3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm sorry, but I have every right to be in the communal "kitchen" as anyone else. And if the heat is because someone has set an illegal "fire" in the kitchen, then I do not consider my leaving the kitchen the right thing to do.
Then you're missing out on at least half of the fun of the Spirituality forum! You Catholics need to learn to live a little.
My intention was not to chase anyone from the "kitchen" (as I've said, I've left a couple times myself for those reasons); certainly not to imply that you don't have a right here.
By "illegal" fire, do you mean something that violates the TOS--or do you just mean the kind of "arson" that you feel you have a duty and right to fight?
EDIT: Sorry, I missed your reference to the TOS. Do you really think that Savix's post violates the TOS?
"Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."
Well, Howard's was perhaps "vulgar." "Otherwise objectionable" seems very much in the eye of the beholder. I wonder--when Darfius said that I was a servant of Satan, does that count? How about when someone says: "The only reason you won't accept Christ is because you want to keep living your sinful lifestyle," in a public post, as if they were privy to that person's lifestyle. I'm serious in these questions, not being sarcastic at all.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThe only conclusion one can reach considering there are so many
[b]I'm sorry, but I have every right to be in the communal "kitchen" as anyone else. And if the heat is because someone has set an illegal "fire" in the kitchen, then I do not consider my leaving the kitchen the right thing to do.
My intention was not to chase anyone from the "kitchen" (as I've said, I've left a couple times myself for those ...[text shortened]... TOS--or do you just mean the kind of "arson" that you feel you have a duty and right to fight?[/b]
commands at odds with each other in other religions, IE, Jaynes
god says not to kill ANYTHING, Allah says you MUST kill infidels,
The Bible says Kill the enemy non-believer, You have to come
to the conclusion, since we apparently thing there is only one god,
This god is insane. So you are all worshipping an insane god, one
who will give one set of rules to this people and another contradicting
set to another. What can you call that but insane?
With concepts like I am a jealous god, think about a bunch of mice
in a cage and they are being taught a trick, one of them can't get
it, the trainer offs the dumb mouse, the other mice, one of them
being a philosophical mouse, assumes their god is vindictive,
and get the impression god is a jealous god. Course it might be
an insane human taking revenge on the poor mice, eh.
Same thing with humans VS god. Too bad you all worship such
an insane being.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAu contraire - my spear thrust was a mercy killing.
[b]That is precisely what I maintain.
Very well. At least you're not being hypocritical.
There are degrees of humourlessness.
Are there?
I find howard's joke not just offensive as a Christian, but at a very basic human level. Even if I didn't believe that Jesus was God, I would have no reason to question the fact that he had ...[text shortened]... tatement?[/b]
What difference does it make? You don't support third-party censorship anyway.[/b]
It ended his suffering (although arguably it increased the suffering of the world as it made a martyr out of the man and the rest of humanity has had to put up with his followers for millenia).
Originally posted by vistesdDo you really think that Savix's post violates the TOS?
[b]I'm sorry, but I have every right to be in the communal "kitchen" as anyone else. And if the heat is because someone has set an illegal "fire" in the kitchen, then I do not consider my leaving the kitchen the right thing to do.
My intention was not to chase anyone from the "kitchen" (as I've said, I've left a couple times myself for those ...[text shortened]... privy to that person's lifestyle. I'm serious in these questions, not being sarcastic at all.[/b]
It probably doesn't.
"Otherwise objectionable" seems very much in the eye of the beholder.
I think the complete phrase is "racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable". So, the "otherwise" would follow parallel to "racially" and "ethnically". Examples could be - sexist material, homophobic material, religiously objectionable material etc.
I wonder--when Darfius said that I was a servant of Satan, does that count? How about when someone says: "The only reason you won't accept Christ is because you want to keep living your sinful lifestyle," in a public post, as if they were privy to that person's lifestyle. I'm serious in these questions, not being sarcastic at all.
I'm afraid I missed both those posts. But they certainly look like TOS violations to me and IMO should be mod-ded.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI find it most offensive that you consider my post a joke and not the truth.
1a. Is it reasonable to infer then that you have no problems with me making 'Jew', 'Negro', 'fag' or 'dyke' jokes?
1b. Is it reasonable to infer that if Jews, African-Americans or homosexuals do not laugh at those jokes then they're "humourless"?
2. You're just trying to evade a straight response.
Why don't we just call it for wh ...[text shortened]... - imply that you expect a homosexual not to take offence at statements like "God hates fags"?
You must respect my views on reincarnation as the truth.
Or else I will cry.
May you come back as a cockroach.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, this is a reason why the founding fathers believed a well regulated militia should be permitted to carry arms. Have you seen the general populace lately? Do they look well regulated to you?
One of the main reasons why the founding fathers believed a populace should be permitted to carry arms.
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with you that it would be a regulated militia rather than the general populace that would be a safeguard against tyrany, however some of the founding fathers didn't limit this to merely a militia.
No, this is a reason why the founding fathers believed a well regulated militia should be permitted to carry arms. Have you seen the general populace lately? Do they look well regulated to you?
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
- Noah Webster-
