is homophobic speech immoral?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> there's nothing morally wrong with
> doing homosexual actions.
Do you think homophobic speech is:
sinful?
immoral?
evil?
Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
Stalin's mass-killings were:
sinful?
immoral?
evil?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
violence flows easily from atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler greatly admired his fellow atheism-adherent Nietzsche
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167247411.828687.13380%4073g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tactics
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
caging homophobic pastors
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
maliciously injure a moral relativist and watch a moral absolutist
protest
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180268873.538786.183740%40k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"Fascist!" he shrieked.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g2000cwx.googlegroups.com
factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terror
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
others are evil-- just look around-- yet [ex-atheist Joad]"I myself am
wicked"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1168014538.263619.275180%40q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com
Denis Loubet
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> There's no such thing as sin, and
>> there's nothing morally wrong with
>> doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
You forgot ignorant.
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
No.
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
bobandcarole
> http//www.io.com/~dloubet
You think we should co-exist with pedophiles too, don't you?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> There's no such thing as sin, and
> >> there's nothing morally wrong with
> >> doing homosexual actions.
> >
> > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > sinful?
> > immoral?
> > evil?
>
> You forgot ignorant.
Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
caging homophobic pastors
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
>
> No.
Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
mass-killer & atheist Stalin: "The Party...stands for science, while
religious prejudices run counter to science"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1183123155.932783.229860%40q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Stalin's Godless Five-Year Plan; anybody think Stalin a theist during
WWII?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175094642.518221.171080%40d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> > sinful?
> > immoral?
> > evil?
>
> Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
> co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
via abortion?
Tom S
There is no such thing as a pre-born human life.
Tom S.
Denis Loubet
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1184110250.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 6:12 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > someone:
>> >> There's no such thing as sin, and
>> >> there's nothing morally wrong with
>> >> doing homosexual actions.
>> >
>> > Do you think homophobic speech is:
>> > sinful?
>> > immoral?
>> > evil?
>>
>> You forgot ignorant.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> caging homophobic pastors
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>> > Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
>>
>> No.
>
> Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
No. Why should I?
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> mass-killer & atheist Stalin: "The Party...stands for science, while
> religious prejudices run counter to science"
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1183123155.932783.229860%40q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
> Stalin's Godless Five-Year Plan; anybody think Stalin a theist during
> WWII?
> http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175094642.518221.171080%40d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
I'm not in a position to judge.
>> > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
>> > Stalin's mass-killings were:
>> > sinful?
>> > immoral?
>> > evil?
>>
>> Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
>> co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
>
> What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
> via abortion?
What's your position on loading questions?
Smiler
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1184110250.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Another idiotic pre-dead pro-liar who eats pre-eaten shit (food) and wants
to control others' sex lives.
Smiler,
The godless one
David V.
> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral? evil?
It's moronic.
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
Nope. both were good little christians. Both we raised in a
christian home and attended christian schools.
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin."
I cannot sin. I am not a member of the christian religion and
'sin' is one of their concepts, not mine. Their rules have no
bearing on me. I have better morals than they do anyway.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
David V.
>
> You think we should co-exist with pedophiles too, don't you?
No. What two CONSENTING ADULTS do is none of your business.....
unless you're just pissed because you want to join them but no
self-respecting gay will have anything to do with a piece of shit
like you.
David V.
> On Jul 10, 6:12 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
No. Let them make fools of themselves. No one takes them
seriously anyway.
> Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
No.
> What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
> via abortion?
it's an issue you have no business commenting on since you are
not one that can get pregnant.
meg
> > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
>
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> violence flows easily from atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%...
>
> atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
>
> Hitler greatly admired his fellow atheism-adherent Nietzschehttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167247411.828687.13380%4...
>
> threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherentshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%...
>
> some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tacticshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%...
>
> caging homophobic pastorshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%...
>
> maliciously injure a moral relativist and watch a moral absolutist
>
> "Fascist!" he shrieked.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g20...
>
> factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terrorhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%4...
>
> Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%...
> Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%...
>
> others are evil-- just look around-- yet [ex-atheist Joad]"I myself am
I wouldn't call it immoral to talk about it, but that is the problem
we don't really talk about 'it.'
Personally I think it is sick to be sticking your wanger up your
buddies gazoo and I guess they take turns licking it off. Sounds
sick to me, seems to be a point 'they' won't argue. 'They just like
to call you homophobic & stuff like that because they have no answer.
Now, I know I'm going to get hit on this but this is my opinion and
the faggots really don't want anyone saying things like this, even if
it is true. Now, if they want to do this in the privacy of their own
home or whatever, I don't care. But if you march up my street
shouting how great it is to be a BFer, I'm going to say what I think
and it is to phucking bad if they don't like it.
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Jul-2007, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1184110250.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
> > via abortion?
>
> What's your position on loading questions?
Obviously about the same as it is towards hysterical lying.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
obssessed with not only homosexuality, but in hysterically insisting
he isn't one...
Susan
Michelle Malkin
news:1184125561.2...@p39g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> > There's no such thing as sin, and
>> > there's nothing morally wrong with
>> > doing homosexual actions.
>>
>> Do you think homophobic speech is:
>> sinful?
>> immoral?
>> evil?
Sin is a religious concept that atheists don't follow.
However, homophobic speech is both immoral and
evil. It hurts people who aren't hurting anyone due
to a couple paragraphs in a book of myths.
>>
>> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
>> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
>> Stalin's mass-killings were:
>> sinful?
>> immoral?
>> evil?
Stalin was an atheist, but he didn't do his killings
due to his atheism. He did them because he was a
power-hungry communist. Atheism is a lack of god
belief. A lack of something doesn't tell you to do
anything. You need some kind of philosophy or
political or religious belief to do that.
Hitler was a Catholic until the day he died and the
Church never excommunicated him. He may have
had other weird beliefs, but most religious people
have all kinds of weird beliefs besides their religion-
ghosts, monsters, astrology, reincarnation, etc.
Here is a quote from the monster himself about atheists:
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it
out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933And, here are some web
pages that totally disprove your unbacked assertion that Hitler was an
atheist:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
snip
Homophobic comments deleted.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
bobandcarole
<APPLAUSE>
No One
> Sin is a religious concept that atheists don't follow.
> However, homophobic speech is both immoral and
> evil. It hurts people who aren't hurting anyone due
> to a couple paragraphs in a book of myths.
Oh, I wouldn't blame the Bible for it - they ignore anything they want
from that section of it, particularly since the rich folks buying pork
futures would scream if the religious right wing suddenly decided that
eating pork was a sin. It's more a case of reading one's existing pre-
judices into the Bible, and then using the Bible as an excuse.
Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring. So,
having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's future
children away. It's obviously nonsense given what we know today
but back then, everyone was clueless about a lot of things we now
take for granted.
<snip>
> Homophobic comments deleted.
... sensible thing to do - these guys post such comments in
the hopes that they will be quoted ad infinitum.
meg
> For someone who calls it sick, I see someone who is unhealthily
> obssessed with not only homosexuality, but in hysterically insisting
> he isn't one...
>
> Susan
>
>
> > I wouldn't call it immoral to talk about it, but that is the problem
> > we don't really talk about 'it.'
> > Personally I think it is sick to be sticking your wanger up your
> > buddies gazoo and I guess they take turns licking it off. Sounds
> > sick to me, seems to be a point 'they' won't argue. 'They just like
> > to call you homophobic & stuff like that because they have no answer.
> > Now, I know I'm going to get hit on this but this is my opinion and
> > the faggots really don't want anyone saying things like this, even if
> > it is true. Now, if they want to do this in the privacy of their own
> > home or whatever, I don't care. But if you march up my street
> > shouting how great it is to be a BFer, I'm going to say what I think
> > and it is to phucking bad if they don't like it.
Oh yeah, there is that response too..
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
>
> argued by Bishop Sheen, yes.
Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
God...is...vileness...'contagion'"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175046925.369909.39320%40y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net
> But beating up
> logical fallacies might be emotionally appealing to
> some, but is wholly unpersuasive and intellectually
> dishonest.
>
> Your use of canned cut'n'pastes seems to say
> you're not really convinced either.
>
> Ditto Moa.
>
> Hitler was a Christian.
The adult Hitler was an atheist.
And a big liar.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler: "I am prepared to commit perjury half-a-dozen times a day!"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178732782.649275.210170%40q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> He avowed and advocated it
> in his writings and speeched. See _Mein Kampf__.
Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/ clergymen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Hitler: "the Pan-German movement and its struggle against Rome....had
not been led with the necessary cold ruthlessness"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178279262.539263.210710%40u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
1943 Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian
doctrine of redemption"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1939 Goebbels: "The Fuhrer is... completely anti-Christian."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145975885.494352.40950%40g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Or, here's a sample:
>
> "We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to
> fulfill as a national government the task which has
> been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our
> conscience, and our Volk.... This the national
> government will regard its first and foremost duty to
> restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It
> will preserve and defend the foundations upon
> which the power of our nation rests. It will take
> Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality,
> and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state,
> under its firm protection....May God Almighty take
> our work into his grace, give true form to our will,
> bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our
> Volk."
> --Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933
[Hitler]"It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective
morality"
Hitler engaged in homosexual activity.
Do you think Hitler accepted Judeo-Christian morality re: sexual
behavior?
Do you think Hitler accepted Judeo-Christian morality re: not-sexual
behavior toward human life?
Do you think Hitler rejected Judeo-Christian morality re: sexual
behavior?
Do you think Hitler rejected Judeo-Christian morality re: not-sexual
behavior toward human life?
> Do you have like that a source for Stalin or Mao
> either avowing and advocating atheism?
Does this work for Stalin?:
Stalin, Joseph, edited by M. R. Werner. 1940. _Stalin's Kampf:
Joseph Stalin's Credo, Written by Himself_ (NY: Howell, Soskin &
Company), 358pp. A section on 261-2, ultimately "From Stalin's
'Interview with the First American Labor Delegation.' Sept. 9, 1927.
_Leninism 1_, pp. 386-387":
WE CARRY ON and will continue to carry on
propaganda against religious prejudices. Our
legislation guarantees to citizens the right to adhere
to any religion. This is a matter for the conscience
of each individual. That is precisely why we carried
out the separation of the church from the state. But
in separating the church from the state and
proclaiming religious liberty we at the same time
guaranteed the right of every citizen to combat by
argument, by propaganda and agitation any and all
religion. The Party cannot be neutral towards
religion, and it does conduct anti-religious
propaganda against all and every religious prejudice
because it stands for science, while religious
prejudices run counter to science, because all
religion is something opposite to science. Cases
such as recently occurred in America in which
Darwinists were prosecuted in court cannot occur
here because the Party carries out a policy of the
general defense of science.
The Party cannot be neutral towards religious
prejudices and it will continue to carry on
propaganda against these prejudices because this
is one of the best means of undermining the
influence of the reactionary clergy who support the
exploiting classes and who preach submission to
these classes. The Party cannot be neutral towards
the bearers of religious prejudices, towards the
reactionary clergy who poison the minds of the
toiling masses.
Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes,
we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not
been completely liquidated. Anti-religious
propaganda is a means by which the complete
liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought
about. Cases occur when certain members of the
Party hamper the complete development of anti-
religious propaganda. If such members are
expelled it is a good thing because there is no room
for such "Communists" in the ranks of the Party.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
God...is...vileness...'contagion'"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175046925.369909.39320%40y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tactics
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terror
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
"Fascist!" he shrieked.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g2000cwx.googlegroups.com
sandblast away the Jew Moses and his 10 Commandments?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167317534.845204.208870%40a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Jude Alexander
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87644rd...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Sin is a religious concept that atheists don't follow.
>> However, homophobic speech is both immoral and
>> evil. It hurts people who aren't hurting anyone due
>> to a couple paragraphs in a book of myths.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't blame the Bible for it - they ignore anything they want
> from that section of it, particularly since the rich folks buying pork
> futures would scream if the religious right wing suddenly decided that
> eating pork was a sin. It's more a case of reading one's existing pre-
> judices into the Bible, and then using the Bible as an excuse.
>
> Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
> reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring. So,
> having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's future
> children away. It's obviously nonsense given what we know today
> but back then, everyone was clueless about a lot of things we now
> take for granted.
That is correct. Just plain ignorance of how exactly children are created.
They believed the womb to be like soil in which the man planted his "seed"
into it and it nutured the seed. However, we know now that the woman had
the seed and the man begins the cycle of life with either x or y sperm and
when combined with the female's x become either male or female. There are
still phrases like "Man's seed," "I'm having his baby." In fact, it seems
that property rights of men over women AND children was based on the
incorrect perception that men were the makers of children and women just
nutured them and therefore that was their only pupose in life.
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of history women have been defined by
what men wanted them to be or absolutely demanded that they be. What could
they do? Fight the men for equal rights, equal opportunity, equal choice of
destiny (as limited as that might be for all) and equal justice under law?
:) It was only when men in general got "christianized" or "spiritualized"
ironically that the occasional society allowed women equal anything.
What puzzled me is when children came out looking just like the mother, how
did they explain that? They weren't very observant, apparently.
.
bobandcarole
> "No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
He types a lot but says nothing.
pba...@worldonline.nl
> > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
>
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
Homophobic speech is immoral if it makes people hurt other people.
(not if it only says: "I am afraid of homosexuals")
Stalin was officially an atheist but Hitler claimed to be a Christian.
althought I wouldn't trust either of them on any statement they made.
There mass-killings were immoral and evil without the slightest doubt.
sinful and evil are mean about the same as immoral,
However regarding homofobic speech immoral is more to the point
As to the mass killings of Stalin immoral is appropriate,
but as to Hitler (who didn't do it for his personal sake)
evil might be a better discription.
Peter van Velzen
July 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> There's a very good reason Dawkins
> won't get anywhere near Dennis Prager.
> Prager doesn't debate at all, he just
> repeats his argument on varying spin
> cycles.
What's the "reason Dawkins won't get anywhere near" Catholic
biochemist Michael Behe?
A proponent of Intelligent Design, Behe wrote:
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313
Has Dawkins ever refuted any of the arguments put forward by Francis
Collins of the human genome project?
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Sam
Did you bother to read post?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> The Distance Between Church and State.
Do you think the USSR had much:
"Distance Between Church and State"?
"Liberty"?
mass-killer & atheist Stalin in 1927
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1183123155.932783.229860%40q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
WE CARRY ON and will continue to carry on
propaganda against religious prejudices. Our
legislation guarantees to citizens the right to adhere
to any religion. This is a matter for the conscience
of each individual. That is precisely why we carried
out the separation of the church from the state. But
in separating the church from the state and
proclaiming religious liberty we at the same time
guaranteed the right of every citizen to combat by
argument, by propaganda and agitation any and all
religion.
The atheist Stalin accepted a secular religion.
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> Al Qaeda is bad for all religion
Including the secular religion of Darwinianity?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Coulter takes on Darwinianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158329398.661032.206750%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> About that, Dennis Prager is correct.
>
> When a person believes in something without
> reasonable grounds to do so, that belief can be used to
> justify any sort of murderous behavior.
Are there any "reasonable grounds" for accepting atheism?
If so, what are those "reasonable grounds"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
> Such beliefs
> justified The Inquisiton for several hundred years just
> as they have been used to justify mass murder in the
> name of Communism, Naziism and Islam in our own
> time.
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler preached a secular religion w/ race as 1 of its gods
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178805476.971439.53680%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
time to get angry with Islam, faith-heads, & Abrahamic religions
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158341451.303277.255530%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> As for the tired old argument that morality is not
> possible without God: total nonsense.
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
the Nazi SS rejected Christianity
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175341802.025602.289620%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> To the degree
> that revelation can be twisted to whatever form you
> like, religion is the enemy of 'morality' which is
> whatever we poor humans decide it is for a particular
> time and place and nothing more.
Do you think slavery was immoral in 1850 in South Carolina?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"'morality' which is whatever we poor humans decide it is for a
particular time and place"
1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocide
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Reagan's allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132849740.419205.114320%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> It's a conceit of the Judeo-Christian 'faith community'
> that freedom and democracy are the result of religion's
> influence on us. History indicates that the opposite is
> true.
Do you think the rise of the secular religion of Communism in the USSR
aided "freedom and democracy"?
> How dare Prager speak of 'secular brainwashing' when
> a far worse sort of brainwashing of youth was done for
> centuries by his religious forebears.
Would you like to ban Judaism-adherents from teaching their children
Judaism?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Bill Allen
"Bob" isn't much for reading.
Or thinking.
Or rational dialogue.
Or living in civilized society, for that matter.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:30:50 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 6:12 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> >> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in messagenews:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> >> > sinful?
> >> > immoral?
> >> > evil?
>
> >> Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
> >> co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
>
> >What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
> >via abortion?
>
> There is no such thing as a pre-born human life.
After you were conceived, and before your mother gave birth to you,
were you:
alive?
life?
a cat life?
a dog life?
a human life?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:1184110250.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 10, 6:12 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> >> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> > someone:
> >> >> There's no such thing as sin, and
> >> >> there's nothing morally wrong with
> >> >> doing homosexual actions.
>
> >> > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> >> > sinful?
> >> > immoral?
> >> > evil?
>
> >> You forgot ignorant.
>
> > Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
>
> > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > caging homophobic pastors
>
> > threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
>
> >> > Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
>
> >> No.
>
> > Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
>
> No. Why should I?
Because Stalin was an atheist.
Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
God...is...vileness...'contagion'"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175046925.369909.39320%40y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net
> > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > mass-killer & atheist Stalin: "The Party...stands for science, while
> > religious prejudices run counter to science"
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1183123155.932783.229860%40q69g2...
>
> > Stalin's Godless Five-Year Plan; anybody think Stalin a theist during
> > WWII?
> >http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175094642.518221.171080%40d57...
>
> I'm not in a position to judge.
You're "not in a position to judge" what?
Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
> >> > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> >> > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> >> > sinful?
> >> > immoral?
> >> > evil?
>
> >> Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
> >> co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
>
> > What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
> > via abortion?
>
> What's your position on loading questions?
Unless used, all loaded questions should be unloaded prior to shutting
down the computer. It's a safety thing.
Andrealphus
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu at dfo...@gl.umbc.edu, typed this:
Nonsense.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Jul-2007, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Sin is a religious concept that atheists don't follow.
> > However, homophobic speech is both immoral and
> > evil. It hurts people who aren't hurting anyone due
> > to a couple paragraphs in a book of myths.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't blame the Bible for it - they ignore anything they want
> from that section of it, particularly since the rich folks buying pork
> futures would scream if the religious right wing suddenly decided that
> eating pork was a sin. It's more a case of reading one's existing pre-
> judices into the Bible, and then using the Bible as an excuse.
>
> Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
> reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring.
Uh, this is wrong.
You are making the mistake those you loathe do -
you are reading Torah in a fundamentalist manner.
Jews don;t do this - iot's impossible to follow Judaism while doing that.
> So,
> having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's future
> children away.
Now I see where you were going with this.
But, in this particular instance, how can it be otherwise?
Are you saying men can get pregnant?
(Also, the prohibiton was not against homosexuality, just ONE particular
act.
There are more injunctions against heterosexuals than homosexuals.)
> It's obviously nonsense given what we know today
Yeah? Men can get pregnant now?
Damn, wish I'd known before *I* had the kids....
> but back then, everyone was clueless about a lot of things we now
> take for granted.
Such as how babies are made?
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Jul-2007, "Jude Alexander" <cajun@the bayou.LA> wrote:
> > Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
> > reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> > woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> > like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring. So,
> > having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's future
> > children away. It's obviously nonsense given what we know today
> > but back then, everyone was clueless about a lot of things we now
> > take for granted.
>
> That is correct.
No, it isn;t, but I have already covered that in my reply to him.
> Just plain ignorance of how exactly children are
> created.
> They believed the womb to be like soil in which the man planted his "seed"
>
> into it and it nutured the seed.
Oh, grow up!
They used different language than we do, but they understood that
what came out of a man had to go into a woman in order for there
to be babies.
Are you gong to tell me that's wrong??
> However, we know now that the woman had
> the seed
So now I can call YOU ignorant, because women don;t have "seeds",
we have EGGS.
> and the man begins the cycle of life with either x or y sperm and
> when combined with the female's x become either male or female.
And the rabbis were giving advice on how to have boy vs girl babies
long before science could figure it out.
NONE of what you say proves that they *didn;t* know how babies
were made.
There are>
> still phrases like "Man's seed," "I'm having his baby." In fact, it
> seems
> that property rights of men over women AND children was based on the
> incorrect perception that men were the makers of children and women just
> nutured them and therefore that was their only pupose in life.
And this just goes to show you that you have not read Torah.
> Unfortunately, for the vast majority of history women have been defined by
>
> what men wanted them to be or absolutely demanded that they be.
Which is not religion's fault - it's society's fault.
> What
> could
> they do? Fight the men for equal rights, equal opportunity, equal choice
> of
> destiny (as limited as that might be for all) and equal justice under law?
>
> :) It was only when men in general got "christianized" or "spiritualized"
>
> ironically that the occasional society allowed women equal anything.
Wrong again.
Judaism allowed women more rights/freedom than Xianity ever did.
It was as society got *away* from XIanity that women started catching up.
We're still fighting Xianity about it, today.
>
> What puzzled me is when children came out looking just like the mother,
> how
> did they explain that?
Because they knew better than you think they did.
> They weren't very observant, apparently.
Neither are you.
Susan
>
> .
No One
> On 11-Jul-2007, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
> > reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> > woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> > like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring.
>
> Uh, this is wrong.
> You are making the mistake those you loathe do -
> you are reading Torah in a fundamentalist manner.
> Jews don;t do this - iot's impossible to follow Judaism while doing that.
Maybe I didn't write clearly enough, but you got the wrong idea.
Actually, it was based on something I saw recently on what looked like
a sensible web site, and it was discussing cultural beliefs 4000 years
ago, not beliefs held today. Far from criticizing Jews or Judaism, it
was criticizing fundamentalist Christians for failing to realize that
some customs and practices in the distant pass were motivated by
mistaken beliefs and by a situation quite different than what we live
in today. Here's a citation (it looks similar but I probably found it
somewhere else) -- <http://www.thisischurch.com/sermon/sexuality.htm>:
It is of course profoundly difficult to use passages from the
Old Testament to define our moral codes today. It might have
been right for them to allow selling of their daughters into
slavery, (Exodus 21:7) but we would hardly suggest the same
today. These laws were written by a Bedouin tribe who roamed
the desert struggling for survival 3,000 years ago. A
struggling tribe needed to increase the population to survive
against enemies. The primitive understanding was that the
female was a receptacle for the male seed, since it was male
semen which was the the source of life (Gen 38:1). Spilling
seed by any means other than procreation was obviously
wrong. Perhaps this explains why the Old Testament does not
mention female homosexual acts at all.
> > So, having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's
> > future children away.
>
> Now I see where you were going with this. But, in this particular
> instance, how can it be otherwise? Are you saying men can get
> pregnant?
No, that men can't get pregnant, which was the problem. See the
citation above. When you need to increase the population to
compete against neighboring hostile tribes, and when you have some
mistaken beliefs about biology, you can end up with taboos that
don't make sense at all today.
> > but back then, everyone was clueless about a lot of things we now
> > take for granted.
Yep - they didn't know that the female provides an egg.
David V.
> romat on July 10, 2007:
>
>>Al Qaeda is bad for all religion
>
>
> Including the secular religion of Darwinianity?
I never heard of that religion.
David V.
>>>Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
>>
>> According to the straw man misrepresentation first
>> argued by Bishop Sheen, yes.
>
>
> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
No. He attended christian schools.
No One
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >>>Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
> >>
> >> According to the straw man misrepresentation first
> >> argued by Bishop Sheen, yes.
> > Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>
> No. He attended christian schools.
... and outgrew the experience. :-)
He wasn't hostile to religion, but figured it would eventually
fade out: <http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html>. He wanted
complete separation of church and state.
Wexford
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am having my house built.
When to basement is half dug, is it a house?
When the foundation is laid, is it a house?
When the framing is done on one wall, is it a house?
When the roof is on, is it a house?
When is it a house?
Wexford
> > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
Without seeing or hearing the exact words, how can one answer this
question?
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
No, not necessarily. Hitler claimed a belief in God. In fact, he
claimed he was a Roman Catholic. Stalin was trained in an Orthodox
Seminary. Solzhenitsyn claims that at moments of high stress, the
language of the church would return to him. Supposedly, Lenin fell to
the floor and crossed himself when an artillery round landed near his
apartment during the October Revolution.
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
They were evil, immoral, and a sin against mankind. Tell us, if God is
all good and all powerful, why did He allow Stalin to do his mass
killings?
Now, a question for you. The King or Queen of England (depending on
who is soverign) is the head of the English Church and carries the
title Fidi Defensor, or "Defender of the Faith."
During the reign of Victoria and Albert, two unquestionably great and
very Christian monarchs, over 1,000,000 people died of starvation in
Ireland, and another 4,000,000 were forced to flee the island for the
Americas, Britain and Europe in order to avoid starvation. The total
population of the island at the beginning of the 19th Century was
8,000,000. At 1900, about 3,000,000. During the time of starvation,
large quantities of food were exported from Ireland, and a thriving
fishery existed off its waters. The Irish benefitted little from the
fish, since, for the most part, they weren't licensed to fish of their
own coast. The exportation of food occurred because, well, the English
lords who controlled the island needed their income. The Irish
couldn't afford beef and bread anyway.
Other events that occurred during the reign of these Christian
Monarchs included the Arrow War, a war declared on China in order to
keep Chinese ports open to the importation of Opium from British
plantations in India. The Chinese Government, seeing the horrible
effect opium use had on its population, had banned the importation and
sale of opium, so the British went to war to force them to allow it.
These two very Christian Monarchs, pillars of their faith and the
faith of Anglicans all over the world presided over the massive
starvation of the Irish people and used their arms to force the
Chinese to accept their opium.
Were these things immoral?
Were these things evil?
Were these things a sin?
How could the leader of a great Christian church, the Fidi Defensor,
allow these things?
If God is all good and God is all powerful, why did He allow these
things to happen?
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>
>>>>> Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
>>>>
>>>> According to the straw man misrepresentation first
>>>> argued by Bishop Sheen, yes.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>>
>> No. He attended christian schools.
>
>
> ... and outgrew the experience. :-)
No, he embraced it.
> He wasn't hostile to religion, but figured it would eventually
> fade out: He wanted complete separation of church and state.
Only because he wanted to have the people worship the state, and
him, instead of gods. He didn't want any competition.
Denis Loubet
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1184196076.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Was he? Did he say so?
> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
I don't know. The wikipedia article on Lenin does not say.
>> > Stalin's Godless Five-Year Plan; anybody think Stalin a theist during
>> > WWII?
Sure, why not? If religion was in the way of him amassing power, do you
think he would have hesitated to crush religion were he theist?
>> >http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175094642.518221.171080%40d57...
>>
>> I'm not in a position to judge.
>
> You're "not in a position to judge" what?
>
> Do you think homophobic speech ought be made illegal?
No. Why would you think otherwise?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 10, 9:18 pm, Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:30:50 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >On Jul 10, 6:12 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>> >> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in messagenews:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
>> >> > Stalin's mass-killings were:
>> >> > sinful?
>> >> > immoral?
>> >> > evil?
>>
>> >> Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
>> >> co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
>>
>> >What's your position on the killing of unwanted pre-born human life
>> >via abortion?
>>
>> There is no such thing as a pre-born human life.
>
>After you were conceived, and before your mother gave birth to you,
Logical falllacy: Assuming the conclusion. You aassume that there is
a person before conception.
Tell us: If he is one of a pair of identical twins, which twin are
you referring to?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> No One wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
> >>>> According to the straw man misrepresentation first argued by
> >>>> Bishop Sheen, yes.
> >>> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
> >> No. He attended christian schools.
> > ... and outgrew the experience. :-)
>
> No, he embraced it.
Not really, at least according to the URL (which you snipped).
Here it is again <http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html>:
Lenin, writing on Socialism and Religion, agreed with Marx
that "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of
spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their
human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of
man." As far as Lenin was concerned, it was quite
understandable why the oppressed turn to religion: "Impotence
of the exploited classes in their struggle against the
exploiters .. inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better
life after death"
Also ...
Like Engels and Marx, Lenin believed that religion was an
historical phenomenon, tied to the oppressive structures of
human history such as feudalism and capitalism. Just as they
believed that the state, as we know it today, would no longer
be needed and would "wither away" after the world had turned
completely to socialism, so too they believed that religion
would wither away when there was no longer a need for it. In
Lenin's words, "the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind
is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within
society."
>
> > He wasn't hostile to religion, but figured it would eventually
> > fade out: He wanted complete separation of church and state.
>
> Only because he wanted to have the people worship the state, and
> him, instead of gods. He didn't want any competition.
Nope, not that either. See above.
parsi...@gmail.com
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > romat on July 10, 2007:
>
> >>Al Qaeda is bad for all religion
>
> > Including the secular religion of Darwinianity?
>
> I never heard of that religion.
That's because it's American christians' newspeak for "fact".
Funny that only American christians debate evolution...
bobandcarole
> On Jul 10, 6:12?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>
> >news:1184101388....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> there's nothing morally wrong with
> > >> doing homosexual actions.
>
> > > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > You forgot ignorant.
>
>
> > No.
>
> > > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > Well, since I define moral as those behaviors that contribute to peaceful
> > co-existence, then I would have to label it immoral.
>
> > Denis Loubet
> > dlou...@io.com
> > http//www.io.com/~dloubet
>
You think we should co-exist with pedophiles too don't you?
After all, like the queers they clain to be "misunderstood"
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Jul-2007, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>
> > On 11-Jul-2007, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> writes:
> > >
>
> > > Also, 4000 years ago, Jews had some obviously wrong beliefs about
> > > reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> > > woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> > > like seed, which was "planted" in a woman to grow offspring.
> >
> > Uh, this is wrong.
> > You are making the mistake those you loathe do -
> > you are reading Torah in a fundamentalist manner.
> > Jews don;t do this - iot's impossible to follow Judaism while doing
> > that.
>
> Maybe I didn't write clearly enough, but you got the wrong idea.
> Actually, it was based on something I saw recently on what looked like
> a sensible web site, and it was discussing cultural beliefs 4000 years
> ago, not beliefs held today. Far from criticizing Jews or Judaism, it
> was criticizing fundamentalist Christians for failing to realize that
> some customs and practices in the distant pass were motivated by
> mistaken beliefs and by a situation quite different than what we live
> in today.
Then I totally beg your pardon.
Susan
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On 12 juil, 03:46, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > > romat on July 10, 2007:
>
> > >>Al Qaeda is bad for all religion
>
> > > Including the secular religion of Darwinianity?
>
> > I never heard of that religion.
>
> That's because it's American christians' newspeak for "fact".
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Coulter takes on Darwinianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158329398.661032.206750%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Darwinianity-popularizer Bolsche in _Mein Kampf_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143260442.793652.326240%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
> Funny that only American christians debate evolution...
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155797640.745661.216050%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Mada
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
All of the above -- IMHO.
bobandcarole
You need to find a man to shove his dick down your throat
to keep you from making a fool out of yourself, clueless bitch.
Speak when you're spoken to.
Mada
Take my advice I had offered you, earlier: Find a strong man to rim
your ass nicely, because then, and only then, will realize happiness.
Now you make go and fuck yourself...IBen.
Sam
Maybe it's you who's suffering from Tourette's, to which osprey --
pictured at: http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php -- often makes
references.
Robert
wrote:
Or, he recognized the Church was hopelessly corrupt and had to be
destroyed. Being anti church is not being atheist.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mada
Ewww. What an ugly little shit.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Jul-2007, Mada <senrab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bobandcarole wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 9:36?am, Mada <senrab.nag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > > > sinful?
> > > > immoral?
> > > > evil?
> > >
> > > All of the above -- IMHO.
> >
> > You need to find a man to shove his dick down your throat
> > to keep you from making a fool out of yourself, clueless bitch.
Translation: you obviously ticked off the impotent pig, and
this is his only response to facts he doesn't like.
> >
> > Speak when you're spoken to.
Translation: he is afraid of every word you utter.
>
> Take my advice I had offered you, earlier: Find a strong man to rim
> your ass nicely, because then, and only then, will realize happiness.
That does seem to be the crux of it.
Susan
bramble
> > > Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
>
> > According to the straw man misrepresentation first
> > argued by Bishop Sheen, yes.
>
> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>
> atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
> 1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
>
> Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Leninhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individ...
>
> > But beating up
> > logical fallacies might be emotionally appealing to
> > some, but is wholly unpersuasive and intellectually
> > dishonest.
>
> > Your use of canned cut'n'pastes seems to say
> > you're not really convinced either.
>
> > Ditto Moa.
>
> > Hitler was a Christian.
>
> The adult Hitler was an atheist.
> And a big liar.
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> a claim: Hitler was a Christianhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000c...
>
> Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
> Darwinist visionhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%...
>
> Hitler: "I am prepared to commit perjury half-a-dozen times a day!"http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178732782.649275.210170%40q75...
>
> > He avowed and advocated it
> > in his writings and speeched. See _Mein Kampf__.
>
> Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/ clergymenhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2...
>
> Hitler: "the Pan-German movement and its struggle against Rome....had
> not been led with the necessary cold ruthlessness"http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178279262.539263.210710%40u30...
>
> 1943 Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian
> doctrine of redemption"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%...
>
> 1939 Goebbels: "The Fuhrer is... completely anti-Christian."http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145975885.494352.40950%4...
>
>
>
> > Or, here's a sample:
>
> > "We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to
> > fulfill as a national government the task which has
> > been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our
> > conscience, and our Volk.... This the national
> > government will regard its first and foremost duty to
> > restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It
> > will preserve and defend the foundations upon
> > which the power of our nation rests. It will take
> > Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality,
> > and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state,
> > under its firm protection....May God Almighty take
> > our work into his grace, give true form to our will,
> > bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our
> > Volk."
> > --Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933
>
> [Hitler]"It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective
> morality"
>
> Hitler engaged in homosexual activity.
> Do you think Hitler accepted Judeo-Christian morality re: sexual
> behavior?
> Do you think Hitler accepted Judeo-Christian morality re: not-sexual
> behavior toward human life?
>
> Do you think Hitler rejected Judeo-Christian morality re: sexual
> behavior?
> Do you think Hitler rejected Judeo-Christian morality re: not-sexual
> behavior toward human life?
>
> > Do you have like that a source for Stalin or Mao
> > either avowing and advocating atheism?
>
> Does this work for Stalin?:
>
> Stalin, Joseph, edited by M. R. Werner. 1940. _Stalin's Kampf:
> Joseph Stalin's Credo, Written by Himself_ (NY: Howell, Soskin &
> Company), 358pp. A section on 261-2, ultimately "From Stalin's
> 'Interview with the First American Labor Delegation.' Sept. 9, 1927.
> _Leninism 1_, pp. 386-387":
> WE CARRY ON and will continue to carry on
> propaganda against religious prejudices. Our
> legislation guarantees to citizens the right to adhere
> to any religion. This is a matter for the conscience
> of each individual. That is precisely why we carried
> out the separation of the church from the state. But
> in separating the church from the state and
> proclaiming religious liberty we at the same time
> guaranteed the right of every citizen to combat by
>
> argument, by propaganda and agitation any and all
> religion. The Party cannot be neutral towards
> religion, and it does conduct anti-religious
> propaganda against all and every religious prejudice
> because it stands for science, while religious
> prejudices run counter to science, because all
> religion is something opposite to science. Cases
> such as recently occurred in America in which
> Darwinists were prosecuted in court cannot occur
> here because the Party carries out a policy of the
> general defense of science.
>
> The Party cannot be neutral towards religious
> prejudices and it will continue to carry on
> propaganda against these prejudices because this
> is one of the best means of undermining the
> influence of the reactionary clergy who support the
> exploiting classes and who preach submission to
> these classes. The Party cannot be neutral towards
> the bearers of religious prejudices, towards the
> reactionary clergy who poison the minds of the
> toiling masses.
>
> Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes,
> we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not
> been completely liquidated. Anti-religious
> propaganda is a means by which the complete
> liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought
> about. Cases occur when certain members of the
> Party hamper the complete development of anti-
> religious propaganda. If such members are
> expelled it is a good thing because there is no room
> for such "Communists" in the ranks of the Party.
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
> 1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
>
> Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%...
> Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%...
>
> some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tacticshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%...
>
> secular religiosityhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%4...
> Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptureshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%...
>
> 1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
> kind of secular religion"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%...
>
> factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terrorhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%4...
>
> "Fascist!" he shrieked.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g20...
>
> sandblast away the Jew Moses and his 10 Commandments?http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167317534.845204.208870%...
>
> Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
> millionhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%4...
ok, that you said
> The adult Hitler was an atheist. And a big liar.
This is the same case for any Pastor of average intelligence. They do
not believe a shit and are liars.
Bramble
bramble
> "No One" <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:87644rd...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>
>
>
> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >> Sin is a religious concept that atheists don't follow.
> >> However, homophobic speech is both immoral and
> >> evil. It hurts people who aren't hurting anyone due
> >> to a couple paragraphs in a book of myths.
>
> > Oh, I wouldn't blame the Bible for it - they ignore anything they want
> > from that section of it, particularly since the rich folks buying pork
> > futures would scream if the religious right wing suddenly decided that
> > eating pork was a sin. It's more a case of reading one's existing pre-
> > judices into the Bible, and then using the Bible as an excuse.
>
> > reproduction. From what I've read, they thought at the time that a
> > woman was merely a repository for a man's sperm, which was kind of
> > having sex with a guy would be kind of like throwing one's future
> > take for granted.
>
> They believed the womb to be like soil in which the man planted his "seed"
> the seed and the man begins the cycle of life with either x or y sperm and
> when combined with the female's x become either male or female. There are
> still phrases like "Man's seed," "I'm having his baby." In fact, it seems
> that property rights of men over women AND children was based on the
> incorrect perception that men were the makers of children and women just
> nutured them and therefore that was their only pupose in life.
> they do? Fight the men for equal rights, equal opportunity, equal choice of
> destiny (as limited as that might be for all) and equal justice under law?
> :) It was only when men in general got "christianized" or "spiritualized"
> ironically that the occasional society allowed women equal anything.
>
>
> .
There is more into that story. In those times, the rulers were
masters of the realm.
That means that they owned the children, male and female, together
with the herds and the sheep. All this together with the land was
their property.
So, if some men were copulating with a slave, or a young boy or
something, they were devaluating the need of a wife. So, by declaring
a death penalty for those that would not buy an expensive wife, they
were protecting their capital and their business. It cannot be more
clear.
Bramble
bramble
> romat on July 10, 2007:
>
> > Al Qaeda is bad for all religion
>
> Including the secular religion of Darwinianity?
>
> Coulter takes on Darwinianityhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158329398.661032.206750%...
>
> 1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
> kind of secular religion"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%...
>
>
> > When a person believes in something without
> > reasonable grounds to do so, that belief can be used to
> > justify any sort of murderous behavior.
>
> Are there any "reasonable grounds" for accepting atheism?
> If so, what are those "reasonable grounds"?
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individ...
>
> On the Origin of Lifehttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individ...
>
> > Such beliefs
> > justified The Inquisiton for several hundred years just
> > as they have been used to justify mass murder in the
> > name of Communism, Naziism and Islam in our own
> > time.
>
> Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
> millionhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%4...
>
>
> time to get angry with Islam, faith-heads, & Abrahamic religionshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158341451.303277.255530%...
>
> > As for the tired old argument that morality is not
> > possible without God: total nonsense.
>
> atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
> exist"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%...
>
> the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheismhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f...
>
> the Nazi SS rejected Christianityhttp://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175341802.025602.289620%40n59...
>
> > To the degree
> > that revelation can be twisted to whatever form you
> > like, religion is the enemy of 'morality' which is
> > whatever we poor humans decide it is for a particular
> > time and place and nothing more.
>
> Do you think slavery was immoral in 1850 in South Carolina?
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> "'morality' which is whatever we poor humans decide it is for a
> particular time and place"
>
> 1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocidehttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%...
> Reagan's allegation that there exists
> some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality."http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132849740.419205.114320%...
>
> > It's a conceit of the Judeo-Christian 'faith community'
> > that freedom and democracy are the result of religion's
> > influence on us. History indicates that the opposite is
> > true.
>
> Do you think the rise of the secular religion of Communism in the USSR
> aided "freedom and democracy"?
>
> > How dare Prager speak of 'secular brainwashing' when
> > a far worse sort of brainwashing of youth was done for
> > centuries by his religious forebears.
>
> Would you like to ban Judaism-adherents from teaching their children
> Judaism?
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 1997 Nicholas Humphreyhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40p...
> Andrew Brown's comments on Humphreyhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40p...
>
> Ronald Numbers on Dennetthttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea...
> Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cageshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40p...http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40po...
>
> threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherentshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%...
You put the question,
> Are there any "reasonable grounds" for accepting atheism?
> If so, what are those "reasonable grounds"?
Your question is misplaced. You have to ask,
<<Are there any "reasonable grounds" for accepting the existence of a
god?>>
<<If so, what are those "reasonable grounds"?>>
Bramble
bramble
Because there is not any?
Bramble
bramble
well, it seems clear to me, that religion is imposed over people. The
prove of this assertion is that religions are spread on this planet by
zones of political influence.
There is a synergy between the political power and economic power.
So, religion has been used to establish domination over the
population. In few countries has been religion put aside from the
political fights. One of these few places is Japan, where religion was
forced since long ago to be isolated from the military power strugles.
Bramble
Robert
When it's finished and you move in.
bobandcarole
> > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
>
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
>
> pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singerhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%...
>
> violence flows easily from atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%...
>
> atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
> exist"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%...
>
>
> threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherentshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%...
>
>
>
> maliciously injure a moral relativist and watch a moral absolutist
> protesthttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180268873.538786.183740%40k79g2...
>
> "Fascist!" he shrieked.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g20...
>
> factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terrorhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%4...
>
> Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%...
>
> wicked"http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1168014538.263619.275180%40q40g2000...
There is nothing moral about homosexuality
Robert
Actually it was after Christianity became weak that women were able
to wrest some freedom from men. Devout Christians are still fighting
futility to regain control over women. Thus you have the anti legal
abortion they call pro-life.
>> What puzzled me is when children came out looking just like the mother, how
>> did they explain that? They weren't very observant, apparently.
>>
>> .
>
>
>There is more into that story. In those times, the rulers were
>masters of the realm.
>That means that they owned the children, male and female, together
>with the herds and the sheep. All this together with the land was
>their property.
>So, if some men were copulating with a slave, or a young boy or
>something, they were devaluating the need of a wife. So, by declaring
>a death penalty for those that would not buy an expensive wife, they
>were protecting their capital and their business. It cannot be more
>clear.
>Bramble
--
Wexford
>
> - Show quoted text -
I want our Theist to answer the question. He won't, but I'd give a
sawbuck to see him try.
Wexford
> > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > doing homosexual actions.
>
> Do you think homophobic speech is:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
Don't know unless you specify exactly what is said and to whom.
>
> Stalin was an atheist. (Hitler too.)
> You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> Stalin's mass-killings were:
> sinful?
> immoral?
> evil?
Definitely all three.
If God is all powerful and all good, why did HE allow Stalin to do his
mass killings?
Pr0r3p
> On Jul 10, 11:46?pm, meg <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>
> > > > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > > > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > > > doing homosexual actions.
>
> > > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> > > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > > pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singerhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%...
>
> > > violence flows easily from atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%...
>
> > > atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
> > > exist"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%...
>
> > > Hitler greatly admired his fellow atheism-adherent Nietzschehttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167247411.828687.13380%4...
>
> > > threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherentshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%...
>
> > > some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tacticshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%...
>
> > > caging homophobic pastorshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%...
>
> > > maliciously injure a moral relativist and watch a moral absolutist
> > > protesthttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180268873.538786.183740%40k79g2...
>
> > > "Fascist!" he shrieked.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g20...
>
> > > factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terrorhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%4...
>
> > > Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%...
> > > Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%...
>
> > > others are evil-- just look around-- yet [ex-atheist Joad]"I myself am
> > > wicked"http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1168014538.263619.275180%40q40g2000...
>
> > we don't really talk about 'it.'
> > Personally I think it is sick to be sticking your wanger up your
> > buddies gazoo and I guess they take turns licking it off. Sounds
> > sick to me, seems to be a point 'they' won't argue. 'They just like
> > to call you homophobic & stuff like that because they have no answer.
> > Now, I know I'm going to get hit on this but this is my opinion and
> > the faggots really don't want anyone saying things like this, even if
> > it is true. Now, if they want to do this in the privacy of their own
> > home or whatever, I don't care. But if you march up my street
> > shouting how great it is to be a BFer, I'm going to say what I think
> > and it is to phucking bad if they don't like it.
>
> <APPLAUSE>
Are you still rating men's pictures as to how attractive they are,
FaggotBOB?
bobandcarole
I don't know..post yours, queer... :-)
Pr0r3p
Says FaggotBOB, the _supposed_ man, who rates mens pictures as to how
attractive he finds them.
David V.
It's embarrassing for our country. We are laughed at by most
advanced nations..... and for good reason too.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
David V.
>
> 1918 Henry Adams....
We've learned more since then.
> Coulter takes on Darwinianity
No such thing as "Darwinianity."
> Darwinianity-popularizer Bolsche in _Mein Kampf_
So, Hitler was a devout christian.
> Meaning of "evolution"?
It has no meaning.
> legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
Evolution is the change in species over time. That species have
changed over time is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Only those that
are complete morons.... or I should say "more offs" because their
brain is more off than on..... make the absurd claim that
"evolution is only a theory."
David V.
>>>
>>>
>>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you agree with me that Stalin was an atheist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to the straw man misrepresentation first argued by
>>>>>>Bishop Sheen, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>>>>
>>>>No. He attended christian schools.
>>>
>>>... and outgrew the experience. :-)
>>
>>No, he embraced it.
>
>
Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among their ranks.
David V.
The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say what they
want. They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
realize that most people just pity them. It's also painfully
obvious that they are actually homosexuals themselves.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
> >>>>
> >>>>No. He attended christian schools.
> >>>
> >>>... and outgrew the experience. :-)
> >>
> >>No, he embraced it.
> > Not really.....
>
> Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among their ranks.
So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks? Lenin
wasn't hostile towards religion, but rather viewed religion as a
reaction to oppression.
Here's what you snipped (you seem to lack the integrity to actually
address the point, if only by explaining what you think is wrong
with Lenin's quote in the URL I gave):
Pr0r3p
YOU don't know if YOU are still doing that?!? ROFL!!!! No wonder
you're considered a dumbshit.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>No One wrote:
>>
>>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. He attended christian schools.
>>>>>
>>>>>... and outgrew the experience. :-)
>>>>
>>>>No, he embraced it.
>>>
>>>Not really.....
>>
>>Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among their ranks.
>
>
> So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks?
They hate people like him. It's a religion of hate.
bramble
There is nothing moral in the OT
Bramble
bramble
>
> >>>>>>>Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
>
> >>>>>>No. He attended christian schools.
>
> >>>>>... and outgrew the experience. :-)
>
> >>>>No, he embraced it.
>
> >>>Not really.....
>
> >>Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among their ranks.
>
> > So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks?
>
> They hate people like him. It's a religion of hate.
> --
> Dave
>
> "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
Most religions are based on sowing hate among their sheep-followers.
So most Xian religions are based on hatemongering. They make their
fidels to view themselves as righteous by considering the scum of the
earth are the homosexuals.
Bramble
Mada
David V. wrote:
> Mada wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Do you think homophobic speech is:
> >>sinful?
> >>immoral?
> >>evil?
> >
> > All of the above -- IMHO.
>
> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say what they
> want.
Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities. If you call
an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say it in a work place or
at school and you still get into trouble. So why should this boy, who
verbally attacked homosexuals for no good reason, get away with it --
where's his right to discriminate against anybody codified?
> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
> realize that most people just pity them. It's also painfully
> obvious that they are actually homosexuals themselves.
That's sometimes the case.
Mada
> On Jul 10, 11:46?pm, meg <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > > > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > > > doing homosexual actions.
>
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > > You claim that "there's no such thing as sin." Do you think that
> > > Stalin's mass-killings were:
> > > sinful?
> > > immoral?
> > > evil?
>
> > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /
> > > pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singerhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%...
>
> > > violence flows easily from atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%...
>
> > > atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
> > > exist"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%...
>
> > > Hitler greatly admired his fellow atheism-adherent Nietzschehttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167247411.828687.13380%4...
>
> > > threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherentshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%...
>
> > > some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tacticshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%...
>
> > > caging homophobic pastorshttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%...
>
> > > maliciously injure a moral relativist and watch a moral absolutist
> > > protesthttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180268873.538786.183740%40k79g2...
>
> > > "Fascist!" he shrieked.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1167413690.874628.159730%4048g20...
>
> > > factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terrorhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%4...
>
> > > Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%...
> > > Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheismhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%...
>
> > > others are evil-- just look around-- yet [ex-atheist Joad]"I myself am
> > > wicked"http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1168014538.263619.275180%40q40g2000...
>
> > we don't really talk about 'it.'
> > Personally I think it is sick to be sticking your wanger up your
> > buddies gazoo and I guess they take turns licking it off. Sounds
> > sick to me, seems to be a point 'they' won't argue. 'They just like
> > to call you homophobic & stuff like that because they have no answer.
> > Now, I know I'm going to get hit on this but this is my opinion and
> > the faggots really don't want anyone saying things like this, even if
> > it is true. Now, if they want to do this in the privacy of their own
> > home or whatever, I don't care. But if you march up my street
> > shouting how great it is to be a BFer, I'm going to say what I think
> > and it is to phucking bad if they don't like it.
>
> <APPLAUSE>
For what?
David V.
>
> Most religions are based on sowing hate among their
> sheep-followers. So most Xian religions are based on
> hatemongering. They make their fidels to view themselves as
> righteous by considering the scum of the earth are the
> homosexuals.
It's one of their ways of controlling their flock.
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Mada wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral?
>>>> evil?
>>>
>>> All of the above -- IMHO.
>>
>> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say what
>> they want.
>
> Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities.
Of course. I did the responsible thing and spent 10 years with
the USNavy to protect that piece of shit's right to say what he
wants. No where in any law does it say I have to like what the
freak has to say, but that the government cannot stop him from
saying it.
> If you call an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say it
> in a work place or at school and you still get into trouble.
It's the venue, not the speech.
> So why should this boy, who verbally attacked homosexuals for
> no good reason, get away with it -- where's his right to
> discriminate against anybody codified?
In the US Constitution. I suggest you read it.
>> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
>> realize that most people just pity them. It's also painfully
>> obvious that they are actually homosexuals themselves.
>
> That's sometimes the case.
With the way this guy talks, there is no doubt he is a homosexual.
Somebody is Someone
wrote:
>Mada wrote:
>> David V. wrote:
>>
>>> Mada wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral?
>>>>> evil?
>>>>
>>>> All of the above -- IMHO.
>>>
>>> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say what
>>> they want.
>>
>> Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities.
>
>Of course. I did the responsible thing and spent 10 years with
>the USNavy to protect that piece of shit's right to say what he
>wants. No where in any law does it say I have to like what the
>freak has to say, but that the government cannot stop him from
>saying it.
What the freak *said* is a problem.
>> If you call an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say it
>> in a work place or at school and you still get into trouble.
>
>It's the venue, not the speech.
It's both.
>> So why should this boy, who verbally attacked homosexuals for
>> no good reason, get away with it -- where's his right to
>> discriminate against anybody codified?
>
>In the US Constitution. I suggest you read it.
I have.
>>> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
>>> realize that most people just pity them. It's also painfully
>>> obvious that they are actually homosexuals themselves.
>>
>> That's sometimes the case.
>
>With the way this guy talks, there is no doubt he is a homosexual.
It doesn't matter.
Mada
David V. wrote:
> Mada wrote:
> > David V. wrote:
> >
> >> Mada wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral?
> >>>> evil?
> >>>
> >>> All of the above -- IMHO.
> >>
> >> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say what
> >> they want.
> >
> > Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities.
>
> Of course. I did the responsible thing and spent 10 years with
> the USNavy to protect that piece of shit's right to say what he
> wants.
All of us have paid a price so this asshole can mindlessly walk all
along in life without a worry. However, that doesn't mean he has a
right to shit on anybody else.
> No where in any law does it say I have to like what the
> freak has to say, but that the government cannot stop him from
> saying it.
Nobody can stop him, per se; but there are consequences for violating
somebody else's civil rights.
> > If you call an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say it
> > in a work place or at school and you still get into trouble.
>
> It's the venue, not the speech.
He violated somebody else's civil rights; so what he said and where he
said it do count.
>
> > So why should this boy, who verbally attacked homosexuals for
> > no good reason, get away with it -- where's his right to
> > discriminate against anybody codified?
>
> In the US Constitution. I suggest you read it.
I've read it. Thoroughly.
> >> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
> >> realize that most people just pity them. It's also painfully
> >> obvious that they are actually homosexuals themselves.
> >
> > That's sometimes the case.
>
> With the way this guy talks, there is no doubt he is a homosexual.
At the end of the day, his alleged homosexuality and anxiety aren't
the issues; it's his blatant disrespect for others and his trampling
on their civil rights that are.
Mada
David V. wrote:
> bramble wrote:
> >
> > Most religions are based on sowing hate among their
> > sheep-followers. So most Xian religions are based on
> > hatemongering. They make their fidels to view themselves as
> > righteous by considering the scum of the earth are the
> > homosexuals.
>
> It's one of their ways of controlling their flock.
Indeed.
Mada
> On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> > > There's no such thing as sin, and
> > > there's nothing morally wrong with
> > > doing homosexual actions.
>
> > sinful?
> > immoral?
> > evil?
>
If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite of an arse
whore of some man, than why would you verbally attack them?
No One
> No One wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>No One wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Do you agree with me that Lenin was an atheist?
> >>>>>>No. He attended christian schools.
> >>>>>... and outgrew the experience. :-)
> >>>>No, he embraced it.
> >>>Not really.....
> >>
> >>Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among their ranks.
> > So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks?
>
> They hate people like him. It's a religion of hate.
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason for your inability to make
any statement germane to a discussion? Your original claim was that
Lenin "embraced" Christianity. He was actually more or less neutral
about religion in general, as long as the church didn't try to
interfere with the government. Here's the text that you were replying
to, and your refusal to talk about what is being discussed is, as they
say, noted:
:: So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks? Lenin
:: wasn't hostile towards religion, but rather viewed religion as a
:: reaction to oppression.
::
:: Here's what you snipped (you seem to lack the integrity to actually
:: address the point, if only by explaining what you think is wrong
:: with Lenin's quote in the URL I gave):
::
:: Not really, at least according to the URL (which you snipped).
:: Here it is again <http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html>:
::
:: Lenin, writing on Socialism and Religion, agreed with Marx
:: that "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort
:: of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown
:: their human image, their demand for a life more or less
:: worthy of man." A s far as Lenin was concerned, it was
fla...@verizon.net
For "meg" making "bob&carole" NOT the only anal orifice on Usenet.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Jul-2007, Mada <senrab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can tell why by the way he obsesses about what they do: he's terrified
that he's gay.
Susan
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Mada wrote:
>>
>>> David V. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mada wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral?
>>>>>> evil?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the above -- IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say
>>>> what they want.
>>>
>>> Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities.
>>
>> Of course. I did the responsible thing and spent 10 years
>> with the USNavy to protect that piece of shit's right to say
>> what he wants.
>
> All of us have paid a price so this asshole can mindlessly
> walk all along in life without a worry. However, that doesn't
> mean he has a right to shit on anybody else.
Except that he is not shitting on anyone else. He is exercising
his right to free speech. Those that try to shut him up are the
ones being unAmerican.
>> No where in any law does it say I have to like what the
>> freak has to say, but that the government cannot stop him
>> from saying it.
>
> Nobody can stop him, per se; but there are consequences for
> violating somebody else's civil rights.
Someone saying words cannot violate anyone's "civil rights."
Actions can, but not words.
>>> If you call an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say
>>> it in a work place or at school and you still get into
>>> trouble.
>>
>> It's the venue, not the speech.
>
> He violated somebody else's civil rights; so what he said and
> where he said it do count.
It is you that are the one trying to violate someone's rights.
His words have power only if you give them power.
>>> So why should this boy, who verbally attacked homosexuals
>>> for no good reason, get away with it -- where's his right
>>> to discriminate against anybody codified?
>>
>> In the US Constitution. I suggest you read it.
>
> I've read it. Thoroughly.
Then it seems you have forgotten it.
>>>> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
>>>> realize that most people just pity them. It's also
>>>> painfully obvious that they are actually homosexuals
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> That's sometimes the case.
>>
>> With the way this guy talks, there is no doubt he is a
>> homosexual.
>
> At the end of the day, his alleged homosexuality and anxiety
> aren't the issues; it's his blatant disrespect for others and
> his trampling on their civil rights that are.
I do not see where the piece of shit in question has violated
anyone's rights.
David V.
>
> If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite of an
> arse whore of some man, than why would you verbally attack
> them?
It's part of his mental illness. The guy is sick and any attempt
at a rational conversation with him would be a complete waste of
time - and feed into his illness. Half of what he is trying to do
is goad you into an emotional response.... and you're playing
right into his hands.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> No One wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> No One wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you agree with me that Lenin was an
>>>>>>>>> atheist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. He attended christian schools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... and outgrew the experience. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he embraced it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really.....
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.... christians just hate to have him among
>>>> their ranks.
>>>
>>> So what if Christians hate to have him among their ranks?
>>
>> They hate people like him. It's a religion of hate.
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there a reason for your inability to
> make any statement germane to a discussion?
I'm not stupid enough to try and debate anything with someone
like you. Stalin, Hitler, and their ilk are your fixation, not mine.
No One
Liar - you were the one who posted a statement about Lenin (not
Stalin or Hilter) and I merely provided a citation to a web site
that quoted Lenin as being neutral regarding religion, as he viewed
religion as more or less a symptom of "capitalist repression" and
verious other social ills, real or imagined. This is not a
"fixation" but rather an insistence that you address the topic being
discussed, rather than snip nearly all of it to pretend that it
was never there.
Your reaction, however, tells us a lot about your character. You
could have just said that you weren't aware of what Lenin had
actually said (and nothing I quoted suggested he was a nice guy or
anything, just that he wasn't religious, but not particularly hostile
towards religion either. And in case you don't know, historians
have seriously studied all three characters, mostly to understand what
went wrong and how to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
In any case, here it is again <http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html>:
Lenin, writing on Socialism and Religion, agreed with Marx
that "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of
spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their
human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of
man." As far as Lenin was concerned, it was quite
Stan Goodspeed
wrote:
>Mada wrote:
>> David V. wrote:
>>
>>> Mada wrote:
>>>
>>>> David V. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mada wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think homophobic speech is: sinful? immoral?
>>>>>>> evil?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the above -- IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, in the USA, they have the right to say
>>>>> what they want.
>>>>
>>>> Sure -- but with that right, there are responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Of course. I did the responsible thing and spent 10 years
>>> with the USNavy to protect that piece of shit's right to say
>>> what he wants.
>>
>> All of us have paid a price so this asshole can mindlessly
>> walk all along in life without a worry. However, that doesn't
>> mean he has a right to shit on anybody else.
>
>Except that he is not shitting on anyone else.
He has.
> He is exercising
>his right to free speech.
While trampling on somebody else's rights.
> Those that try to shut him up are the
>ones being unAmerican.
What he did was UNAmerican.
>>> No where in any law does it say I have to like what the
>>> freak has to say, but that the government cannot stop him
>>> from saying it.
>>
>> Nobody can stop him, per se; but there are consequences for
>> violating somebody else's civil rights.
>
>Someone saying words cannot violate anyone's "civil rights."
>Actions can, but not words.
He didn't 'say' anything.
What he DID was stupid.
>>>> If you call an asshole an asshole, it may be true, but say
>>>> it in a work place or at school and you still get into
>>>> trouble.
>>>
>>> It's the venue, not the speech.
>>
>> He violated somebody else's civil rights; so what he said and
>> where he said it do count.
>
>It is you that are the one trying to violate someone's rights.
>His words have power only if you give them power.
>
>>>> So why should this boy, who verbally attacked homosexuals
>>>> for no good reason, get away with it -- where's his right
>>>> to discriminate against anybody codified?
>>>
>>> In the US Constitution. I suggest you read it.
>>
>> I've read it. Thoroughly.
>
>Then it seems you have forgotten it.
Starting fights with Mada isn't going to help you.
>
>>>>> They think it makes them look powerful, but they fail to
>>>>> realize that most people just pity them. It's also
>>>>> painfully obvious that they are actually homosexuals
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>> That's sometimes the case.
>>>
>>> With the way this guy talks, there is no doubt he is a
>>> homosexual.
>>
>> At the end of the day, his alleged homosexuality and anxiety
>> aren't the issues; it's his blatant disrespect for others and
>> his trampling on their civil rights that are.
>
>I do not see where the piece of shit in question has violated
>anyone's rights.
That's the problem.
Stan Goodspeed
wrote:
>Mada wrote:
>>
>> If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite of an
>> arse whore of some man, than why would you verbally attack
>> them?
>
>It's part of his mental illness.
Please don't go there. You insult the truly ill by excusing his
irresponsibility.
> The guy is sick and any attempt
>at a rational conversation with him would be a complete waste of
>time - and feed into his illness. Half of what he is trying to do
>is goad you into an emotional response.... and you're playing
>right into his hands.
She's not playing into it. She went as far as recognizing that people
who are responsible for his upbringing fostered his stupidity.
Mada
> Mada wrote:
>
> > If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite of an
> > arse whore of some man, than why would you verbally attack
> > them?
>
> It's part of his mental illness.
No -- it's part immaturity and part lack of responsible influences in
his life. Your excusing his behavior on the premise of illness is a
convenient excuse for his behavior, and it's a cheap shot against the
truly mentally ill. If you want to do this young man any favors, don't
feed into his behavior.
>The guy is sick and any attempt
> at a rational conversation with him would be a complete waste of
> time -
Don't write him off just yet.
>and feed into his illness. Half of what he is trying to do
> is goad you into an emotional response....
If that's the case then he's completely aware of what he's doing, and
therefore, not sick.
>and you're playing
> right into his hands.
I'm not the pone making excuses for him.
David V.
>
> Liar
Whatever.
David V.
> On Jul 13, 7:21 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mada wrote:
>>
>>> If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite
>>> of an arse whore of some man, than why would you verbally
>>> attack them?
>>
>> It's part of his mental illness.
>
> No -- it's part immaturity and part lack of responsible
> influences in his life.
Not knowing his history, I am not going to pretend to be
omniscient. He does need professional counseling.
> Your excusing his behavior....
I am doing no such thing.
>> The guy is sick and any attempt at a rational conversation
>> with him would be a complete waste of time -
>
> Don't write him off just yet.
Why not? I see no reason to even try to hold an intelligent, or
mature, conversation with him.
>> and feed into his illness. Half of what he is trying to do
>> is goad you into an emotional response....
>
> If that's the case then he's completely aware of what he's
> doing, and therefore, not sick.
Uh....it don't work that way.
>> and you're playing right into his hands.
>
> I'm not the pone making excuses for him.
I haven't seen anyone here that is.
Robert
I agree he has violated no ones rights, nor has his rights been
violated. But a obnoxious piece of shit can expect to be subject to
retaliation. The school took him out of harms way.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
David V.
Just give him the respect he has earned...... none.
No One
> No One wrote:
> >
> > Liar
>
> Whatever.
"Whatever" is what you snipped (now you can't even quote a full sentence
and still 'save face'):
Mada
David V. wrote:
> Mada wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:21 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mada wrote:
> >>
> >>> If they're not calling you a piece of heterosexual shite
> >>> of an arse whore of some man, than why would you verbally
> >>> attack them?
> >>
> >> It's part of his mental illness.
> >
> > No -- it's part immaturity and part lack of responsible
> > influences in his life.
>
> Not knowing his history, I am not going to pretend to be
> omniscient. He does need professional counseling.
>
> > Your excusing his behavior....
>
> I am doing no such thing.
Your actions speak other wise.
> >> The guy is sick and any attempt at a rational conversation
> >> with him would be a complete waste of time -
> >
> > Don't write him off just yet.
>
> Why not? I see no reason to even try to hold an intelligent, or
> mature, conversation with him.
Maybe he'll grow up and realize what he's done is wrong.
> >> and feed into his illness. Half of what he is trying to do
> >> is goad you into an emotional response....
> >
> > If that's the case then he's completely aware of what he's
> > doing, and therefore, not sick.
>
> Uh....it don't work that way.
In his case, it does.
> >> and you're playing right into his hands.
> >
> > I'm not the pone making excuses for him.
>
> I haven't seen anyone here that is.
For the exception of you, sir.
Mada
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> On 12-Jul-2007, Mada <senrab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > bobandcarole wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 9:36?am, Mada <senrab.nag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > > > > sinful?
> > > > > immoral?
> > > > > evil?
> > > >
> > > > All of the above -- IMHO.
> > >
> > > to keep you from making a fool out of yourself, clueless bitch.
>
> Translation: you obviously ticked off the impotent pig, and
> this is his only response to facts he doesn't like.
Indeed.
> > >
> > > Speak when you're spoken to.
>
> Translation: he is afraid of every word you utter.
It surely appears that way.
>
> >
> > Take my advice I had offered you, earlier: Find a strong man to rim
> > your ass nicely, because then, and only then, will realize happiness.
>
> That does seem to be the crux of it.
He really is terrified of his homosexuality. Like there's something
wrong with it.
> Susan
>
> > Now you make go and fuck yourself...IBen.
bobandcarole
>
> > > bobandcarole wrote:
> > > > On Jul 12, 9:36?am, Mada <senrab.nag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 10, 4:03 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you think homophobic speech is:
> > > > > > sinful?
> > > > > > immoral?
> > > > > > evil?
>
> > > > > All of the above -- IMHO.
>
> > > > You need to find a man to shove his dick down your throat
> > > > to keep you from making a fool out of yourself, clueless bitch.
>
> > Translation: you obviously ticked off the impotent pig, and
> > this is his only response to facts he doesn't like.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>
> > > > Speak when you're spoken to.
>
> > Translation: he is afraid of every word you utter.
>
> It surely appears that way.
>
>
>
> > > Take my advice I had offered you, earlier: Find a strong man to rim
> > > your ass nicely, because then, and only then, will realize happiness.
>
> > That does seem to be the crux of it.
>
> He really is terrified of his homosexuality. Like there's something
> wrong with it.
LOL are you queer or are you a faghag?