[quote]lucasa wrote:
on top of the possibility that it’s eradication may not be achievable in even a modest degree,
[/quote]
Well, IF there’s a biological connections, it will come awfully close.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve specifically defended Christian rights on numerous occasions. [/quote]
Thanks a lot man! I spit grape juice all over my key board after I read this. Forlife the great defender of Christian rights!
LMAO!!
You never disappoint when it comes to twisting and turning the truth – And of course out right lies.
[/quote]
Actually, I have seen him do this so he isn’t lying. I don’t know if ‘rights’ is the right word, but I have seen him defend a Christian principle here and there.
Lucasa,
If you would spend less time swatting at scarecrows and more time
addressing my actual points, we might actually find some common
ground.
I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT minimize in any way the
atrocities committed toward ALL victims of the Nazi program. Comparing
one victim group to another victim group is a cheap tactic that DOES
minimize the suffering of those victims that happen to be in the
smaller group.
And that is exactly what you seem to be doing here. It’s like you’re
saying, “Hey, the Nazis only arrested 100k fags, of which only 50k
were sentenced, of which only 5k-15k were sent to concentration camps,
of which only 3k-9k were actually killed in concentration camps, so
clearly their suffering wasn’t as significant as the suffering of the
jews, which comprised a much larger number of victims.”
It takes a lot of gall to say someone’s suffering is any more or less
significant than another person’s suffering. Irrespective of the total
numbers of victims in each group, the horrific treatment of each and
every victim is inexcusable and unforgivable.
So how about we just agree that the victims of Nazi discrimination,
imprisonment, and murder all suffered horribly, and that treating
another human being in this way, whether due to their religion, their
race, or their sexual orientation, is completely unacceptable?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve specifically defended Christian rights on numerous occasions. [/quote]
Thanks a lot man! I spit grape juice all over my key board after I read this. Forlife the great defender of Christian rights!
LMAO!!
You never disappoint when it comes to twisting and turning the truth – And of course out right lies.
[/quote]
Actually, I have seen him do this so he isn’t lying. I don’t know if ‘rights’ is the right word, but I have seen him defend a Christian principle here and there.[/quote]
Thanks Pat. I have also said several times that I do not support legislation prohibiting Christians from exercising their religious rights. That includes not requiring churches to sanction gay marriages, allow gay couples to adopt children, or perform abortions. They should be free to live according to their religious beliefs, without interference from the government.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
on top of the possibility that it’s eradication may not be achievable in even a modest degree,
[/quote]
Well, IF there’s a biological connections, it will come awfully close.[/quote]
I think we can agree that the Nazis carried a delusion in their attempts at extermination. It’s also likely that the translation of Vernichtung to exterminate introduces some semantic noise into the meaning.
However, rounding up and killing all the lefties or alcoholics doesn’t exterminate left handers or alcoholism and there’s a fair biological component to those traits. If there’s an overwhelming genetic component and an associated phenotypic and/or behavioral imperative it would be possible to exterminate them. Given the state of genetic testing during the Nazi era, they would’ve had a really tough go of it. Given that they tried and released half of all the people they thought were homosexuals, one might get the distinct impression that they really weren’t trying to exterminate homosexuals. At least, not all of them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve specifically defended Christian rights on numerous occasions. [/quote]
Thanks a lot man! I spit grape juice all over my key board after I read this. Forlife the great defender of Christian rights!
LMAO!!
You never disappoint when it comes to twisting and turning the truth – And of course out right lies.
[/quote]
Actually, I have seen him do this so he isn’t lying. I don’t know if ‘rights’ is the right word, but I have seen him defend a Christian principle here and there.[/quote]
Thanks Pat. I have also said several times that I do not support legislation prohibiting Christians from exercising their religious rights. That includes not requiring churches to sanction gay marriages, allow gay couples to adopt children, or perform abortions. They should be free to live according to their religious beliefs, without interference from the government.
[/quote]
Yeah I would have to agree, I may not agree with Forlife on lifestyle choices, I do agree with the let people be free idea. I don’t believe in the government use for legislating morality. But I also don’t agree the government should tell people they can’t use whatever criteria they deem fit in hiring in private businesses or instances like that.
If you own a gay club and don’t want straight people there, you have the right to discriminate as such, it is your private business and life, but it works the other way also.
and sorry not to go off course but I think this idea of forced acceptance actually hurts relations between groups. There are differences and to try to pretend there aren’t and we should all just get along has never worked.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I don’t believe in the government use for legislating morality.[/quote]
So you are saying stuff like murder, rape, kid napping, theft, &c. should be de-legislated?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I don’t believe in the government use for legislating morality.[/quote]
So you are saying stuff like murder, rape, kid napping, theft, &c. should be de-legislated?[/quote]
I think were talking victimless behaviors. I am completely against legislating morality…It’s not the gubments damn business…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I don’t believe in the government use for legislating morality.[/quote]
So you are saying stuff like murder, rape, kid napping, theft, &c. should be de-legislated?[/quote]
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.
everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.[/quote]
What is the difference?
[quote]everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no. [/quote]
So, “consensual” sex w/ minors, incest, public drunkenness, prostitution, &c.
minors cannot have consensual sex, hence the term minors.
so long as the person is not violating the rights of another. You see being drunk in public is not the crime. If you can drink and not harm others or violate their rights to the public space.
Listen to love God is a choice, that is why God gave us free will. He knows many will reject him, and if he so chose he could force us all to do exactly what he wants. As a parent I do not want to force my children to be good, I want them to have the opportunity to choose it for themselves.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.[/quote]
What is the difference?
[quote]everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no. [/quote]
So, “consensual” sex w/ minors, incest, public drunkenness, prostitution, &c. [/quote]
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…
incest - Nasty, but I don’t really care.
public drunkenness - I fail to see the problem.
prostitution - Should be legal…None of the governments business. It could be legal and encouraged and I still wouldn’t do it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.[/quote]
What is the difference?
[quote]everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no. [/quote]
So, “consensual” sex w/ minors, incest, public drunkenness, prostitution, &c. [/quote]
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…
incest - Nasty, but I don’t really care.
public drunkenness - I fail to see the problem.
prostitution - Should be legal…None of the governments business. It could be legal and encouraged and I still wouldn’t do it.
[/quote]Ok, faithful Catholics of T-Nation. I can’t take it anymore. I don’t know what may be transpiring in PM world, but if nobody is rebuking this libertine brother of yours (in love of course) who is a flat down embarrassment to your church then it’s even worse than I thought. This man has just said that fornication with a minor is no big deal as long the other is a minor as well. He doesn’t really care about incest, public drunkenness is no problem and prostitution should be legal. I myself could dig up the authoritative Catholic documentation showing the grave moral error being propagated by Patrick of Atlanta. If this is just hangin here, I have to ask. Is this how you love your brother? By allowing him to persist in this Christ dishonoring, Church defying immoral mindset without so much as a righteous nudge? Don’t play stupid with me either. I know for a fact that there are a few of you here who know EXACTLY what I’m talkin about.
If you think this is just Trib hatin on Pat you are dead wrong. I’m asking. This is a Christian witness even by practically non existent Catholic standards? Where are you champions of the one true bride of Christ and the “mother of God”? You’re fine with this representation of your savior? Simon Peter would roll over in his grave. It’s stuff like this that lets me KNOW that the gates of hell long ago prevailed against that waddling toothless leviathan in Rome.
You need Jesus Pat. So you can no longer be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. It appears I’m the only friend you have here. It would be my great joy and honor to help you arrange a personal meeting with the holy risen Lord of all who alone can open your eyes and heart.
(I can hear it already, but not from the Catholics)
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.[/quote]
What is the difference?
[quote]everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no. [/quote]
So, “consensual” sex w/ minors, incest, public drunkenness, prostitution, &c. [/quote]
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…
incest - Nasty, but I don’t really care.
public drunkenness - I fail to see the problem.
prostitution - Should be legal…None of the governments business. It could be legal and encouraged and I still wouldn’t do it.
[/quote]
minors - agree with you
incest - birth defects?
public drunkenness - not a problem until others are affected (i.e. violent drunk)
prostitution - legal on the proviso no coercion is involved
[quote]pat wrote:
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…[/quote]
Morally wrong.
Morally and physically wrong.
It allows the public to be accustomed to being drunk, which is not only immoral but a hazard for society.
[quote]prostitution - Should be legal…None of the governments business. It could be legal and encouraged and I still wouldn’t do it.
[/quote]
Why is it not the government’s business?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…[/quote]
Morally wrong.
[/quote]
Lot’s of things are, but morality is not a government job. You open that door and the morality you get rammed down your throat will be at the whim of who ever is in power. We have thousands of years of examples of why that’s a bad thing. If the neighborhood teenagers are knocking boots, it won’t affect me one damn bit. It’s none of my business. Bottom line I want people to stat out of my business. If I want people out of my business I have to stay out of theirs.
But not my problem, nor my job to control other people’s behavior.
No it doesn’t. If anything it discourages people that don’t want to look like that. Second, there’s plenty of places where it’s tolerated and they don’t have any bigger problem than any other place. Again, it’s not my business, if they don’t pass out in my yard, barf on my shoes, or harrass me in any way, I could care less.
Why is it not the government’s business?[/quote]
'Cause in a free society, people should be able to do what they want. I was in Las Vegas a few times where it is legal and it did not even cross my mind to go get one. Now, if somebody else wants to get a hooker it’s just none of my business. You got to admit there are advantages. It’s cheaper over all, you can hit it and quit it, and as long as you pay they don’t bitch. You can get you hooker, knock out your business, got to the ball game, stay out with your freinds all night and wake up the next day with out anybody whining at you…Of course there are the diseases and shit but still it’s nobody’s business but the perp and the hooker.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a difference between morality and violating another’s individual rights.[/quote]
What is the difference?
[quote]everything you mention involves violating some else rights. including abortion, violates the rights of the baby.
But legislating voluntary interactions no. [/quote]
So, “consensual” sex w/ minors, incest, public drunkenness, prostitution, &c. [/quote]
“consensual” sex w/ minors,
depends on the minor, 17 w/ 16 no big deal. 39 with 16 big deal…
incest - Nasty, but I don’t really care.
public drunkenness - I fail to see the problem.
prostitution - Should be legal…None of the governments business. It could be legal and encouraged and I still wouldn’t do it.
[/quote]Ok, faithful Catholics of T-Nation. I can’t take it anymore. I don’t know what may be transpiring in PM world, but if nobody is rebuking this libertine brother of yours (in love of course) who is a flat down embarrassment to your church then it’s even worse than I thought. This man has just said that fornication with a minor is no big deal as long the other is a minor as well. He doesn’t really care about incest, public drunkenness is no problem and prostitution should be legal. I myself could dig up the authoritative Catholic documentation showing the grave moral error being propagated by Patrick of Atlanta. If this is just hangin here, I have to ask. Is this how you love your brother? By allowing him to persist in this Christ dishonoring, Church defying immoral mindset without so much as a righteous nudge? Don’t play stupid with me either. I know for a fact that there are a few of you here who know EXACTLY what I’m talkin about.
If you think this is just Trib hatin on Pat you are dead wrong. I’m asking. This is a Christian witness even by practically non existent Catholic standards? Where are you champions of the one true bride of Christ and the “mother of God”? You’re fine with this representation of your savior? Simon Peter would roll over in his grave. It’s stuff like this that lets me KNOW that the gates of hell long ago prevailed against that waddling toothless leviathan in Rome.
You need Jesus Pat. So you can no longer be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. It appears I’m the only friend you have here. It would be my great joy and honor to help you arrange a personal meeting with the holy risen Lord of all who alone can open your eyes and heart.
(I can hear it already, but not from the Catholics)
[/quote]
If he was saying that the government = Catholic church, I might have spoken up.
As it is, I don’t particularly think the government should be legislating masturbation or sending people to jail for divorce, either. It’s pretty clear he is not advocating that people engage in these acts, rather that they should not be punished by the state for them.
This is the “gotcha” thing I was talking about, Tirib. You just took his whole statement out of context, made it look like he was actually condoning some of these acts, and then proceeded to call him out publicly for it while attempting to turn his fellow Catholics against him.
You are too smart to be excused for not knowing this, especially as I just mentioned this tendency of yours to you.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< while attempting to turn his fellow Catholics against him. >>>[/quote]Actually I was attempting to awaken his fellow Catholics on his behalf. I am not against him and would never want anyone else to be either. >>>[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< You are too smart to be excused for not knowing this, especially as I just mentioned this tendency of yours to you. [/quote]I posted this several hours before our conversation. I must say that I only read the immediate context so I may be guilty there, but I promise you, him and the Lord knows there was no intentional misrepresentation. He has done that to me more times than I can count and I would never return insult for insult like that. I have also revised my plans to publish a devastating direct source history of the relentless misrepresentation and personal attacks he has launched against me over the past year despite my equally relentless attempts at peaceable cordiality, on personal level. He did apologize and it would be wrong for me not to honor that.
BTW, this is just one post of his. Even without it my point stands. My hand is always out to him and I want him as my brother. He has had me all wrong this entire time and still does.
You’re so full of shit Tirib. I used to think you were just misguided, but you seem to take a sick pleasure in dividing people.
Hey, let’s judge Push for being a swinger!
Hey, let’s judge Pat for understanding that the government should stay the fuck away from certain things!
Get help you loon.
Tiribulus could be suffering from manic depression considering his other posts about how bad his life can get.