Conquer Club

Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Woodruff on Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:48 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)


I didn't call you an idiot, idiot.

I notice you didn't answer my question, either.


Oh, I promise to get right on it, with the utmost of interest and expediency! :roll:

I told you I don't have any interest in anything you say, and thatI wasn't talking to you anymore or reading your posts anymore until you clean up your act.


And yet, when you think you have something that will refute my points, you fascinatingly don't hesitate at all to respond to me. It's only when you know you don't have a good answer (which seems to be most of the time), that you pull out your "I'm not talking to you" card. You keep saying I'm foed, yet you continue to read and respond. As with every other subject you seem to be interested in, "inconsistency is your watchword".

Phatscotty wrote:You are on probation.


f*ck you.

Phatscotty wrote:If I notice that you have cleaned up your act or you give me an actual reason to read your posts or respond to them, or you have some specific questions.....I will talk to you again.


I have proven over and over again that this is bullshit. I HAVE responded to you in a perfectly reasonable way, but you're just too chickenshit and don't have the personal integrity to actually stand up for what you purport to be your values. Instead, you constantly run and hide.

Phatscotty wrote:But you already screwed up your chances for my attention today. Maybe if you mind you manners, attend a couple of BallinStalin's therapies, and set aside your vision quest of trollery, I might give you a chance this weekend. Now go ruin someone else's thread.


f*ck off, troll.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Woodruff on Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:48 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


It's amazing how often you blame others for your own problems.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: August 1st: Chik-Fil-A Day

Postby Woodruff on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:03 pm

I want to help you out Phatscotty, so you don't miss these questions:

Woodruff wrote:Here Phatscotty, I'm looking out for you...

Woodruff wrote:Just in case you overlooked it...

Woodruff wrote:Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?


I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Nola_Lifer on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:03 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:08 pm

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.


Sorry, I did not see it. Stop over-reacting.

Nobody said "what he did" was good bigotry. People who in the recent past, right here, said that it's acceptable bigotry for homosexuals to be bigoted against and hate against religion, or anyone who does not agree with them about gay marriage. The shooter was a gay person, who obviously, through his actions, believed it was okay to start shooting up a religious organization, because they disagree with him.

His "bigotry" has been called "good bigotry" and "acceptable bigotry". Did you happen to see Grcepwns Sig before he took it down recently?

Phatism claim rejected
Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Woodruff on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:14 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.


Sorry, I did not see it. Stop over-reacting.

Nobody said "what he did" was good bigotry.


In point of fact, you did:
Phatscotty wrote:When Good bigotry turns bad


Phatscotty wrote:People who in the recent past, right here, said that it's acceptable bigotry for homosexuals to be bigoted against and hate against religion, or anyone who does not agree with them about gay marriage.


I don't recall it going quite that way...you wouldn't be misrepresenting it, would you?

Phatscotty wrote:His "bigotry" has been called "good bigotry" and "acceptable bigotry"


By whom?

Phatscotty wrote:Phatism claim rejected


Brilliant!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Lootifer on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:55 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism

Follow up posts nowithstanding, I chuckled.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby libertasvelnex on Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:32 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)


I didn't call you an idiot, idiot.

I notice you didn't answer my question, either.


Oh, I promise to get right on it, with the utmost of interest and expediency! :roll:

I told you I don't have any interest in anything you say, and thatI wasn't talking to you anymore or reading your posts anymore until you clean up your act.


And yet, when you think you have something that will refute my points, you fascinatingly don't hesitate at all to respond to me. It's only when you know you don't have a good answer (which seems to be most of the time), that you pull out your "I'm not talking to you" card. You keep saying I'm foed, yet you continue to read and respond. As with every other subject you seem to be interested in, "inconsistency is your watchword".

Phatscotty wrote:You are on probation.


f*ck you.

Phatscotty wrote:If I notice that you have cleaned up your act or you give me an actual reason to read your posts or respond to them, or you have some specific questions.....I will talk to you again.


I have proven over and over again that this is bullshit. I HAVE responded to you in a perfectly reasonable way, but you're just too chickenshit and don't have the personal integrity to actually stand up for what you purport to be your values. Instead, you constantly run and hide.

Phatscotty wrote:But you already screwed up your chances for my attention today. Maybe if you mind you manners, attend a couple of BallinStalin's therapies, and set aside your vision quest of trollery, I might give you a chance this weekend. Now go ruin someone else's thread.


f*ck off, troll.


I've been watching you for over 3 years and you are the krakken troll of trolls. Ever! Finally, I've joined and glad to be here.

- Libertas vel nex
User avatar
Private libertasvelnex
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:33 pm
Location: Liberty Tree

Re: August 1st: Chik-Fil-A Day

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:24 am

Frigidus wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Government is way too involved and way too large and way too greedy, and it should be recognized as one reason marriage seems to have become so debased, statistically anyways.

I think if marriage gets redefined, then the government gets bigger and we further cement our dependence inducing system of specialized benefits and privileges based on redistributing the wealth. It also works against the flat tax people or the consumption tax people, or anyone who thinks the tax code as we know it should be abolished or severely reformed, as redefining marriage will add more leverage to strengthening the redistributive system we have now. (more people will be connected to the benefit web)


If you were given two choices, the current system we have or the current system we have including gay marriage, which would you say is preferable?


I don't think we need to change anything. People can love whoever in the hell they want, but marriage is marriage and a civil union is a civil union. If a state votes to change marriage, then it will be changed, and I will respect it and tolerate the decision.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:04 am

Update - The shooter had at least 53 rounds of ammunition on him, and 15 chik-fil-a chicken sandwiches.

What the shooter yelled "I hate your politics!" and then he pulled the trigger.

This is a hate crime
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Nola_Lifer on Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:23 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.


Sorry, I did not see it. Stop over-reacting.

Nobody said "what he did" was good bigotry. People who in the recent past, right here, said that it's acceptable bigotry for homosexuals to be bigoted against and hate against religion, or anyone who does not agree with them about gay marriage. The shooter was a gay person, who obviously, through his actions, believed it was okay to start shooting up a religious organization, because they disagree with him.

His "bigotry" has been called "good bigotry" and "acceptable bigotry". Did you happen to see Grcepwns Sig before he took it down recently?

Phatism claim rejected
Image


Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:42 am

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)

He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)

Very phattist post here.

Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.

However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.


I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism


Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.


Sorry, I did not see it. Stop over-reacting.

Nobody said "what he did" was good bigotry. People who in the recent past, right here, said that it's acceptable bigotry for homosexuals to be bigoted against and hate against religion, or anyone who does not agree with them about gay marriage. The shooter was a gay person, who obviously, through his actions, believed it was okay to start shooting up a religious organization, because they disagree with him.

His "bigotry" has been called "good bigotry" and "acceptable bigotry". Did you happen to see Grcepwns Sig before he took it down recently?

Phatism claim rejected
Image


Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."


Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe

I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.

My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.

If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.

After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Nola_Lifer on Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:04 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."

Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe

I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.

My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.

If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.

After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.


They aren't hating against religion. They are speaking out against the fact that religion and state should be separate; therefore, stances on marriage shouldn't be affected by your religious views. I called those who oppose gay rights a bigot because of their religious opinions that are involved in the government. You call for freedoms yet you don't want to see gay marriage legal. Marriage isn't a privilege. It is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. It wasn't that long ago that people picketed against integration and it hasn't been that long ago since people picketed. I never said that you had to agree with gay marriage and I never said you had to change your religious views. All I ask is that you keep those opinion out of government. Why can't you put those views aside and do what is proper thing to do? This is why I say bigot.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:30 am

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."

Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe

I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.

My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.

If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.

After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.


They aren't hating against religion. They are speaking out against the fact that religion and state should be separate; therefore, stances on marriage shouldn't be affected by your religious views. I called those who oppose gay rights a bigot because of their religious opinions that are involved in the government. You call for freedoms yet you don't want to see gay marriage legal. Marriage isn't a privilege. It is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. It wasn't that long ago that people picketed against integration and it hasn't been that long ago since people picketed. I never said that you had to agree with gay marriage and I never said you had to change your religious views. All I ask is that you keep those opinion out of government. Why can't you put those views aside and do what is proper thing to do? This is why I say bigot.


Except I'm not religious, and have never made the religious argument. (freedom of religion is not an argument, it's a principle and it covers non-religious people just as much)
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby crispybits on Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:25 am

But we've seen, several times, a correlation between those using the semantic argument against gay marriage are also religious. That doesn't mean that everyone doing so is, but it means that we view the semantic argument as being something generally used by religious people when they know the religious argument doesn't hold water. And the semantic argument doesn't hold water either because you just have to ask "what is more important, the meaning of a word or the happiness and cultural acceptance and integration of a significant minority as being normal human beings who have the right to equal cultural treatment?" There is no semantic reason why these people are somehow undeserving of this equality, and while people may say "well they can have civil unions", a civil union has a much lesser cultural significance than a marriage, so you're not actually allowing equality, it's still just a 2 tier system.

Why should only those with religion or straight couples be able to claim the cultural status of marriage for their relationships when marriage is not a religious phenomenon, it's a cultural one?

One last point against the semantic argument:

Merriam Webster Dictionary
Oxford English Dictionary

Seems two of the most respected dictionaries in the world include same-sex marriages under the definition of the word marriage.

/semantic argument
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Woodruff on Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:36 am

libertasvelnex wrote:I've been watching you for over 3 years and you are the krakken troll of trolls. Ever! Finally, I've joined and glad to be here.


Impressive, given that you just arrived here a week ago.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Woodruff on Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:40 am

crispybits wrote:One last point against the semantic argument:

Merriam Webster Dictionary
Oxford English Dictionary

Seems two of the most respected dictionaries in the world include same-sex marriages under the definition of the word marriage.

/semantic argument


Don't you know that it's the atheists that have taken over the dictionaries?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby crispybits on Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:42 am

As part of a massive worldwide illuminati conspiracy to force us all to occasionally have to suffer the dreadful torment of hearing a gay couple say "we're married"?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Nola_Lifer on Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:30 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."

Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe

I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.

My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.

If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.

After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.


They aren't hating against religion. They are speaking out against the fact that religion and state should be separate; therefore, stances on marriage shouldn't be affected by your religious views. I called those who oppose gay rights a bigot because of their religious opinions that are involved in the government. You call for freedoms yet you don't want to see gay marriage legal. Marriage isn't a privilege. It is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. It wasn't that long ago that people picketed against integration and it hasn't been that long ago since people picketed. I never said that you had to agree with gay marriage and I never said you had to change your religious views. All I ask is that you keep those opinion out of government. Why can't you put those views aside and do what is proper thing to do? This is why I say bigot.


Except I'm not religious, and have never made the religious argument. (freedom of religion is not an argument, it's a principle and it covers non-religious people just as much)


Excuse me then, replace you with they. Still doesn't refute the point.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:31 pm

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."

Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe

I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.

My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.

If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.

After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.


They aren't hating against religion. They are speaking out against the fact that religion and state should be separate; therefore, stances on marriage shouldn't be affected by your religious views. I called those who oppose gay rights a bigot because of their religious opinions that are involved in the government. You call for freedoms yet you don't want to see gay marriage legal. Marriage isn't a privilege. It is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. It wasn't that long ago that people picketed against integration and it hasn't been that long ago since people picketed. I never said that you had to agree with gay marriage and I never said you had to change your religious views. All I ask is that you keep those opinion out of government. Why can't you put those views aside and do what is proper thing to do? This is why I say bigot.


Except I'm not religious, and have never made the religious argument. (freedom of religion is not an argument, it's a principle and it covers non-religious people just as much)


Excuse me then, replace you with they. Still doesn't refute the point.


You screwed up the quoting on all this btw...

Well, it kind of does. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think it's true that you have been debating this issue with me under the pretense that I was making a religious argument. That means that you thought my position was coming from a religious point of view, and you had that in mind when you were reading what I was saying and when you wrote what you wrote. This does not mean anything other than I don't think we were on the same page in our communications, but it still have been a good conversation, and I thank you for that.

I understand and have sympathy for the benefits argument, but I reject the "it's just about loving who you want to love" argument that the vice president, the president, and many chik-fil-a protestors still argue. I understand the separation of Church and State argument, and I think you guys would have a better case IF marriage was something that came from the government, and then the church tried to change it. But that is not the issue here, since marriage was and always has been an ecclesiastical issue, and it's the government that is trying to encroach. I understand the angle of increasing dependence on the government, and that gay marriage will further cement us in the path of wealth redistribution. In fact, it is the reality that this is about redistribution of wealth that I credit for so many on the left being pro-gay marriage. I also understand that what chik-fil-a CEO said is protected under the freedom of speech, their position is protected under the freedom of religion, and we have the right to patronize or not patronize whatever business we want to for whatever reason (except for Obamacare when it kicks in, and I'm sure many other things to follow).

Just let me ask you, why do you think that you have the right to redefine marriage?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Symmetry on Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:42 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Just let me ask you, why do you think that you have the right to redefine marriage?


An interesting question, and one that you haven't asked of those demanding a legal redefinition of marriage to mean one man one woman.

But of course, redefining marriage to exclude gay marriage seems to be of less concern to you than expanding marriage laws so that they might include homosexuals.

Why is that Scotty? Who do you think might be hurt?

And why do you think folk had the right to "redefine marriage" as you put it to include inter-racial marriage?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby crispybits on Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:48 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I understand and have sympathy for the benefits argument, but I reject the "it's just about loving who you want to love" argument that the vice president, the president, and many chik-fil-a protestors still argue. I understand the separation of Church and State argument, and I think you guys would have a better case IF marriage was something that came from the government, and then the church tried to change it. But that is not the issue here, since marriage was and always has been an ecclesiastical issue, and it's the government that is trying to encroach. I understand the angle of increasing dependence on the government, and that gay marriage will further cement us in the path of wealth redistribution. In fact, it is the reality that this is about redistribution of wealth that I credit for so many on the left being pro-gay marriage. I also understand that what chik-fil-a CEO said is protected under the freedom of speech, their position is protected under the freedom of religion, and we have the right to patronize or not patronize whatever business we want to for whatever reason (except for Obamacare when it kicks in, and I'm sure many other things to follow).

Just let me ask you, why do you think that you have the right to redefine marriage?


Incorrect, marriage predates all of the established major religions active in the world today. Religion has laid a claim on it, but it's not "theirs"

Source

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:27 pm

crispybits wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I understand and have sympathy for the benefits argument, but I reject the "it's just about loving who you want to love" argument that the vice president, the president, and many chik-fil-a protestors still argue. I understand the separation of Church and State argument, and I think you guys would have a better case IF marriage was something that came from the government, and then the church tried to change it. But that is not the issue here, since marriage was and always has been an ecclesiastical issue, and it's the government that is trying to encroach. I understand the angle of increasing dependence on the government, and that gay marriage will further cement us in the path of wealth redistribution. In fact, it is the reality that this is about redistribution of wealth that I credit for so many on the left being pro-gay marriage. I also understand that what chik-fil-a CEO said is protected under the freedom of speech, their position is protected under the freedom of religion, and we have the right to patronize or not patronize whatever business we want to for whatever reason (except for Obamacare when it kicks in, and I'm sure many other things to follow).

Just let me ask you, why do you think that you have the right to redefine marriage?


Incorrect, marriage predates all of the established major religions active in the world today. Religion has laid a claim on it, but it's not "theirs"

Source


I would not disagree about that. But what marriage might have been 3,100 years ago compared to what it was for the last 3,000 years is a pretty vague comparison.

That is to say I did not mean to imply that marriage did not exist before organized religion, I'm pretty sure it did (although how anyone could say certainly should be a challenge), but I do see how that could be construed based on what I said about marriage and government.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

Postby crispybits on Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:44 pm

You said pretty clearly "marriage is and always has been an ecclesiastical issue". There's not much wiggle room for ambiguity in that statement.

If you're saying what marriage was 3,100 years ago is irrelevant to today, then why not also say what marriage was 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago or even just 300 years ago is irrelevant to today? We had a different culture between then and now too.

Also, you may not be religious yourself, but that statement is a big part of the religious argument. "We own marriage, we decide what is is because it's a holy thing under the eyes of God". Well sorry all you christians and hindus and buddhists and muslims and jews and all you other religious types. You all own your own particular flavour of marriage ceremony and ritual (and nobody will deny you any of that - freedom of religion and all - you can get married however you like), but marriage is primarily a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one, and you have no rights over the custom in general.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Previous

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users