Are all your posts

@KellyJay said
So you stop treating people as individuals if you think they are unworthy?

that's the wrong question to ask. i treat everyone as individuals. i don't judge christians by yours or rajks standards.

respect is earned, it's not a right. those that treat others without respect deserve none from me.

@Zahlanzi said
that's the wrong question to ask. i treat everyone as individuals. i don't judge christians by yours or rajks standards.

respect is earned, it's not a right. those that treat others without respect deserve none from me.

You judge them by your standards and don’t feel the need to give you those don’t wish to respect.

@KellyJay said
Fair

I didn't ask you to repeat your oft repeated comment that you think yada yada yada. I asked WHY you feel you need to do this. Seems almost an obsession with you; you inject this same yada yada yada into nearly every thread, regardless what the OP is about. We talk about Charlie Kirk, and it's yada yada yada. We talk about any passage of the Bible, and it's yada yada yada. We talk about Yorkshire pudding (that's a placeholder for any topic whatever), and it's yada yada yada. Like a broken record. I do not mean to play armchair psychologist here, but it seems you are really fixated on your own faults and you tend to project that onto the everyone else. Like, man, remove the tree trunk from your own eye; it's not your problem what motes the rest of have in our eyes.

@moonbus said
I didn't ask you to repeat your oft repeated comment that you think yada yada yada. I asked WHY you feel you need to do this. Seems almost an obsession with you; you inject this same yada yada yada into nearly every thread, regardless what the OP is about. We talk about Charlie Kirk, and it's yada yada yada. We talk about any passage of the Bible, and it's yada yada yada. We ...[text shortened]... ove the tree trunk from your own eye; it's not your problem what motes the rest of have in our eyes.

Care to be more specific about what you are referring to with 'yada yada yada'? I could say the same thing about you, and your it doesn’t mean what you think, it's only a metaphor, as you ignore things right in front of you. We all have worldviews, and for many, those shape our political views and even our understanding of science. When something doesn’t fit our worldview, we automatically think it is disinformation, anti-science, or hateful because of our perspective on the world.

This question is about why so many get downright mean and vengeful. If there is a disagreement, they start spewing out hateful things left and right and call people names, as if that is the right thing to do. Anger is not the right motivation, which causes strife, arguments, riots, destruction of property, violence of all degrees, including murder, which many now are saying is a proper action for someone who simply does not look at the world the way they do. When all that comes out of our mouths are hateful things, where do you think their hearts are?

You think there is nothing after this life, but I believe there is a judgment with eternal consequences. What would you do if you were in my situation? The two great commands are to love God and to love each other. Justifying hate is not a part of that, and if your life is always filled with strife, you have heart issues.

@KellyJay said
Care to be more specific about what you are referring to with 'yada yada yada'? I could say the same thing about you, and your it doesn’t mean what you think, it's only a metaphor, as you ignore things right in front of you. We all have worldviews, and for many, those shape our political views and even our understanding of science. When something doesn’t fit our worldview, ...[text shortened]... ng hate is not a part of that, and if your life is always filled with strife, you have heart issues.

Yada yada yada: you think everyone is flawed.

You also tend to attribute hatred to posters here. "Hatred" is a very strong term for a very strong emotional response. You have no idea what goes in other people's hearts.

There is no need to justify emotions, hatred or otherwise. There is no such thing as a forbidden emotion. For the same reason that there is no need to justify being hungry or thirsty; there is no need justify the feeling of "ick" when confronted with food or drink which is unpalatable (personally, I find snails unpalatable). Hatred is simply the "ick" feeling applied to a different object.

You think there is nothing after this life, but I believe there is a judgment with eternal consequences. What would you do if you were in my situation?

a) you don't know what I believe or think about "after this life".
b) I cannot imagine believing all the things you (profess to) believe, so I have no idea what I would do if I did.

@moonbus said
Yada yada yada: you think everyone is flawed.

You also tend to attribute hatred to posters here. "Hatred" is a very strong term for a very strong emotional response. You have no idea what goes in other people's hearts.

There is no need to justify emotions, hatred or otherwise. There is no such thing as a forbidden emotion. For the same reason that there is no need to ju ...[text shortened]... agine believing all the things you (profess to) believe, so I have no idea what I would do if I did.

You don’t think everyone is flawed, so tell me who are the unflawed ones among us, you and who? When you think of human interactions do you believe correct behavior is the same for everyone the same way or it varies from person to person? Do you believe someone one can view others and see them as racist, nazi, yada yada this generates love for someone with an opposing worldview?

@KellyJay said
Nope

liar

@wildgrass said
How about Brian kilmeade on a fox News conservative talk show saying that involuntary lethal injection would be a good solution to our homeless problem? Barely anyone batted an eye.

You constantly misrepresent what people say…why do you get out of that?

@Zahlanzi said
that's the wrong question to ask. i treat everyone as individuals. i don't judge christians by yours or rajks standards.

respect is earned, it's not a right. those that treat others without respect deserve none from me.

Queer and trans is not a respectable trait…as you say, respect is earned.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
You constantly misrepresent what people say…why do you get out of that?

lol what was the actual quote then?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Queer and trans is not a respectable trait…as you say, respect is earned.

There you go. We are in agreement in the great disdain we feel for each other.

And just judging by the fact that you have to resort to gerrymandering and cling with all your might to the electoral college just to have any relevance in the US means my side is slowly winning

@Zahlanzi said
There you go. We are in agreement in the great disdain we feel for each other.

And just judging by the fact that you have to resort to gerrymandering and cling with all your might to the electoral college just to have any relevance in the US means my side is slowly winning

You think there are sides and winning is the goal? By sides you mean those who think like you and those who don’t and there is a goal because your one side could be winning. What is the goal group think. The destruction of the other side. Explain winning please. That pretty much locks us all into the same game with the same rules does’t it?

@KellyJay said
You don’t think everyone is flawed, so tell me who are the unflawed ones among us, you and who? When you think of human interactions do you believe correct behavior is the same for everyone the same way or it varies from person to person? Do you believe someone one can view others and see them as racist, nazi, yada yada this generates love for someone with an opposing worldview?

You present a false dichotomy which I reject. You subscribe to a culturally and historically specific ethical paradigm, premised on sin and guilt and atonement and redemption, flawed-or-unflawed, which I reject. I do not subscribe to the view that humans are flawed, therefore, I do not propose to present a selection of people for you to fit into your people-are-flawed paradigm.

@moonbus said
You present a false dichotomy which I reject. You subscribe to a culturally and historically specific ethical paradigm, premised on sin and guilt and atonement and redemption, flawed-or-unflawed, which I reject. I do not subscribe to the view that humans are flawed, therefore, I do not propose to present a selection of people for you to fit into your people-are-flawed paradigm.

So we all don’t live under the same rules as each other, and only a few of us are flawed not all?

@KellyJay said
So we all don’t live under the same rules as each other, and only a few of us are flawed not all?

There have been cultures in the past, and there are some today, which are not based on the paradigms to which you subscribe.


The concept that ethics is a set of "rules" is one such historically and culturally specific paradigm, as is the concept that people are "flawed." Not only do I not subscribe to your set of rules, specifically, neither do I subscribe to rule-based ethics generally.

I do not view people through the lens of "flawed/not-flawed."