No one seems to care about your imaginary version I suppose.
What happened to all those "whites only" sighns?
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."
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.
Which is why it was destroyed utterly by us liberals.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
EdwinWillers said:"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.
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.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.
I wasn't aware I was arguing Ayn Rand. Perhaps you could be more specific.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.
It's a cool avatar though, don't you think?I'm just responding to your avatar, and general lolbertarian feeling i get from you.
Christian apparel?
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.
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.
The knee portion of the clothing is re-enforced
Apparently, male homosexuals like this feature, for some reason.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?