Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.

I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids

Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.

Good post. Well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:A lot of it is because of the corruption of the bible as it gets translated, mistranslated, retranslated from the mistranslation, and then translated from the mistranslation that was retranslated from the mistranslation that was mistranslated from the original translation which was translated from a language whose contexts are long since lost, leaving words whose meanings ahve been changed over time, lost over time, or just have never been used since.

To say nothing of the political corruptions-- such as adding references to witchcraft in the KJV because the governing body which commissioned the KJV really hated witches at the time of its translation.

Or the example I gave earlier in the thread, of 1 Corinthians 14 where the following just does not exist in earlier copies; "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Didnt at the turn of the century(1899-1900)
People only started to marry for love? Didnt they used to marry for connivance and love was considered childish.
And then when the industrial revolution happend, back breaking labor on the farm was replaced with factory work, allowing the living in cities and therefore marrying for love. And the oldies thought that would destroy marriage?

One of history's dirty little secrets is that for much of history there was no religious component to marriage, it was a contract between two families, most commonly with consent from the bride and groom also required. It was, basically, a way of sorting out how property inheritance worked.

And now we get all this stuff about how gay people marrying would destroy a religious ritual. It's very weird.

Biccat was being sarcastic. I highly doubt he thinks we shoukd abort gay children

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.

I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids

Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.

.

No. Its a valid line of argument and one brought up here. If its ok to wack fetuses, then it should be ok to wack fetuses that have a predisposition to homosexuality. Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.

I take it you're pro-life then?

Myself, I think abortion should be legal provided there's a good reason for the abortion. Killing a fetus if it was going to be born with a horrific deformation, or if allowing the fetus to survive would kill the mother, or if the fetus was the product of rape is fair enough. Killing a fetus because it was going to be born with red hair is not.

Squigsquasher wrote:I take it you're pro-life then?

If by prolife you mean that I could care less, then you would be right. The less people there are means the less chance they will stray onto my lawn.

Myself, I think abortion should be legal provided there's a good reason for the abortion. Killing a fetus if it was going to be born with a horrific deformation, or if allowing the fetus to survive would kill the mother, or if the fetus was the product of rape is fair enough. Killing a fetus because it was going to be born with red hair is not.

As noted, I'm a Libertarian. Irregardless of my personal views, I don't care what you do. Just: 1) don't ask me to pay for it; and 2) stay the hell off my lawn!

That, I respect. You've just gone up a notch in my book, and you were already pretty high in the first place. Sausage Dogs FTW!

Melissia wrote:Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?

Retribution, redemption is something else entirely.

Sounds like a quote from Marneus Calgar.

I'll try to take that as a compliment I guess.

This nutjob isn't a Christain. He may say he is, but he tramples on the #1 rule of Christ, for whom the religion is named: that the ability to love others is the greatest one of them all. Also, treat your neighbor as you would want yourself to be treated. Simple.

Seriously, this guy should just leave the US and go live the middle-east --his rhetoric is completely in line with that of the super radical Islamists in that part of the world. But wait! Islam is the religion of hate, remember?

~Tim?

Squigsquasher wrote:Biccat was being sarcastic. I highly doubt he thinks we shoukd abort gay children

I don't think we should abort any children. Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.

Frazzled wrote:Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.

Are you new here? I swear we used to have another Frazzled posting down here...

biccat wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Biccat was being sarcastic. I highly doubt he thinks we shoukd abort gay children

I don't think we should abort any children. Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.

Frazzled wrote:Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.

Are you new here? I swear we used to have another Frazzled posting down here...

Thats why I said "you." I didn't say "me."

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.

I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids

Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.

I thought there was a sense of poetic irony in forcing gay haters who are typically also pro life to choose betwixt the convictions they hold so dear. In fact the ONLY losers would be the social conservatives that biccat normally represents. If rock bottom is poking fun at his own base using the policies of another position he dislikes there are quite a few posters of the opposite stripe that are decidedly more acidic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
God we ARE like conservative super villains plotting together...

I want my comfo chair to have cool massagers in it. It has to be love seat sized to accomodate Rodney and Tbone on each side. No frankly it needs to be sofa length so Rusty the Tank can be on there as well. Plus we need a nice puffy cushion for Tbone to land on when he jumps off the sofa. Whats that TBone? Oh yes he reminds us that at the next meeting we need more butter for the popcorn, and maybe some M&Ms too. Also bacon.

True story from last Sunday:
In June one of the church groups sell breakfast tacos. The Wife cooked 6lb of bacon Saturday night to bring Sunday morning as part of that, but she forgot to get it (went in earlier than). So GC and I get the bacon. Rusty sees GC with this giant bag of bacon, does some quick math and figures he can take her. He goes up with his front paws on her shoulders trying to bring her down. So there she is in the middle of the kitchen, literally wrestling one dog for the bacon while the wiener dogs are trying to trip her up... awesome.

Frazzled wrote:I want my comfo chair to have cool massagers in it. It has to be love seat sized to accomodate Rodney and Tbone on each side. No frankly it needs to be sofa length so Rusty the Tank can be on there as well. Plus we need a nice puffy cushion for Tbone to land on when he jumps off the sofa. Whats that TBone? Oh yes he reminds us that at the next meeting we need more butter for the popcorn, and maybe some M&Ms too. Also bacon.

True story from last Sunday:
In June one of the church groups sell breakfast tacos. The Wife cooked 6lb of bacon Saturday night to bring Sunday morning as part of that, but she forgot to get it (went in earlier than). So GC and I get the bacon. Rusty sees GC with this giant bag of bacon, does some quick math and figures he can take her. He goes up with his front paws on her shoulders trying to bring her down. So there she is in the middle of the kitchen, literally wrestling one dog for the bacon while the wiener dogs are trying to trip her up... awesome.

Although this is somewhat more related to the Diamond Jubilee thread, were you aware the Queen in addition to her Corgis also has a couple (or more) Corgi Dashhund mixes?
That chair I used in whatever other thread was $3000!!! like 2 years ago. I want mine to be a wingback with a lockable rocker function. Sometimes I like to swing. I also require a perch for my current pet Cat Dracula. He prefers to sit at or above 5' which should make him both safe from and suitably superior to the hunds.

5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!

Frazzled wrote:5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!

I wondered this before. Is that a real picture, and where? I seem to remember there was an African preserve somewhere in coastal Texas.

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!

I wondered this before. Is that a real picture, and where? I seem to remember there was an African preserve somewhere in coastal Texas.

Just the back 40. Rodney sometimes has to run off the local varmints.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Melissia wrote:Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?

Retribution, redemption is something else entirely.

That's a rather sad opinion.

Reforming criminals is one off the more important aspects of the justice system.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Melissia wrote:Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?

Retribution, redemption is something else entirely.

That's a rather sad opinion.

Reforming criminals is one off the more important aspects of the justice system.

Reforming does not necessarily involve redemption.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Reforming does not necessarily involve redemption.

On the contrary-- by its very nature, it necessarily does.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Reforming does not necessarily involve redemption.

On the contrary-- by its very nature, it necessarily does.

You must have a very narrow definition of what reformation means.

Besides, even if a person willingly reforms on their own and is unlikely to ever again commit an offence, doesn't atone for past misdeeds.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Besides, even if a person willingly reforms on their own and is unlikely to ever again commit an offence, doesn't atone for past misdeeds.

That's what we have reparations, community service ,and so on for.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Besides, even if a person willingly reforms on their own and is unlikely to ever again commit an offence, doesn't atone for past misdeeds.

That's what we have reparations, community service ,and so on for.

Which is different from the process of reformation.

Since when?

How can one reform without at least attempting to atone for their actions in the first place?

Melissia wrote:Since when?

How can one reform without at least attempting to atone for their actions in the first place?

If a person reforms, or is reformed, that is nothing more than ensuring they have changed their behaviour and will not reoffend.

For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.

biccat wrote:
I don't think we should abort any children. Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.

Spoken as though such a condition ended at right where the Right end of the spectrum began.

Squigsquasher wrote:Biccat was being sarcastic. I highly doubt he thinks we shoukd abort gay children

I'm well aware of biccat's stance, and his conclusion, and how there is a serious line of discussion that vaguely relates to the troll post he threw into the thread from pretty much out of nowhere.

The issue is biccat saying 'I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids'. That is biccat saying he actually thinks the reason people support pro-choice is not because they actually like the idea of the unborn being killed. Not because they recognise it's a difficult choice that is best left to the mother and not the state or anything else, but because the idea of an unborn being killed would make them happier.

It'd be like me saying 'that should make everyone happy: the pro-life said get to force raped women to carry their babies to term'. It's just abusing the other side for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No. Its a valid line of argument and one brought up here. If its ok to wack fetuses, then it should be ok to wack fetuses that have a predisposition to homosexuality. Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.

There is a valid line of argument there, on exactly where you draw a line between giving parents a choice and eugenics. Exactly where is the line between allowing the abortion of a child with a chronic heart condition, and allowing the abortion of a child because of their sex? It's certainly a difficult situation, even for the pro-life people - exactly how dangerous does a pregnancy have to be to the mother before they'll allow the baby to be aborted?

But none of that has anything to do with biccat saying pro-choice people would be happier if more children were aborted. That's just cheap, nasty, gakky name calling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.

No, I recognise the complexity of the issue. And given it is a complex issue, I recognise the need for sensible, level headed discussion, and the need to avoid cheap shots and people we might not agree with.

Which is one of the bigger reasons your gakky little digs need to be highlighted, so that hopefully you'll either grow up fast and stop making them, or just stop posting ni threads that need some level of maturity..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:As noted, I'm a Libertarian. Irregardless of my personal views, I don't care what you do. Just: 1) don't ask me to pay for it; and 2) stay the hell off my lawn!

So you're in favour of the current system, in which abortion is left up to the mother, but there is no government support for the process?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:I thought there was a sense of poetic irony in forcing gay haters who are typically also pro life to choose betwixt the convictions they hold so dear. In fact the ONLY losers would be the social conservatives that biccat normally represents.

There is some kind of fun to be had at both sides (the flipside being pro-choice people caught between supporting the choice of the mother, and being horrified at the actual reason the mother is making that choice), provided we're willing to suspend disbelief and pretend the gay gene is a thing (which is hard to do given biccat has made arguments on this forum before that he kind of actually believes in it).

Unfortunately all of that is shat away when you claim pro-choice people are happier that babies are aborted.

If rock bottom is poking fun at his own base using the policies of another position he dislikes there are quite a few posters of the opposite stripe that are decidedly more acidic.

Rock bottom is claiming pro-choice people are happier when babies are aborted. Anyone else who posts anything that needlessly nasty should get condemned as well, no matter what side of politics they're on. But I personally can't think of anyone else who's ever said their political opponents are actually happy at the death of babies, can you think of anyone who said anything that nasty?

Pro-choice =/= pro-death. Selective abortions based on race, gender, sexuality, etc are different to those based on deformity, disease etcas said, the line can sometimes be hard to draw, especially if one supports the mother/potential parents should they choose to terminate simply because they do not want a childs, however, there certainly is a line.

But that's the topic of a different thread. Here, I thought we were having a reasonable, intelligent discussion, but that might have just been because I'm ignoring Biccat.

Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.

Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.