holidays! OHHH the persecution!"
"See this one girl in this random city in a one-off freak occurrence where her principal made her remove her cross necklace? DEAR GOD SAVE US OF FAITH!!"


To at least be charitable... there are more sides and shades of grey to this than you have presented.

Failing to require prayer in schools is not persecution, but banning it could be rightly considered as such. If a young child decides that s/he wants to take recess to lead a prayer group without any sort of regulation of the staff of the school, then they should probably be able to do so. Having people fail to recognize holidays is not persecution, but being forced to restrict one's own recognition of it certainly is. I can't really argue against the science class though... that's pretty rock solid.

***

Needed a "failing to"

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 6:23pm by Pensive
#154 Dec 29 2006 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,112 posts
Don't mix up the fact that religion is usually a vehicle for control by tyrants. Dictators use religion as an excuse for war and a demand for allegiance, when if you read the Bible for your self, it is more along the lines of what some atheists might say it is. A collection of stories that are intended to influence an individual to live as a better person. Sure there's some fire and brimstone in there, and a dude with a mexican name in there claiming to be the Son of God, but the fact that in every Bible I have read, it says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Bible is like a history book that actually attempts to learn from the mistakes of man, by saying we used to cut peoples heads off and things like that, but now we have learned forgiveness of sin and sayings like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you meet a judgemental Christian who can't forgive or thinks they are God. Use their own text against them.

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 5:14pm by laviont
#155 Dec 29 2006 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
Requiring prayer in schools is not persecution, but banning it could be rightly considered as such. If a young child decides that s/he wants to take recess to lead a prayer group without any sort of regulation of the staff of the school, then they should probably be able to do so. Having people fail to recognize holidays is not persecution, but being forced to restrict one's own recognition of it certainly is. I can't really argue against the science class though... that's pretty rock solid.


Can we please have less reasonable discussion in this thread and more unexamined dogma spew? I'm getting very sleepy.

But seriously, how does this relate to a discussion of ******?

(I've decided I feel bad for my part in derailing Kel's thread.)
#156 Dec 29 2006 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
Requiring prayer in schools is not persecution, but banning it could be rightly considered as such. If a young child decides that s/he wants to take recess to lead a prayer group without any sort of regulation of the staff of the school, then they should probably be able to do so.


Prayer is by no means banned. The c-nuts who throw around the phrase "banning prayer in schools" have no idea what they're talking about.

The US Department of Education wrote:
Accordingly, the First Amendment [...] protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, [...] As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."


Edit: I suppose I should link that.

Pensive wrote:
Having people fail to recognize holidays is not persecution, but being forced to restrict one's own recognition of it certainly is.


If the government stepped in and said "You may not publicly mention Christmas," that would be persecution. "Happy Holidays" does recognize Christmas. It also recognizes Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, etc. So, if you don't know if the person in front of you is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, what makes it so necessary to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"?

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 6:23pm by Matjlav
#157 Dec 29 2006 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Prayer is by no means banned. The c-nuts who throw around the phrase "banning prayer in schools" have no idea what they're talking about.


Says the department of ed.

But I well remember the animosity towards the groups in my school that held morning prayer while raising the flagpole.

I don't really disagree with you, but I don't think that it's as cut and dry as you made it out to be. I would love to continue the discussion but I have a dinner I have to go to.
#158 Dec 29 2006 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
WAR ON CHRISTMAS UPDATE:

Today, Christmas killed six soldiers using roadside IED's. President Bush maintains the war is going well, even though we're not losing, although not winning either.

Christmas said Bush was a putz.
#159 Dec 29 2006 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
bloodywilliam the Brilliant wrote:
WAR ON CHRISTMAS UPDATE:

Today, Christmas killed six soldiers using roadside IED's. President Bush maintains the war is going well, even though we're not losing, although not winning either.

Christmas said Bush was a putz.


WTF? This actually made me smirk. I call shenanigans.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#160 Dec 30 2006 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
HeWhoShallBeRatedDown wrote:
Still waiting for any of you morons to try and tackle the issue of homosexuality and it's relation to aids
Because there is no factual relation, as you've already been told. As you well know, the virus doesn't give a rat's *** who the person is boinking (or sharing needles with, or who is receiving the blood transfusion).
#161 Dec 30 2006 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
I wish I still had the link to the ascii art of the police car cause the "Complex Issue" police really need to be introduced to this thread.

Sometimes there are a number of contributing factors to an issue. Sometimes people can't get over their own personal moral paradigm to actually tackle the issue in a manner worth responding to. In the end it is just people blowing air into the wind (or stroking data into the cyberverse) not as a means of open discussion but rather building faulty arguments in order to support an already predetermined and irrational conclusion.

/rant off
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#162 Dec 30 2006 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
***
1,076 posts
kasira wrote:
According to medical data we all start "life" as a female foetus, later in development, somewhere within the first 5 weeks, the foetus either develops into a male or remains female


with this statement I would say this explains why lesbianism (especially if they are hot) is accepted and gays are not.

It does make sense why woman would be attracted to other woman.

kk all jokes aside.

I havnt been able to get through reading all of this ITS A LONG THREAD so I don't know if its been said already or not.

But you say that Aids was created by god to strike down gays... well from things that I have read over the years is that a disease was created If I remember right created by scientists during the Nixon administration that was given out in hepititus shots (again from memory) and these shots was given to Blacks and gays. although in all of the articles no name was ever given to the disease. It just seems odd that the most people who have Aids are blacks and gays. And the disease really came into exsistance around that time frame. just seems to me 1+1+X=3 (yeah I know i'm reaching) but it does seem to add up.
#163 Dec 30 2006 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
***
3,339 posts
ccstwocents wrote:
kasira wrote:
According to medical data we all start "life" as a female foetus, later in development, somewhere within the first 5 weeks, the foetus either develops into a male or remains female


with this statement I would say this explains why lesbianism (especially if they are hot) is accepted and gays are not.

It does make sense why woman would be attracted to other woman.

kk all jokes aside.

I havnt been able to get through reading all of this ITS A LONG THREAD so I don't know if its been said already or not.

But you say that Aids was created by god to strike down gays... well from things that I have read over the years is that a disease was created If I remember right created by scientists during the Nixon administration that was given out in hepititus shots (again from memory) and these shots was given to Blacks and gays. although in all of the articles no name was ever given to the disease. It just seems odd that the most people who have Aids are blacks and gays. And the disease really came into exsistance around that time frame. just seems to me 1+1+X=3 (yeah I know i'm reaching) but it does seem to add up.

WTF?

Well I sort of remember reading somewhere over the years that twocentsistoomuch liked to shave llamas and shove the hair up his *** like a little llama tail and (again, from memory) prance nekkid around Elks club meetings singing the My Pretty Pony theme song with a chicken on his dick.

Does seem to add up.



#164 Dec 30 2006 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
Well that's one way to liven up a party.




/pharm
#165 Dec 30 2006 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
***
1,076 posts
Dr. Alan Cantwell, author of AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic and ***** Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, believes that HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists; that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978-1981 in Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Denver, and Chicago. Cantwell claims these experiments were directed by Dr. Wolf Szmuness; and that there is an ongoing government and media cover-up regarding the origin of the AIDS epidemic. Similar theories have been advanced by Dr. Robert B. Strecker, Matilde Krim and by Milton William Cooper, author of Behold A Pale Horse


sorry am at work don't have a lot of time to look to much further
#166 Dec 30 2006 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
But I well remember the animosity towards the groups in my school that held morning prayer while raising the flagpole.


Really? I've never noticed any. Guess where you live is just less Christian-like than where I do.

But still, Christianity is still definitely less persecuted than homosexuality. When people start using "Christian" as a term of anger and contempt, let me know.
#167REDACTED, Posted: Jan 02 2007 at 1:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yani,
#168REDACTED, Posted: Jan 02 2007 at 1:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#169 Jan 02 2007 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
So you agree that there should be research to discover why the homosexual community are such staunch supporters of aids research and why aids is rampant among the homosexual community? Good to see you're starting to use logic rather than a blind acceptance of something that you've been inundated with your entire life.


That bolded part made me almost LOL.


Maybe they are stauncxh supported because they KNOW that they have always been stigmatized sinse the 80's as AIDS spreaders and so are just playing the role.

You act like NO OTHER groups of people are "supporters of AIDS research". I mean who ISN'T a supporter? I havn't seen many speak against it.
"AIDS research? BAHHH.. it will just solve itself!"
No


and AIDS is rampant among the homosexual community because wehn you fúck something in the **** it has a tendency to bleed more and thus it can be passed both ways.
If men and women had as much **** sex, maybe it would be as rampant.. but really.. it's just statistics, physics, and biology.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#170REDACTED, Posted: Jan 02 2007 at 1:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kelvy,
#171 Jan 02 2007 at 1:56 PM Rating: Default
Circumcise that post.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

Quote:
French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine
#172 Jan 02 2007 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
**
269 posts
this is why reading tolstoy is a hundred times better than church, christian anarchy accepts everyone because it is a personal relationship with God, not just following a bunch of hypocrites in the church.
#173 Jan 02 2007 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
So according to the non-religious it's biology that's causing the spread of this lethal virus?



well, concidering viruses are biological organisms... uh yeah, I say according to anyone with any low level cognative thinking skills would say that.

Quote:

And if in fact biology dictates that certain behaviours spread a lethal virus shouldn't we as a society hold those engaging in such practices accountable for their actions?



Well sodomy, between a man and woman OR man and man is actually illegal in many states.... I think.
But do you concider **** sex between man and woman to be immoral? How about heroin use?


and I don't know the laws about having sex with a person wehn you know you are infected... but I suppose they are there.

But no, your logic is medieval at best. Our laws here in America are not supposed to discriminate people like that.
Just because you have sex with X,Y,orZ doesn't mean ****. It's all about responsibility.

I mean... Shouldn't you see ALL Pre-MArtital Sex as immoral anyway? Do you want to outlaw that as well?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#174 Jan 02 2007 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:

Well sodomy, between a man and woman OR man and man is actually illegal in many states.... I think.
But do you concider **** sex between man and woman to be immoral?


Let's not ignore the fact that sodomy is in no way required for the spread of AIDS, whether between men and women, or men and men.

If infected fluid--vaginal or seminal--comes into contact with a mucous membrane, transmission may occur. Doesn't matter if the intercourse is oral, ****, or vaginal. In fact, of all these types of intercourse, vaginal intercourse is the most susceptible to transmission, at least from male to female.

The ******, after all, is nothing more than a sheath of mucous membrane--relatively speaking, that's quite a large surface area of extremely permeable tissue. This is why the rate of any STD transmission is much higher from males to females than from females to males--anatomically, the portion of the woman being exposed to male fluids is much more prone to transmission than then portion of the male anatomy being exposed to female fluids. After all, the ***** is comprised mostly of skin, which provides both physical and chemical barriers to infection. A man's main danger of infection comes from the small amount of vaginal fluid which might make its way into the urethra, and small abrasions on the *****.

The same can be said of the mouth, but in that case, the environment is much more hostile to due to salivary and gastric enzymes and acids.

And again, Virus ignores the fact that heterosexual transmission of HIV has LONG SINCE outpaced homosexual transmission. It's passed male <--> female much, MUCH more often than male <--> male. The reason activism is much higher among gays is because of the early misconception that it was a gay-only disease, so they got started on the activism front much earlier than hets, and gained a lot of momentum before the het population jumped on the bandwagon.

#175 Jan 02 2007 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
**
269 posts
it is not the object or the act that is immoral, it is the intention of use. take marijuana for example, by itself it isnt bad, and when used for numbing pain it is okay. the reason why it is illegal is because the best marijuana isnt made in america.
#176 Jan 02 2007 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Matjlav wrote:
Pensive wrote:
But I well remember the animosity towards the groups in my school that held morning prayer while raising the flagpole.


Really? I've never noticed any. Guess where you live is just less Christian-like than where I do.

But still, Christianity is still definitely less persecuted than homosexuality. When people start using "Christian" as a term of anger and contempt, let me know.


I remember being yelled at when I said that I didn't feel like praying at my high school graduation by the teacher and half the senior class.

At a public school...

in 1989!

Meanwhile a teacher did a poll at my school and 45% of the students thought that they should have the right to kill homosexuals on sight.

All true. And I grew up in a Blue State. Goddamnit, I'm a little bitter on the whole "Christians are persecuted in America, Bill O'Reilly" bullsh*t.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 353 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (353)