|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 2:27:03 GMT -5
This came out of Reply 18
My argumentation was clear. 1) People believe that God exists. 2) Because people believe that God exists He must exist. What might not have been clear in the initial post was the implication 3) Because people use their understanding of/relationship with God in their decision making they have essentially gave God a vehicle to existence. Again, I apologize for not spelling it out as I would to a three year old. My next post however clears up any misunderstanding that might have been had at the time...
Now, dear sweet little techie wants to accuse of me of being a liar for clarifying my position. Fine. It doesn't mean that the position I have advocated in detail is wrong. Perhaps he should look up the definition of liar.
In the meantime, part of debating is clarifying points previously made. You understood my words to mean one thing, my intention was for another. By the second post that had been cleared up. Hardly makes me a liar. Good work though. Nice effort. Want to avoid the attacks on character and get to the issues? We can debate with out insults I promise... Well I can, haven't seen you hit that bar yet.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 15, 2007 3:24:45 GMT -5
"Daddy" won't listen to that tripe. It won't do techno any good to cry to daddy, of this I am sure. Anyway, I'm not about to try and get sucked into all of this (gotta play some Team Fortress 2), but in grazing the posts I saw that techno pointed out how "not even the Bible tries to support the idea that God is never wrong". I'm just here to call you out on that with fact. Fact: You don't know what you are talking about. Find me one scripture that even remotely alludes to that in support of your claim. Don't bother, it's not there.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 3:30:15 GMT -5
You tell 'em Debateman! EDIT: That was meant to before HackFest's post.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 8:00:31 GMT -5
People are going to discriminate no matter what. I'm probably REALLY going to regret this sometime, but maybe not. This has been a progression of thought that has been happening over a long period of time, and it didn't take much to make me go towards this viewpoint. Maybe it won't take much for me to go back to my old viewpoint, but I doubt it. I really doubt it now. Yes, I'm quoting myself. I just watched the movie American History X. That movie was really intense. (I'll post something about it soon in the movie area) I feel more strongly about my stance (that I quoted above) now than ever. Disallowing people to be themselves creates hatred. It's really that simple. Allow people to be themselves and DISALLOW violence--I really believe it's the closest we could get to hunky-dory as possible. I do not believe in affirmative action, and I haven't for a long time and have been vocal about it. It really does not work in its current form. It just creates hatred.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 12:14:40 GMT -5
I see Kizzume is too busy patting his moderators on the back to do his job and prevent outright lies. Thanks. Bye. I won't tolerate that.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 12:21:55 GMT -5
I think that the Nin quote is fitting...
"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are..."
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 15, 2007 12:42:43 GMT -5
I think that the Nin quote is fitting... "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are..." When you say NIN, do you mean Nine Inch Nails? I am surprised I am unaware of this quote...I have every halo........which song is that on?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 13:44:11 GMT -5
I see Kizzume is too busy patting his moderators on the back to do his job and prevent outright lies. Thanks. Bye. I won't tolerate that. No Technocrat, I'm not. My stance HAS changed. Maybe you don't bother reading my posts. This has been a process for many years that I have been struggling with, and I have finally chosen a side instead of riding the fence like I have for all these years. Maybe you will recall the messages I've posted where I've said there are ONLY TWO ways that can make things completely equal: Either people can't discriminate against anything EXCEPT for someone's job performance OR People can discriminate agaginst anything they damn well please. I've recently come to the full realization that the first example is not only impossible, but it causes hatred.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 13:45:19 GMT -5
You can call those things lies if you want, but for me they are truths.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 13:55:03 GMT -5
I think that the Nin quote is fitting... "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are..." When you say NIN, do you mean Nine Inch Nails? I am surprised I am unaware of this quote...I have every halo........which song is that on? Nin, as in Anais Nin. The intellectual writer/philosopher.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 14:11:42 GMT -5
There is another issue to be dealt with here. There is an insinuation in Tech's post that Kizz and I are in some sort of conspiracy against him or at the very least Kizz is providing preferential treatment to me.
First of all, that is an accusation of a man who has lost an argument and out of spite wants to create problems.
Second, there is no evidence to support this slanderous assumption.
Third, through the scope of the Nin quote, we can see that Tech is using his personal feelings/ideas to make this judgment statement which indicates one of two things. A) Tech would blindly back a moderator if he thought the moderator was correct or B) Tech would lie about a situation to make himself appear more noble or professional. Perhaps some self examination would be fitting instead of projecting these issues onto others.
Another thing, I'm only a moderator for the Gay and Lesbian issues area. This is in Deep Cleansing, two diffreent areas. I have zero authority here other than as a poster and what my skill/ intellect will allow.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 15, 2007 15:32:08 GMT -5
I see Kizzume is too busy patting his moderators on the back to do his job and prevent outright lies. Thanks. Bye. I won't tolerate that. I think we all know what makes this statement inaccurate. To say that Kizzume is too busy patting his moderators on the back is to imply that the people who have moderating powers have been moderating your statements; they haven't. Nobody aside from Kizzume has done any moderating at all so far. Just because certain individuals have that ability doesn't make them only moderators-- they are contributors to discussion, not unlike you. And there is nothing unfair about various contributors agreeing with each other on a topic. To refer to board members as "moderators" when they are simply contributing to discussion, and not moderating, is a cheap way to disguise what you are saying and make it look like something it isn't. Nobody has bullied you. And as far as I can tell nobody else has been doing any name-calling. You aren't a victim, Technocrat. Nobody is using moderating powers as leverage in discussion, and to pretend like they are proves how desperate your position is to gain some points. There is another issue to be dealt with here. There is an insinuation in Tech's post that Kizz and I are in some sort of conspiracy against him or at the very least Kizz is providing preferential treatment to me. First of all, that is an accusation of a man who has lost an argument and out of spite wants to create problems. Second, there is no evidence to support this slanderous assumption. Third, through the scope of the Nin quote, we can see that Tech is using his personal feelings/ideas to make this judgment statement which indicates one of two things. A) Tech would blindly back a moderator if he thought the moderator was correct or B) Tech would lie about a situation to make himself appear more noble or professional. Perhaps some self examination would be fitting instead of projecting these issues onto others. Another thing, I'm only a moderator for the Gay and Lesbian issues area. This is in Deep Cleansing, two diffreent areas. I have zero authority here other than as a poster and what my skill/ intellect will allow. Sorry Debateman, I didn't see your post before making mine. But I can see that we are pretty much thinking the same thing here in terms of what we've seen. This just further confirms for me a lot of things, but the biggest it confirms is that there is a lot of slander which is occurring through Technocrat, and it isn't coming from any other board contributors as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 23, 2007 3:39:40 GMT -5
I think it is extremely evident that frustration and embarrassment have caused the accusations to fly. If homeboy wants to threaten leaving, I say: Be Gone! If we as a community let even one of us start playing mind games and trying to manipulate other members to where anything is changed, especially change based on threats of leaving, then the purity of the site is lost forever, and that's a hard thing to find. I don't want to see this forum bend to that.
*EDIT LOL, I just realized that that post wasn't the last from Technocrat, so it was just an empty threat. Well that's good, I like entertainment. Keep it alive Brainy!
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 23, 2007 11:33:16 GMT -5
So, Hackfest--what is it that this antidiscrimination policy does specifically that really gets your goat? Does it really have an effect on churches themselves, or is it just something that relates to stores that sell things like Christian literature? If we're talking about stores--unless it's something that would disallow the employer from using knowledge of the Bible as a factor in hiring someone, what is the problem you have with this--OR--is it just the issue with people not being able to discriminate in general?
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 23, 2007 17:06:46 GMT -5
I don't see how it encroaches on the physical "Church". I think that's 10-20 years away still. The Act is an absolute breach of the 1st Amendment. The already accepted religion of Christianity would be told that they have to allow what they believe is wrong according to their beliefs. This is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Christianity was around when the 1st amendment was written, so it goes without saying that it was at least considered at the time of the writing. It's not even like Christianity is Matrixism (yes, based on the movie) and is trying to use the 1st amendment (which Matrixism certainly has the right to) to try to bring new things under protection. Someone in this thread already covered the fact that someone would certainly not be the most qualified person for the job based on being gay. This is true, but how long until someone uses this Act to try and force a less qualified person to get the job? It'd be just like affirmative action, which is horrible. This is an entirely different matter than Technocrat has tried to make it out to be by comparing it to not hiring black people because they are black. Being black doesn't affect how well you can do your job. Being gay in that line of work most certainly would. There are convictions and strength that come from someone who is firm in the beliefs of Christianity that another person wouldn't feel. If you ran a monastery and I wanted to be hired to lead the devotions every day, but I sell drugs to kids, you shouldn't have to hire me. People can interpret that according to the Christian belief system, hiring a practicing homosexual is wrong. The government is not allowed to disturb that in any way. The problem really lies in how people interpret homosexuality. Gay people say that they were born that way for the most part, and religion in general usually says that it is a sin. Another way to look at it is that sincs the fall of man* the world has been cursed. People are born with down syndrome, and people are born gay. Either way, it's a struggle to deal with from the viewpoint of Christianity, but really, it's irrelevant to the Act. A religion cannot be encroached upon by the government.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man#From_the_Book_of_Genesis
|
|