But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 03:45
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 03:52
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
To be fair...
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 04:10
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Even I wanted to give Kirk a hug after this....
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 04:18
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I really wanted to watch the whole thing in it's entirety, but even Kirk and Ray's side has it broken down into 18 parts and I'm just not in a mood to piece all that together. You can find their stuff under the username thewayofthemaster on youtube. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 20:16
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
How fair is it to manipulate a video? The person who edited the video is doing nothing more than a pearl harbor sneak attack, and not a very effective one at that. The video editor rambling on about the eye doesn't do anything. He's not debating Kirk he's just regurgitating evolutionary propaganda.
2nd part the flashing pics
The editor using the quick mtv flash images rock video isn't the proper way to debate. It only works if you are a teenager and don't realize how easily these quick little tidbits can be misleading.
For instance. I'll give you an example. My brother-in-law was recently sick in the hospital. He just had surgery. He had morphine going into him for the pain. It just happened to be his and my sister's wedding anniversary.
Now had I not been there my mother his mother-in-law could have told me her side of it as thus.
The lazy no good bum laid around the whole day of their anniversary, and did nothing but take drugs all day.
See it's easy to manipulate facts with half truths and quick sound bytes. In fact the best liar is one that uses the truth, but only part of the truth to paint the picture they want you to see. Most evolutionist usely stop where the supposed evidence makes them look good, but never tell the whole story where the evidence turned out to be phoney. Of course from a quick snapshot here and there you'd never know the difference.
Another thing to think about here is what does Kirk Cameron have to gain by trying to convince others of God's existence? Everyone knows how Hollywood is, and the way to get work in Hollywood is definitely not showing yourself as a Christian or a conservative of any kind. He's out there taking the hits for the benefit of you the atheist. He's a hero if you ask me. The more atheists slam this guy, the more real he shows himself to be. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 20:17 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Second Video, your side says the big bang was the collision of two objects. Where did the objects come from? So you see it's my God vs your two magic rocks. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 19 Aug 2007 20:55
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
On the banana thing, what gives, what a farmer 8 thousand years ago, put a banana in a banana shaped sillicon vessel and it froze that way. Come on what could a farmer do 8 k years ago to change a banana shape? It's another quick little tidbit that has lots of holes but no answers. I'm the kind of guy that needs details.
I did a quick search for einstein quotes. since your guy thinks he was an atheist.
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
I like this one I found even if it's a different subject.
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves." (Those thoughtless Americans were probably liberals he was referring to.)
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Sounds to me like Einstein believed in a designer.
For the fair video
Last video
Who are these punks in the last video? Looks like somebody forgot to spank their brats.
Now they are questioning whether or not a painting is proof of a painter. Drugs work wonders don't they?
Ok now the atheists are basically admitting and standing on what I've been trying to get you to admit. They believe the universe has always been apparently. Their take needs as much faith as mine does. I guess what they really mean to say is that the building blocks of the universe have just always been which again takes faith because that is an unreasonable assumption from a scientific view. Somewhere the supernatural has to jump in to fill in the void. It could go on and on on backwards to infinity.
I'm betting there are a lot of missing parts in this video.
The part the woman was going on about. Saying you can do whatever you want because God will forgive you. Jesus died for all sins, but there are still consequences for sins. Jesus paid our eternal debt. So trust in Jesus equals heaven, but that does not protect you from punishment on earth by God or by society. You commit murder you are going to fry in the chair or get life. Salvation isn't going to change that. "You reap what you sew"
The point atheist don't get is that to God a murderer and a liar are the same thing when it comes to heaven or hell only. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Any sin at all equals death in hell, but different sins have different consequences on earth while we live.
yeah this was definitely pieced together for the atheist view. The guy at the end says there were claps for Kirk, but I don't think I heard them. Obviously they were taken out. So thus anytime Kirk looked good it got axed. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 02:27
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Like I said, I'd like to see the whole thing unedited and unbiased and on a side note I'm a bit intrigued by the ideas of micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
As for those vids: Which are you trying to say you agree with, God created the universe or it's always been here? They are nowhere near similar.
As for the 'video editor rambling on about the eye' he gave you very sound scientific information on how the eyes evolved-watch it again and pause if it's going too fast for you and for the record, the editor wasn't debating Kirk. He was exercising his right to free speech. Lucky for us the editor provided only about 20% opinion with what he feels are facts(and I see no reason to disagree). I also seriously doubt you can provide any argument that what the editor said(outside of personal opinions) was actually wrong.
As for how fair it is to edit video we should ask Kirk. Him and his buddy dissected the actual debate into at least 20 some odd parts instead of the compacted atheist one. Both sides are either wrong or right on this as far as editing goes, and it isn't more fair for one just because you happen to agree with them.
The quick snapshot I'm guessing that you're referring to is of the big bang and it appears to be a poster of some sort. Either freeze the vid and look at it closely, look it up or let me know you'd like me to look it up and I will gladly do so. You keep saying noone is providing you proof , when what it seems more likely to me to be is that you are refusing to look at it. Which leads me to wonder; If you're only looking at one possibility out of several, what makes you think you're so spot on in this? If your faith is strong, then reading about evolution or the big bang just to see what you're opposed to couldn't possibly affect your faith.
As for what Kirk gains? He got himself back on TV with his little debate. Not really a big deal by itself, so here come the gains. He makes very clear he and his partner have a website, and they sell things on their site don't they? Kirk couldn't care less about either of us, except that you might actually purchase the BS he's selling. Your hero's nothing more than a pitchman now, and I am sick and tired of this bullsh** that these so called 'friends of humanity' are supposedly doing anything for me instead of being honest and admitting it's all for a check.
Kirk Cameron; a celebrity so dull even Scientologists don't want him. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 02:54
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I wasn't here for the big bang and have no idea what the two objects could have been. Maybe one of us should look that up.......
I can't imagine anyone using a silicone anything 8000 years ago.
The vid says the domestication of wild bananas meaning apparently that humans changed the conditions by which they grow to reach a desired effect, not waving a magic wand over it. They show you what wild bananas actually look like, which would really be 'God's Creation' if there is a God. This is another fine example of you not wanting to look at something and then saying it's not there. That banana video by Kirk and pal was put in it's place by someone who actually did some research, instead of just making up explainations for things they don't really understand or making false connections to prove a point.
That part in bold there really sums up a great deal of exactly why I'm an atheist. At least science offers a plausible explaination for things. Your side keeps going back to the 'Almighty and impossible to understand magic cloud being' who can do absolutely anything. He creates things out of nothingness when science says matter cannot be created or destroyed. I show you a video detailing exactly how science feels our eyes have evolved(a subject you yourself brought up previously) to which your answer was(I'm paraphrasing here) that our eyes have always been this way since God put them there. At what point are we going to get past your only evidence essentially being 'because the bible says so'? For a guy who needs details you seem to take a lot at face value. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 03:12
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote you may have missed from Uncle Albert;
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
One strength of the communist system of the East is that it has some of the character of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.
Those I got from brainyquote.com if you'd like to see a fuller list. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 12:25
zod69
pakratmak, i've kinda lost interest in writing big long explanations to people. i did enough of that on the supermanfanforum. tim and dharvey aren't gonna change. they refuse to believe anything no matter what evidence is presented or no matter how much common sense your argument makes. but it's fun to bug REALLY religious people because their arguments are so silly. people like kirk cameron and bill o'reilly are these peoples representatives. nuff said!!
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 16:20
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I never give up trying. There is definitely much much more for all of us to learn. Even if our views never quite meet we can still learn from each other, whether that's between me and Tim or even me and you.
A great example for me would be this micro and macro evolution that team Cameron brought up, and it's really clear that nobody here knows quite enough about the big bang to dispute it intelligently enough(myself included).
Never ever give up. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Aug 2007 17:02
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: As for how fair it is to edit video we should ask Kirk
Just stating for the record so there is no misunderstanding for anyone that might watch the video here. To have a fair perspective of an argument you got to be aware of these things. Someone watching that didn't know the video was edited in favor of the editor might easily get the wrong idea.
The sci-fi eye story was just worthless in terms of actual explanations. All it did was stretch out in a very long drawn out way that he believed the eye formed by evolution over millions of years. Knew that's what evolutionist believe. Still believe that's hogwash.
Quote: these so called 'friends of humanity' are supposedly doing anything for me instead of being honest and admitting it's all for a check.
That's easy to say, but other than the fact he's selling a couple of things on his website you can't prove he's a fake. I still say it would be a lot easier for Kirk to go along with the rest of hollywood and work on whatever roles he could get.
Quote: He creates things out of nothingness when science says matter cannot be created or destroyed.
What? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the building blocks appear out of nowhere. Again you call God magic, but you've got to admit in all honesty you are putting your faith in magic building blocks, or atoms, or something that existed by magic somehow at the beginning of everything as well. Right? You can't scientifically explain how the very first whatever it was rock, atom, etc was here to start the whole process to begin with. It's simple. What did you start out with to get the big bang? How could it have gotten here by itself? If you can't answer that, you don't have a foundation for evolution to sit on. A house with no foundation falls rather quickly.
Quote: our eyes have always been this way since God put them there
What I'm saying is the eye is far too complex to evolve. It would be like saying a digitial camera just evolved after millions of years which is basically what you are saying. You think an organic digital camera formed by itself. How would a body know to develop vision? How could a body know what sight is? How could a body know what light is to know there was even a need for vision? Yes you believe simple organisms started forming eyeballs by themselves. All of your sci-fi explanations on that video don't address the why or the how? They just give a description of a process, but no answer to how or why? To say it was necessary to have sight means nothing to a simple organism. How would a person even know what sight is had they never saw or at least heard by others there was anything to see. Imagine if you had been blind all your life.
Quote: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Well let's think about that for a moment shall we. The first part of that is "science without religion is lame" Could it be that science that does not take into consideration God is weak according to Einstein?
Quote: fun to bug REALLY religious people because their arguments are so silly
It's fun to tear apart atheistic explanations even if I'm just being silly to disagree. How dare I.
Debating in theory at least exercises the mind. It's the closest thing to playing chess I can think of. I love competition of any kind. Of course my beginning motives in the interest of full disclosure is to have a successful website for debate, have fun, and hopefully change some minds or at least get people to think outside of the box. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 21 Aug 2007 02:09
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
The eye story was not fiction, whether you like it or not.
Don't you think he'd be working if he could get work? He's selling things with his partner there to make a living.
By your logic that everything has a creator, you foil your own argument? If God really does exist, who or what created God?
The eye did evolve from much simpler beginnings. It's not fiction. Maybe the body got tired of bumping into things.....
Quote: Could it be that science that does not take into consideration God is weak according to Einstein?
You might want to rephrase that question after you read the whole quote instead of just the half you think helps some sort of argument on your side. It's more like a statement and a question are fighting over the same space.
It's a shame you don't have a chat room. This would be immensely fun. I hope you do wind up with a successful site Tim(just give us some sort of idea what your goals are here or how you'll measure your success and I'm sure we will all try and help you towards those ends). If this wasn't fun, I wouldn't be here.
Tim, take this as the kind advice I offer it as-If you want others to start thinking outside the box you are really going to need to start thinking outside the Book. This is a political site yes? Act accordingly. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Aug 2007 05:05
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: By your logic that everything has a creator, you foil your own argument? If God really does exist, who or what created God?
Dude, I know I've mentioned this. I admit my belief takes some faith. You can't admit that an almost religious type of faith applies to evolution as well. In other words your evolutionary science is as much a religion as mine.
Quote: Maybe the body got tired of bumping into things.....
This is where your scientific thinking needs a little bit of philosophy to even it out, and a little imagination.
Quote: This is a political site yes? Act accordingly
I understand what you are saying, but politics and religion go hand in hand really. You see I base the way I vote on morality that I initially get from the Bible. I think I could say the same about you and Darwin's book of ideas.
I hope to get people thinking, I also want to address my need to talk about controversial topics without running people off my comic book sites. I figure people that get mad about such things don't want it on fun sites, but people that come to a political site can take the heat without too much problem. I hope.
I'm getting too tired to write very clearly so I better quite while I'm ahead and go to bed. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 21 Aug 2007 20:59
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I vote based on the candidates, not what a book says.
The only places where religion and politics go hand in hand is when they encroach upon each other and the shared heading of 'things you don't discuss in polite company'. I agree on keeping topics in an appropriate place so people don't happen upon it by accident. If someone wants to see what's going on with Smallville they probably don't want to get drawn into a political debate; that would be exceptions like us. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 22 Aug 2007 15:50
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: I vote based on the candidates
You vote for candidates you think are more likely to go to your way of thinking which is what I do.
I want to address this again. I forgot where we were talking about it before. -
I bet you still haven't figured out how you know right from wrong. How do you explain the conscience humans all start out with? Some people learn to beat their conscience like murderers and such, but we all have it. Why is it that animals don't feel bad for doing wrong and people do? How can you explain that scientifically. If right and wrong are created by society then the definition of good and evil is up for a vote. There is no real good and evil and therefore no real reason to pursue righteous living in one's personal life other than fear of the law.
So it goes back to how do you really and truly define good and evil. Would murder be wrong if the law said it was ok to kill your neighbor? Would stealing be wrong if the government said it was ok? Who defines right and wrong? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 03:14
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Just because someone shares your religion doesn't mean they think about anything else like you do.
Animals don't do right or wrong-they do fight or flight. They survive without putting labels all over everything.
Conscience is developed, not inate; right and wrong are labels we place on things once we learn to make those type of associations. Babies don't know murder is wrong any more than they know not to touch the red ring on the stove. We start with being helpless, needing to be nurtured and taught and still strike out and learn things on our own. Some we are taught because our parents should know better than to let us find out firsthand, some they let us discover on our own, and yet others we just happen upon. This is the path of all knowledge, not just right and wrong.
Two people can do the exact same thing or look at exactly the same situation and decide one is 'right' and one is 'wrong'. These labels are merely the result of that individuals' knowledge at that point.
Where does it come from? Couldn't say. It's just there, just like how we blush. One of a number of things only we can do, at least that we're aware of. What would it sound like for a flower to laugh, for instance?
If your neighbor is threatening your life, some laws do say it's ok to take their life. Right and wrong, again, are labels we place on things based upon our knowledge at that point.
My personal take is this on right and wrong: no initiatory force. So very simple. Nobody gets to take the first shot, whether physically, mentally, or verbally against another individual. Any one who does take that first shot will face the penalty of unrestrained but equal responsive force of the attacked inividual with no consequence to the latter. Law and order, commonsense, no red tape and loopholes, no conscience necessary, no awkward or oafish ceremonies. If everyone can't live without fear than nobody should. That's my definition of right. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 16:00
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: If everyone can't live without fear than nobody should. That's my definition of right.
So if one person is afraid we should all be afraid? Anyway. Not sure I understand what you are saying on that particular point.
But I guess what I'm trying to get you to say is how do you determine what is right and wrong logically? What is your thought process when confronted with an issue that needs a determination or judgement of some sort?
Your parents taught you different from my parents I'm sure so as a society we can't just all go back to our parent's teaching necessarily to determine right and wrong.
We all agree incest is wrong. I think gayness is a sin. I get my ideas of right and wrong from studying the Bible. I know why I think incest is wrong, but I don't think your really have a concrete answer. You just know it's wrong, but you don't know why. You don't think being gay is a sin. I want to know how you differentiate the two. Just feeling your way around the whole right and wrong thing? Logically how can you assume one is bad and not assume the other is. Until the last 10 years or so gayness was considered a very serious wrong just like incest. So if society changes the rule then does that make it ok? In another 10 years or so who is to say what politically might be deemed normal at that time. Are you going to change your idea of right and wrong to accommodate the new norm and expect everyone else to do the same?
I submit to you that the difference between right and wrong, good and evil is more than an individual's preference or a whim of society. Like 2 plus 2 is always 4 except for new liberals that want to start letting kids do their own math in order to prevent hurting their little minds with rough details like accuracy.
What libs don't want people to pay attention to is that you can pull off any con job if you do it slow enough, and that's what has happened to the world right now. They've been slowly but surely conned into changing the view of society on a host of sins that were once considered intolerable 40 years ago.
Abortion is another one that was once considered terrible, but now it's ok with the law. There is a line and it keeps getting pushed farther and farther back.
You know I watch documentaries about Elvis, history, etc and wonder why in the world were those old phogies so upset about Elvis shaking around. I don't think it's a big deal right? I love old rock and roll, I love 80s music, not too many modern songs, but that's for reasons of boredom, anyway. The other day I saw Billy Joel make a comment on TVland that sruck me funny. He said parents during the 50's were afraid that we would all start screwing around when rock first came out. Then with a laugh he said, and they were right. Makes you kind of think doesn't it. What else were the old timers right about?
Libs and hippies usually want to bring up racism as a reason to completely ignore all of what the old generation had to say, but you know all the old generation weren't racist. People blasted by libs today like Charlton Heston were out marching for Martin Luthor King in the 60's, but now libs think he's the anti-christ because he likes guns.
The way people view the world can be maddening sometimes to me. It's usually with a total lack of history. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 16:46
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Logically, if a thing needs a label, you look at it, you think about it, you compare it to anything else similar or related you may have come across and you place the label. As complicated a process that may actually be, it is really that simple or at least as simple as it should be. People who tell me something is wrong based on a passage in a book without giving it any sort of thought themselves seriously dissappoint me. Tim, we are probably never going to reach a point where I give God credit for even existing, much less creating anything. Right now, I will give you the possibility of a higher power existing and that's as good as it's gonna get so trying to goad me or spinning words to get me to admit something I don't believe in is wasting time for both of us.
Gays are two consenting adults. Incest is usually an older figure abusing someone who will either be too afraid or powerless to do anything about it. Gays have consentual sex(abnormal, but that's between them) while incest actually has a victim. Logical enough for you?
Do I honestly strike you as someone who changes their opinion based on what's popular? HI, HAVE WE MET?
Now abortion and liberals with new math and Elvis ...Roe v. Wade is another whole topic Tim. Education is another topic Tim. Being a prude is another topic Tim. Stick to what we're discussing.
Quote: Libs and hippies usually want to bring up racism as a reason to completely ignore all of what the old generation had to say, but you know all the old generation weren't racist. People blasted by libs today like Charlton Heston were out marching for Martin Luthor King in the 60's, but now libs think he's the anti-christ because he likes guns.
And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Nobody brought up racism, Charleton Heston or guns.
Don't confuse a lack of history with not being stuck in it. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 17:30
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: while incest actually has a victim.
I want to be careful how I word this so don't read into it anything that's not there, but here goes. What if folks for incest starting running around with signs protesting saying incest was ok as long as it was too consenting adults. How could you argue against them when you've just said that two consenting adults is the criteria for something being moral. I'm assuming you think it's morally ok, you did say it was abnormal but I'm just trying to hopefully make a point.
Quote: Now abortion and liberals with new math and Elvis ...Roe v. Wade is another whole topic Tim. Education is another topic Tim. Being a prude is another topic Tim. Stick to what we're discussing.
Hey you said I should branch out more into other more political subjects. Besides I'm trying to make good content for readers not just argue with you, you know. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 17:47
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
When two blood relatives make a baby it is always a mutant and it almost always endangers the health of the mother. People can run a round with signs if they like or make a website in support of this-that is their constitutional right. What two people do in their bedroom is none of my business until an actual crime is committed(not just the old sodomy laws, but ones where there is a victim).I called it abnormal in that (you're just going to love this) sex is supposed to be primarily for making babies and any act outside of that standard penetration is 'abnormal'
You definitely have to branch out more, but do it out there on the menu instead of blasting one topic with five others that are only loosely connected at best. While we're at it, Elvis getting kids to bump uglies is not political in any way, shape or form.
A couple of final thoughts. People love to listen to or watch a fight. Whether it's on a playground, on court TV, or in a boxing ring people eat this stuff up. The arguing may actually be your best draw. I told you before that I would no longer insult your intelligence by pulling punches. When you first brought this up I told you I was ready to argue. It's been a blast and we need more people to share in it.
Controversy=ratings. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 18:31
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: When two blood relatives make a baby it is always a mutant and it almost always endangers the health of the mother.
Sorry to carry this out so far, but what if the incesters said they would not have children?
Quote: always endangers the health of the mother.
Abortion can endanger the health of a mother too, but that's another subject of course.
Quote: Elvis getting kids to bump uglies is not political in any way, shape or form.
Sure it is, I'm making you think about what the elder generation thought and how they might be right about other more pressing issues today.
Quote: Controversy=ratings.
Oh ok got you. Let me have it.
But let's not go overboard though. I like to keep some semblance of dignity to a discussion. Shouting matches never get anywhere. Only people that like that might be Jerry Springer fans. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 18:33
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oh just off the subject a hair. Search engine bots have been through this month. It's only a matter of time before the site get's picked up in search engines, and maybe we can get a lot of other involved in our arguing. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 18:57
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
If someone is going to have sex with a family member they are not going to ask anyone's permission. There won't be a new law to ok it. There won't be any picket lines or trials trying to make it ok. You asked the difference between a gay couple and incest, not about ever making incest accetable like it was back in the good old Old Testament.
Sometimes abortion is the only way to save the mother's health but that is another topic of course.
What our elders thought or might have predicted has no bearing on politics. Just bouts of 'I told you so' and fits of nostalgia. We learn from history itself, not just any single opinion of it. By the way, if people supposedly weren't having extramarital sex before Elvis did the Sullivan show then most of those oldtimers wouldn't be here to talk about anything-bet on it.
Unless the text is jumping off your screen and yelling at you, nobody is shouting Tim. Maybe it's those voices again. If you want to get others involved, start calling it a discussion instead of arguing. People watch arguments. People join discussions. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 21:17
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: You asked the difference between a gay couple and incest
I'm asking how you can make a difference in your judgement on the two. You said it was because of consent, then you said it was because of the problems to the child. I simply said what if there was no problem with children. The incestors agreed not to have children, and only with consenting adults. I want you to tell me how you can tell me it's still wrong and tell the gays their sin is ok. You can't do it pal. The only difference is political backing. You say there wouldn't be any picketing. That's not part of the question. This is a what if scenario to test your reasoning on the subject. It's no fun if you don't play the game.
Quote: Sometimes abortion is the only way to save the mother's health but that is another topic of course.
That's another one I never understood. I can see how a child might have to be removed prematurely for the sake of the mother's health, but if the pregnancy is already a few months down the line why would it be necessary to kill the baby to remove the child from the womb? Modern medicine can save almost very young babyies I would think a lot more than the old days.
Quote: weren't having extramarital sex before Elvis did the Sullivan show then most of those oldtimers wouldn't be here to talk about anything-bet on it
Tell that to Billy Joel. He was there not me.
Besides I think the point was it increased greatly. I think it's like pouring gas on a fire. There's always a fire burning somewhere, but put gas on it and you better run.
Quote: Unless the text is jumping off your screen and yelling at you, nobody is shouting Tim. Maybe it's those voices again. If you want to get others involved, start calling it a discussion instead of arguing
I didn't say you were yet. But don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 22:16
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
If you want to play that game, give me a what if scenario that actually makes sense or even could possibly happen. Nobody who is having sex with a relative is going to ask anyone for permission or make any kind of deal that they say they won't make children.
Abortion-new topic.
Billy Joel-new topic.
Batman vs the Hulk? Bring it. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Aug 2007 15:56
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Hulk smashes Batman easily.
Quote: Nobody who is having sex with a relative is going to ask anyone for permission or make any kind of deal that they say they won't make children.
That's immaterial to a what if scenario. It's a what if.
To be honest what I do foresee coming down the pike in the next 10 years makes my skin crawl. I think the pedophiles are going to be crying for rights next. I can almost see it happening. Don't say it can't happen. Already I see the signs.
They are organized now thanks to the web.
One of them made their way to television news recently. The law had a terrible time shutting down his website if they ever did. The guy actually had pics of kids on his site, but they weren't dirty so he got away with it. I'm just hearing a lot about these guys starting to push to see how far they can go legally.
Michael Jackson got away with it. You actually still hear his music on the radio or tv from time to time. In the old days his music would be considered demonic after everything that has been said about him.
The same libs that will stand beside the conservatives in disgust today will be fighting for the rights of the pedophiles in the next decade. Mark my words unless this country and the world starts moving back toward God and common decency it will happen.
It won't happen over night though. The legal age will just start to drop a little at a time, or the laws will stop being enforced. These guys don't spend no time in jail as it is and they are back on dateline the next week.
There's just too many of these nuts. All you need these days is numbers and organization and you can change the very morality of the world in the name of political correctness.
Another sign, in California there has been attempts to add gay curriculm to students books all the way to very youngest of grades. Arnold so far vetoed it, but it's only a matter of time since a majority of the California state senators wanted it. Now you have to ask why the hell would they want to put such garbage into a school? You have to draw a line somewhere or it just keeps getting pushed back farther and farther.
You also made a point about incestors
Quote: Nobody who is having sex with a relative is going to ask anyone for permission
and here we have gay people wanting to adopt kids in fact a lot of people are just accepting it as normal now. Aren't you just a little suspicious? Or do you trust anyone with a liberal cause automatically without question?
If you don't believe me just wait, and remember you read this 10 years from now when all the lines of morality are swept under the rug. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 25 Aug 2007 01:13
zod69
i don't think i'll ever give up either pakman. i just get bored and/or frustrated dealing with southern inbred, backwards morons. did you happen to catch christiane amanpour and her 3 part series on religion this week on CNN. "Gods Warriors" it was called. it'll be on again this weekend. tim, you should watch it too.
For the fair video
How dare I.
I hope you do wind up with a successful site Tim(just give us some sort of idea what your goals are here or how you'll measure your success and I'm sure we will all try and help you towards those ends). If this wasn't fun, I wouldn't be here.
Oh ok got you. Let me have it.
