At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[ClaireZ]

I find it telling that many approve of a post that considers not burning someone at the stake as being tolerant.

I used to think that we had progressed some what as humans, and that we had become more civilized. I was wrong.

 

[MartinM]

When you say "creationists?" Of whom do you speak?

Broadly, those people who reject parts of mainstream science based on their religious beliefs regarding creation.

But, let's save this one for another thread where it belongs.

As long as your arguments apply equally to this case, it will be relevant.

 

[MartinM]

I find it telling that many approve of a post that considers not burning someone at the stake as being tolerant.

I used to think that we had progressed some what as humans, and that we had become more civilized. I was wrong.

Made rather worse by the fact that it's not the first such post today

 

[joebudda]

Yes, because it goes against what the sabbath was instituted for. Why? Are you saying it's okay to be intollerant of people who stone other people for breaking the Sabbath?

I also added stoning to death disobedient children.

I was making a point using the bible showing that every Christian picks and chooses what they want the bible to say. Would Christians consider stoning to death people evil? The bible supports such behaviors.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Is it evil to stone someone to death who collects sticks on the sabbath or a disobedient child?

Yes and No -God is not evil but maybe some who would do it are and you dont get the point of the passages or you wouldnt be able to pose that in the way you have.

Lets try to keep this thread on topic however. If you would like to discuss this , post it in debate and ill be happy to go into detail there.

 

[Lisa0315]

Have you met Gipper yet?

uhm, no. Why?

 

[JGG]

uhm, no. Why?

I get the impression that's one conservative Christian who would consider you to be a liberal.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I find it telling that many approve of a post that considers not burning someone at the stake as being tolerant.

I used to think that we had progressed some what as humans, and that we had become more civilized. I was wrong.

I find it telling when someone takes a statement completely out of context and twists it to say something that wasnt said.

 

[CaDan]

Get back to your ghetto.

Mea culpa.

I blew it and got caught up in the hyperbole and polemics, too. It has to end.

 

[Lisa0315]

I get the impression that's one conservative Christian who would consider you to be a liberal.

I am far from liberal, just about as far as one can get. Yet, I love people. I just do not get the country club mentality. I suppose it is because I have spent too much time in the ghetto!

Lisa

 

[joebudda]

I find it telling when someone takes a statement completely out of context and twists it to say something that wasnt said. [/FONT]

I seem to remember you being a pro at it.

 

[MartinM]

You are receiving tolerance. In another era you would have been burned on the stake. Tolerance is not the same thing as open acceptance. If it were? It would not be tolerance.

I find it telling that many approve of a post that considers not burning someone at the stake as being tolerant.

I find it telling when someone takes a statement completely out of context and twists it to say something that wasnt said. [/font]

Good job Claire didn't do that, then. Her reading is precisely what was said.

 

[Lisa0315]

I brought this up many pages ago among other points I would recommend, but I think an important one is this;

If we keep the wiki process, then, there needs to be a process to deliver us from stalemates. I strongly suggest that when no agreement can be reached in X amount of time, then, we turn it over to admins to make a final decision on the rule.

Lisa

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here is my other cheek joebudda - have at it and I sincerely wish you a great day.

 

[joebudda]

I brought this up many pages ago among other points I would recommend, but I think an important one is this;

If we keep the wiki process, then, there needs to be a process to deliver us from stalemates. I strongly suggest that when no agreement can be reached in X amount of time, then, we turn it over to admins to make a final decision on the rule.

Lisa

Or leave it up to a vote.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nice job martin , too bad you didnt quote the rest of claires post which makes it imply that we would do that today yet dont because of tolerance but im guessing you got it anyway.

 

[MartinM]

If we keep the wiki process, then, there needs to be a process to deliver us from stalemates. I strongly suggest that when no agreement can be reached in X amount of time, then, we turn it over to admins to make a final decision on the rule.

Stalemate is only really an issue if the decision is framed as a choice between one policy and another. If rather decisions are all of the form 'implement this policy or not?' then if no agreement is reached, the default should be 'not.' No adjudication required.

 

[Lisa0315]

Or leave it up to a vote.

I would agree but only if the polls can be perfected. Sock voting has been my experience among other things.

Lisa

 

[MartinM]

Nice job martin , too bad you didnt quote the rest of claires post which makes it imply that we would do that today yet dont because of tolerance but im guessing you got it anyway.

That's not how Claire's post reads to me. But if it makes you feel better to assume intellectual dishonesty on my part, feel free.

 

[joebudda]

I would agree but only if the polls can be perfected. Sock voting has been my experience among other things.

Lisa

True.

And I also agree with what Martin said.