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.

The way I see it, TX has more conservatives, and thus more idiot conservatives. it's like how you expect idiot liberals to come from NYC.

I'd argue with that but I'm being called a libtard on another thread because I don't think Cruz is God's gift to America so...yea you're right.

Ok except for the old South of course.

It's what I like to call 'idiot statistics".

 Frazzled wrote:

Comments are irrelevant. You know nothing about how things work do you?
Here's whats relevant.
1) The Californian court striking it before it starts (likely)
2) people signing the petition (unlikely plus violence may ensue)
3) people voting it down in a record breaking 99 to 1 %.

Please go back to your anti Christian screed. We haven't had a good anti religion bashing thread in...hours.

You're saying the comments posted here have any relevance what so ever? they don't. If you sent a comment to the link I provided, that could have some meaning. This is a product of your religion though, 99% of the people against equal rights for gays, quote the bible for justification.

1. hasn't happened yet. If the courts can strike it down, they probably will, but where's the fun in that? I'm not sure of the legalities of it or if it's even in the courts power to stop it before it starts. Is there any precedents for it? I did find this:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.3010050

California is one of 21 states where citizens can petition to have laws put on the ballot through the gathering of voter signatures. Under California's initiative process, state officials do not have authority to refuse to administer initiatives they find objectionable, the California Supreme Court has ruled.

so there's a good chance it will move forward.

2. People would sign it. if we start with the 7 million who voted for prop 8, and say .5% is as nutty as this guy, that's 350,000 signatures.

3. that's some serious faith in humanity right there, I would predict a defeat between 60/40 - 55/45.

(dead serious) Liberal isn't a bad word, you are very liberal leaning from what I've seen of your post lately. And that is a good thing, keep up the good work.

And the history of prop 8 for those interested. Take a look at the state break down and which way they voted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Equating every Christian to this guy is like equating all gay men to bugchasers/poz loaders (basically gay men that actively seek to become HIV+)

Google at your own risk!

You're saying the comments posted here have any relevance what so ever?

No I am saying you don't know what you're talking about. Comments to the attorney general aren't relevant. The law is the law. They have to formulate it as a ballot measure if it meets the requirements of such (correct number of signatures etc) and the court doesn't pre-emptively kill it. Hashtggat dot whatever is irrelevant to well just about anything on planet earth.

And yes your posts read like a hater. Following your logic all atheists should be pre-emptively killed lest they form dictatorships and kill off 1/4 of the population like Pol Pot did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's what I like to call 'idiot statistics".

You may be right.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/religious-case-made-against-anti-gay-marriage-bill/nkfnx/

That's ridiculous. I plan to kill 1/3 of the population when I rise to power. Only one fourth, what kind of lame dictator do you think I would be?

 Frazzled wrote:

You're saying the comments posted here have any relevance what so ever?

No I am saying you don't know what you're talking about. Comments to the attorney general aren't relevant. The law is the law. They have to formulate it as a ballot measure if it meets the requirements of such (correct number of signatures etc) and the court doesn't pre-emptively kill it. Hashtggat dot whatever is irrelevant to well just about anything on planet earth.

And yes your posts read like a hater. Following your logic all atheists should be pre-emptively killed lest they form dictatorships and kill off 1/4 of the population like Pol Pot did.

Wow, way to fly off the handle there. Where did I suggest killing anyone?

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's ridiculous. I plan to kill 1/3 of the population when I rise to power. Only one fourth, what kind of lame dictator do you think I would be?

aim high?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's ridiculous. I plan to kill 1/3 of the population when I rise to power. Only one fourth, what kind of lame dictator do you think I would be?

aim high?

I prefer to aim low, it generally stops them quickly.

Wait...

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

You are using one person to slander an entire group, in this case the plurality of the globe. Using the same measure all atheists are slandered because one killed hundreds of thousands of people. All gays have to be slandered because of Jeffrey Dahmer. All women have to be slandered because of Lizzy Bordon. All Muslims have to be slandered because of Bin Laden. Al of Oklahoma has to be slandered because its flat. Wait thats accurate.

 Frazzled wrote:

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

You are using one person to slander an entire group, in this case the plurality of the globe. Using the same measure all atheists are slandered because one killed hundreds of thousands of people. All gays have to be slandered because of Jeffrey Dahmer. All women have to be slandered because of Lizzy Bordon. All Muslims have to be slandered because of Bin Laden. Al of Oklahoma has to be slandered because its flat. Wait thats accurate.

Funny I've seen all of those quotes from Christians. You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp. SO as I see christians often doing what you just did and they freely slander all atheists because of one man, I feel free to show them the same courtesy. And it is quite entertaining to see you guys get upset from it.

It's not one person here though, it's a ongoing theme. all you have to do is look at the history of violence against gays that have been going on in california and the number of teens driven to suicide. Then should it reach petition stage, we'll see it's not just him.

I may be slandering all christians, but I never suggested killing them, unlike the other christian posters around here who have called for genocide of all muslims.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

You are using one person to slander an entire group, in this case the plurality of the globe. Using the same measure all atheists are slandered because one killed hundreds of thousands of people. All gays have to be slandered because of Jeffrey Dahmer. All women have to be slandered because of Lizzy Bordon. All Muslims have to be slandered because of Bin Laden. Al of Oklahoma has to be slandered because its flat. Wait thats accurate.

Funny I've seen all of those quotes from Christians. You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp. SO as I see christians often doing what you just did and they freely slander all atheists because of one man, I feel free to show them the same courtesy. And it is quite entertaining to see you guys get upset from it.

Which is silly beyond belief. Two wrongs do not make one right.

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

You mean when they use those examples when some people say "All religion is bad. Look at all the people they kill" to show that just the same has been done in the name of anti religion. I have never seen anyone say "Pol Pot killed people so all atheists are evil".

Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

Dear GOD people, stop feeding the Massive Obvious Idiotic TROLL!

 Steve steveson wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

You mean when they use those examples when some people say "All religion is bad. Look at all the people they kill" to show that just the same has been done in the name of anti religion. I have never seen anyone say "Pol Pot killed people so all atheists are evil".

Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

Because Pol Pot was a madman and an outlier, while killing in the name of religion has always been and sadly still is (less so in the West these days) far too common.
Also, did he kill people because he was an atheist and they were religious? Or was he a "just" a cruel dictator who happened to be atheist? I'm not that well-versed in Cambodian history.
Honestly, Stalin is a much better argument if that kind of strawman is what you want to go for.

PS: Please note that I am not in agreement with the "all religion is bad because religious nutjobs kill people" argument, just countering your hypothetical counter-argument. Yes, that sounds silly to me, too.

I'm with Dorkness on this one!!

Not a clue, I was just pointing out that he was wrong in saying that "You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up" as if the moment someone mentions atheism someone says "All atheists are evil. Look at Pol Pot". Personally I don't know much about him beyond persecuting academics and scholars.

I believe, like many dictators, he tried to stop all religion because religious leaders hold influence. Which to me sounds exactly like what any religious extremists are trying to do. Kill anyone with differing views to them. The only difference is where the belief in the supremacy of their own convictions comes from. As per the point people try and make pointing to Stalin and others, people kill to hold power, the claimed belief is just a way of justifying these horrors.

My point exactly.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

More often than not, I've found that bigotry doesn't particularly need a reason.

 Steve steveson wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

You mean when they use those examples when some people say "All religion is bad. Look at all the people they kill" to show that just the same has been done in the name of anti religion. I have never seen anyone say "Pol Pot killed people so all atheists are evil".

Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

do some searching through the old forms here, it's been mentioned and he's always used as an example of what a atheist regime would look like. Do you think Fraz just came up with that name out of the blue? it's been used a lot.

There is no chip, nor anger involved in what I am posting. People are just projecting their feelings onto me probably because they know I'm right and that upsets them. Because they know if this reaches the petition stage it will look really bad on their religion. So they're praying the courts can stop this guy.

This guy is a product of his christian upbringing. He's not some lone guy, he's the result of his religion and what seems to be a 10 year campaign to reduce the LGBT community into second class citizens. But instead of addressing their religion it's easier to paint me as a bad guy for pointing it out. Look at indiana and how they were able to pass their segregation bill into law. Christians have campaigned against every moral issue they've faced, and they should be mocked for it. if you don't like being mocked for it, maybe you should join a more tolerant group.

Of course there are christians on both sides of the issue, but look at which one is currently winning at the polls. look how it often comes down to the judges to settle these complex moral issues by being the more moral people.

This guy is a product of his christian upbringing. He's not some lone guy, he's the result of his religion and what seems to be a 10 year campaign to reduce the LGBT community into second class citizens

Except of course every mainline protestant church in the US disagrees with you. The Episcopal church is having same sex marriages in Austin.

sirlynchmob wrote:

There is no chip, nor anger involved in what I am posting. People are just projecting their feelings onto me probably because they know I'm right and that upsets them. Because they know if this reaches the petition stage it will look really bad on their religion. So they're praying the courts can stop this guy.

This guy is a product of his christian upbringing. He's not some lone guy, he's the result of his religion and what seems to be a 10 year campaign to reduce the LGBT community into second class citizens. But instead of addressing their religion it's easier to paint me as a bad guy for pointing it out. Look at indiana and how they were able to pass their segregation bill into law. Christians have campaigned against every moral issue they've faced, and they should be mocked for it. if you don't like being mocked for it, maybe you should join a more tolerant group.

Of course there are christians on both sides of the issue, but look at which one is currently winning at the polls. look how it often comes down to the judges to settle these complex moral issues by being the more moral people.

So then you surely are confident enough to bet $100, right?

@sirlynchmob: I'm going to say something, that I hope will make you reflect your stance.

First... a little about myself.

a) I was raised Evangelical Baptist.

b) In my teen years, I went to Protestant Church.

c) My ex-wife was Catholic, batisted my two squiqs and still send them to Catholic School during their elementary years.

d) Now? I don't go to church often myself, but if a gun was held to my head demanding which Christian sect I'm in, I'll just say that I'm a "Christian from the Church of What's Happening Now".

Here's the key point I want to make: Christians, and their various denominations, generally don't "judge" folks outside of their Church. The scriptures, instead, tasked the followers to "Spread the Gospels". That's pretty much should be the "extent" between Christians and non-Christians.

I'm sure that other folks can articulate this better than me... but, this is how I've learned from the various denominations I've participated in.

So... that dude wanting to push laws to have the gays killed? Is an donkey-cave, erroneously using his religion, to push his own hated agenda.

 CptJake wrote:


So then you surely are confident enough to bet $100, right?

I asked you earlier to pm me the details.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
manding which Christian sect I'm in, I'll just say that I'm a "Christian from the Church of What's Happening Now".

Here's the key point I want to make: Christians, and their various denominations, generally don't "judge" folks outside of their Church. The scriptures, instead, tasked the followers to "Spread the Gospels". That's pretty much should be the "extent" between Christians and non-Christians.

So... that dude wanting to push laws to have the gays killed? Is an donkey-cave, erroneously using his religion, to push his own hated agenda.

But we both know there's a huge gap between what you say should be the extent, and what is the extent. and agreed. They don't judge? LOL it's all they do. Look how I've been judged by them.

since you shared, look at my screen name.

I'm a Lynch, I am an irishman raised catholic and come from a large family. I still can and sometimes do, go to church and get the bread & wine
I spent 20 years in the united states Navy, honorably and now retired. Where I got to work with the worst possible people you can imagine, full of hate and bigotry and they went to church weekly. Like that guy, he is indisputably a christian.

my favorite christian often wished a plague upon humanity to kill off 1/2 the population. He didn't like me much because I told him I wished it starts with his family. The Christians who aren't full of hatred are the exception, not the norm.

I was serving when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the christians were quick to pick up the tune, kill them all. Let's glass the place. Because they wanted to kill all muslims. They could never seem to understand what I meant when I told them, where going in to rescue them and for Kuwait it was true at least.

In high school I was starting to get this opinion of them already, plus they were always fond of telling me how evil and satanic I was for playing D&D. so when I joined I marked none of the above. For the census, I mark none of the above. I refuse to let those donkey caves who will add up all the Christians to make them seem to have a bigger audience than they do. I encourage anyone who's tired of the nonsense going on for "religious freedom" to do the same. When politicians start to realize they're catering to a handfull of crackpots these issues won't be issues. Because they present themselves as one large group, they seem more important than they are and the crackpots use that to push this nonsense. Lastly as christians are fond to label others as "he's not a christian" "those aren't real christians" we can safely conclude there are no christians, Because everyone thinks they are, but the others quickly to judge and say you're not a christian. If you keep the christian title, you are freely and willing associating with that guy and counting him as a member of your group.

For real fun with religions, I married a X witness, so my grandma wants the kids baptized, and if I do, her parents aren't supposed to have anything to do with them. Ah religious nonsense at it's finest.

Wouldn't it be nice if god could step in like he used to and set these people right. But based on his book, he'd probably side with them. Maybe god told this guy to start the bill. Until the true god shows up on Oprah, it's safe to assume there is no gods around here. If she can't get him to show up, then he's just not real

Right, "time out" for a second. For the sake of clarification, and my sanity, can someone please tell me when "Christianity" reformed into a singular, homogenous entity? I don't seem recall getting that memo from the apparent hive-mind we all share.

I'll have to ask my lesbian reverend next time I see her. She'll probably know.

Edit: Edit: That was rude. Naughty me.

 Stonebeard wrote:
Right, "time out" for a second. For the sake of clarification, and my sanity, can someone please tell me when "Christianity" reformed into a singular, homogenous entity? I don't seem recall getting that memo from the apparent hive-mind we all share.

I'll have to ask my lesbian reverend next time I see her. She'll probably know.

Edit: Edit: That was rude. Naughty me.

You've never heard the claim that christianity is the most popular religion on the planet.

If you split up christianity into its denominations, the roman catholics with the most people come in after well behind atheists So they like to count all the denominations to present a big tent and seem more numerous than their individual parts. Which can help sway politicians, and influence policies.

It would go islam, atheists, hinduism, chinese traditional, buddhism, then the denominations would start showing up with the other ethnic religions. Most would be so low in the rankings they wouldn't be worth mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

If you split up Islam into it's various sects then I'm sure it would be comparable to Christian sects in popularity. There are a many great Islamic sects, even one that has had a prophet after Mohammed

 Bullockist wrote:
If you split up Islam into it's various sects then I'm sure it would be comparable to Christian sects in popularity. There are a many great Islamic sects, even one that has had a prophet after Mohammed

Isn't that playing to his point? His whole beef is with how many westerners, even some on Dakka, talk about Islam as a homogenous whole. He's basically just swapping out terms to point to Christianity instead, so pointing out that Christianity is made up of various diverse sects and then admitting the same thing about Islam is playing directly into his hands.

Unless you're one of the ones who aren't dismissing him as a troll.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:
Right, "time out" for a second. For the sake of clarification, and my sanity, can someone please tell me when "Christianity" reformed into a singular, homogenous entity? I don't seem recall getting that memo from the apparent hive-mind we all share.

I'll have to ask my lesbian reverend next time I see her. She'll probably know.

Edit: Edit: That was rude. Naughty me.

You've never heard the claim that christianity is the most popular religion on the planet.

If you split up christianity into its denominations, the roman catholics with the most people come in after well behind atheists So they like to count all the denominations to present a big tent and seem more numerous than their individual parts. Which can help sway politicians, and influence policies.

It would go islam, atheists, hinduism, chinese traditional, buddhism, then the denominations would start showing up with the other ethnic religions. Most would be so low in the rankings they wouldn't be worth mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

I'm just happy to see you using wikipedia as your primary source for, well, everything.