Gay Pride Organization Files Complaint Against Local T-Shirt Company

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No one seems to care about your imaginary version I suppose.

What happened to all those "whites only" sighns?

If you accept the US Constitution, you have to accept that people are free from involuntary servitude, which means that the power of the state can't be used to compel people to provide a service against their wishes.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

That's absurd. And unfounded. And not backed up with a thing.

Nope. No ridicule there. Just a guy's honest opinion based on what he perceives as the biblical take on homosexuality. Jehovah did not ridicule Soddom and Gommorah when He destroyed them.

Well then, so much for your comment that I "ignored" the abuse of homosexuals, since it was crucial to the "analogy."

Are we ignoring the pastor that ordered his congregation to beat his own son and his son's boyfriend when they came to church, because they were homosexual?

 

[variant]

If you accept the US Constitution, you have to accept that people are free from involuntary servitude, which means that the power of the state can't be used to compel people to provide a service against their wishes.

So racists can refuse to serve black people at bars and such?

 

[Ernst Junger]

Which is why it was destroyed utterly by us liberals.

For a very brief period, and in only some places. The interesting half of liberalism died in the 19th century; feudalism was reborn in the 20th. The question is no longer whether or not we want the feudal society, its merely how long do we want to subsist until traditional obligations are imposed upon the various classes.

 

[variant]

Are we ignoring the pastor that ordered his congregation to beat his own son and his son's boyfriend when they came to church, because they were homosexual?

It's not abuse if God himself ordains it.

 

[variant]

For a very brief period, and in only some places. The interesting half of liberalism died in the 19th century; feudalism was reborn in the 20th. The question is no longer whether or not we want the feudal society, its merely how long do we want to subsist until traditional obligations are imposed upon the various classes.

Not worth a responce.


Your argueing for the moral superiority of fudalism?

 

[Ernst Junger]

When yesterday Bush II was running, and today Romney III is running, do you still dream of your democracy?

Perhaps you should be clamoring for traditional obligations as well? I'm sure you can find some verbiage that makes it seem sufficiently avante-garde.

 

[variant]

When yesterday Bush II was running, and today Romney III is running, do you still dream of your democracy?

Perhaps you should be clamoring for traditional obligations as well? I'm sure you can find some verbiage that makes it seem sufficiently avante-garde.

I'm sorry but I can't continue to take you seriously if this is your line of argument.

Good day.

 

[Ernst Junger]

Thats fine. The internet is full of standard left-democrats. Your particular participation in my internal debates is not needed.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

If you accept the US Constitution, you have to accept that people are free from involuntary servitude, which means that the power of the state can't be used to compel people to provide a service against their wishes.

The Constitution also makes the protection of rights the primary job of the federal government.

Your problem is you're trying to take one part of the Constitution and apply it to everything as a blanket.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Are we ignoring the pastor that ordered his congregation to beat his own son and his son's boyfriend when they came to church, because they were homosexual?

I don't know. Are you? Doesn't look like it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

"Context" is an easy trap into which many fall. If context determines what's good and what's evil then there can be no ideal for either. And if no ideal can exist then neither can goodness or evil. Again, we know that isn't true, so context cannot be what determines good or evil. There must be an ideal for each.

Not necessarily, it really depends on how broad or narrow and ideal you have. Something broad, like say "do no harm" leaves a lot of room for context. Whereas very specific ideals, like what alot of fundamentalists strive for, leaves very little grey area. That lack of grey area is very problematic, as life is far too complicated to simply govern by a very specific rulebook.

But again, one runs into the "context" trap - a trap which demands infinite complexity, which demands grey areas and prohibits black and white (good and evil) - and which, ironically, demands an infinite set of specific rules to govern an infinite set of possibilities. Such a "rule book" is impossible; it cannot exist. The only possible solution to that dilemma is relativism, where "good" and "evil" cannot exist except as theoretical impossibilities. And again, we know that that simply is not the truth. Good and evil do exist. Neither are theory.

What you say, for example re "do no harm," would be true if no ideal existed which defined "do no harm," which needed context to define. But we know that's not true. Such an ideal does exist; the truth is though that it does not exist in a rule book - we've already seen how that's not possible. The ideal does exist, not in a set of rules, rather in something entirely different, albeit infinitely complex - a person.

"Good" is not a construct of law, or something defined by law, but something defined by, or in, a person. I know that's not where you may want this to go, but it is the reality.

 

[Ernst Junger]

Edwin you are a fine chap but you need to ditch the ayn rand nonsense. The state is imaginary, your family should loot it until it collapses. If you don't, others will.


EDIT:

I will.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Edwin you are a fine chap but you need to ditch the ayn rand nonsense. The state is imaginary, your family should loot it until it collapses. If you don't, others will.

EDIT:

I will.

I wasn't aware I was arguing Ayn Rand. Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

[Ernst Junger]

I'm just responding to your avatar, and general lolbertarian feeling i get from you.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I'm just responding to your avatar, and general lolbertarian feeling i get from you.

It's a cool avatar though, don't you think?

As to being a lolbertarian, well that's a pejorative and unnecessary. I did however score a 66 on the "Are you a libertarian" test, for what that's worth.

 

[Pommer]

Christian apparel?

The knee portion of the clothing is re-enforced, you know, for praying.

Apparently, male homosexuals like this feature, for some reason.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

It's a cool avatar though, don't you think?

As to being a lolbertarian, well that's a pejorative and unnecessary. I did however score a 66 on the "Are you a libertarian" test, for what that's worth.

I scored a 72.

 

[Ernst Junger]

It's a cool avatar though, don't you think?

As to being a lolbertarian, well that's a pejorative and unnecessary. I did however score a 66 on the "Are you a libertarian" test, for what that's worth.

I score 47, and notice something in common about all the people whose pictures they display, and it aint' libertarianism.


EDIT:.

the chance that it appeared randomly is about 0.0012167%

 

[SnowCal]

The knee portion of the clothing is re-enforced

Are you a little ESL? The word you were looking for was reinforced, not re-enforced.

Apparently, male homosexuals like this feature, for some reason.

Maybe they like to pray too? Quite a few of them do.