NationStates Jolt Archive

As was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…

good for you, run along now. Relic?

relic
n 1: an antiquity that has survived from the distant past

fair enough

nothing wrong with being a relic. I like older music, not that crap the city folk listen to. and im only 16!! man im a old timer too i guees.

Ahhh. Finally someone who makes some sense. But I'd advise you to tone down the rhetoric. Calling them "Baal" worshipers is a little out of hand.

But I love filth and orgies. Dammit I want to move to Canada now!

I'd say he was a Commando, except he wasn't flaming and he could spell.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Best laugh I've had in days.

Actually, Baal worshippers killed children after they were born, assuming we're talking about the Phoenician god of storms Baal, and not the daemon.
You do good rhetoric, Greenlander. Damn good rhetoric there. I salute you as one relic to another.

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution

Viva las vegas baby.

2: Same-Sex Marriage

Honestly what's so bad about this, I see no infringement upon your rights/decay of society caused by it.

3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use

Yes, because making them illegal has made them so hard to get your hands on. :rolleyes: Now I'm not for the legalization of all drugs out there but the ability to tax the ones made legal and regulate them might help some in the war against drugs.

4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property

Hey if ones there then they should all be there if we're for equality. So I'd allow the 10 commandments there, as long as every other religion can stick something of theirs on there as well.

5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)

Now although I find the whole multiple wife thing creepy myself, (personal opinion) I don't see it harming society/infringing upon rights so why not?

6: Decrease the age of Consent

I can agree with you on this matter.

7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians

Not really liking this, personally I think it's better to discuss something of this magnitude with your gaurdians, but realize that in the end it's up to the person having the child if they want to get the abortion or not.

8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics.

Why should their privacy rights not be protected now?

9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised

Well the parent are the ones sending them to there so I think if they didn't agree with this then they just won't send them to that camp/camps.

10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)

Wait so we shouldn't be accepting of homosexuals now??? That's news to me.


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…

Someone here needs to get laid.

But I love filth and orgies. Dammit I want to move to Canada now!

...we have filth and orgies in Canada? Man, i'm seriously going to the WRONG parties...

GreenlanderAs was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:


May i just start by saying, I'm so happy that I dont live in America.

1: Prostitution
Prostitution will happen whether its legal or not. Usually the people involved in prostitution are not doing it by choice. They dont wake up one day and decide "hey i think i'll go become a hooker". In most cases there are extreme circumstances and they see it as the only way they can escape the situation. These people need our help and sympathy, not our judgement and condemnation. And since it IS going to happen anyway would you rather it be regulated and controlled with a support system to try helping these people get away from prostitution or would you rather they all go die quietly in a corner with no help where you dont have to bother with them? Doesnt seem like "christian charity" to me.

2: Same-Sex Marriage
I've never seen the problem with this anyway. How does two men getting married affect your life in any way? Just because you feel uncomfortable and you have interpreted your religious doctrine a certain way does that mean that everyone in disagreement with you should have their civil rights taken away? I heard it put well on another thread (and i'm paraphrasing here) Why do christians think they own marriage?

3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
Here i can see your point. Although prohibition never worked with alcohol. Personally i think governments should be doing something to address the causes of narcotics use rather than legislating with only the end result in mind.

4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
I can see your point here too. Although i get the feeling that if you're honest with yourself you will admit that you would take a very different stance if the main religious symbols in your country were not christian symbols.... How would you feel if Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu symbols were put along side the christian symbols to reflect a multicultural society? Hopefully i'm wrong on this point

5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
Dont really see the problem here either. If you're capable of loving more than one person and you're able to keep that relationship stable you'll need all the luck you can get. But it still doesnt affect anyone else. Would it realllly matter?

6: Decrease the age of Consent
I'm not sure what the age of consent is in the USA so i have no grounds to comment.

7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
I do agree on this one. Abortion should never be a means of birth control. For any age group. But all age groups still do have the right to doctor patient privacy. Again better education would be a good start.

8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
Why should you get to invade their privacy? If your point 7 was legislated right then anyone taking a minor to an abortion clinic would be doing it with the knowledge than an On Demand abortion wouldnt be available. If i had a younger relative who was raped and i needed to take her to an abortion clinic why should i have the information available to anyone who cares to look?


Nudity isnt a problem in itself. But unfortunately human nature tends to make it so. So I'll agree with you on this one too.

[I]10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*
I dont see why classes should even have to exist. Homosexuals arent hurting anyone. A little tolerance and less hatred would go a long way. You seem to think that 100% of homosexuals do it as a lifestyle choice. A small number (VERY small) do, but the majority have about as much choice as the colour of their eyes. You can change the colour of your eyes with contacts but its not their real colour... and there are many different colours.

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)
I havent heard of the voucher program, so again i wont comment. But Gay Indocrination???? you think all these kids are going to grow up gay because they learn to accept people being homosexual? That would be like children growing up to be lions because they take some biology classes.

Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.
A) I've always wanted to go to Canada.
B) I'm still glad i dont live in the USA
C) I think you need a quiet drink, a massage (from a female strictly platonically of course) and a good relaxing sleep... Maybe a vacation wouldnt hurt either.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…
Where do i sign up??? j/k
Its kind of offensive that you assume all good people are christian and all people without morals are non christian though. There is good and bad on both sides of the equation.


Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…
Ever think for a second that some people might actually genuinely want a more tolerant and compassionate world? And i thought judgement was reserved for God. Why cant you live and let live for now. If they arent hurting you just choose to not take part, not endorse, and if necessary let people know you dont approve (but without the somewhat militant aspect to all this)

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…

If this makes me a queer sympathising hippy atheist radical then i'm proud to call myself a.... well you get the idea anyway.

I'm so glad I dont live in America.

As was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…
Except for decreasing the age of consent and mandating attendance to homo-acceptance class I don't see what's wrong with any of the things you've listed. You're not a relic IMHO, you're bigoted and unAmerican. Other people may want to marry someone of the same sex. They may want to snort a line of coke or two on the weekend. So what? What business is it of yours? Why don't you concentrate on living the life you want and leave everyone else to make their own decisions. That's what freedom is about. Limiting freedom unnecessarily is unAmerican.

Whats with all this "UnAmerican", "UnAustralian", "UnTahitian" nonsence anyways? Is being unAmerican not bombing the living shit out of Laos, or not owning a gun or is it about a nationalistic standard of morals. I know this sounds a bit Trollish but I keep hearing these things and I always wonder what is meant? What is it to be American vs what isn't, like there is some rule book.

Whats with all this "UnAmerican", "UnAustralian", "UnTahitian" nonsence anyways? Is being unAmerican not bombing the living shit out of Laos, or not owning a gun or is it about a nationalistic standard of morals. I know this sounds a bit Trollish but I keep hearing these things and I always wonder what is meant? What is it to be American vs what isn't, like there is some rule book.
When I say it I mean someone who wants to limit people's freedoms for no good reason other than the fact that his god told him to. Like the people who want to censor films and books because of sexual content.

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

Hi sweetie!

1) Never been to reno eh?
2) Sounds good to me. We "allow" them to live together. Why not a civic marriage? It would allow them survivor benefits. I remember a friend who died of AIDS. His family the good christians they were; disowned him. Except when he died. They swooped in like the vultures they were and took his possesions(he was wealthy). If he could have married his lover then he could have passed on without question. There was a will but it got thrown out for a reason I don't remember.
3) Why not legalize it? The war on drugs is a failure. The goverment can regulate it and tax it. It probably would reduce crime.
4) The establishment clause says the goverment shall be neutral to religion. Some would argue no religion, I argue if it's open to all then there is no problem. If the idol doesn't promote religion in it's presentation(ie Mosses in the SCOTUS). Then there is no problem.
5) I don't have an opinion. If a guy can take care of mulitple wives and keep them happy. Eh? What the hell.
6) Age of Consent laws are fine as they are now. Won't support their reduction.
7) Notification of Guardians sounds nice but what if the father assaulted the child? There are people that would disown a child even though she was raped. Look at this place. How many people badmouth the missing girl in Aruba? If the parents have a good relationship with their daughter, then they probably would be told by here.
8) Privacy is a good thing. Can't have any good Christians murdering people because they don't like what the person did(ie Dr. Gunn).
9) Nudity isn't a problem. My daughter and all her friends(as told by their parents) seem to prefer to not wear cloths. It's a shame that people teach their children that their bodies are a bad thing. Especially girls, might not have as many eating disorders.

But to the question at hand? Hmmmm I would accept age limits on going to a camp.

10) Classes? It would be a lesson in a health class at most. It's something we need since Christians think its ok to abuse them.



(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)

The voucher program is nothing more then a give away to the wealthy and the Repubs Christian masters. Sorry I am against it.

Gay indoctrination? :rolleyes: I had to tell you sweetie but you have brushed against them in your life and you have even shaked hands with them. So you already have gay kooties.


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…



Wow thank you for giving proof of why we need the establishment clause!

BTW, you have some spittle right there

Please stop talking. You are enforcing peoples sterotype of the ugly american.

Whats with all this "UnAmerican", "UnAustralian", "UnTahitian" nonsence anyways? Is being unAmerican not bombing the living shit out of Laos, or not owning a gun or is it about a nationalistic standard of morals. I know this sounds a bit Trollish but I keep hearing these things and I always wonder what is meant? What is it to be American vs what isn't, like there is some rule book.

Unamerican is whenever someone seeks to restrict your rights for the sole purpose of satisfying their desire for power or control over what others do.
There is a huge difference between nationalism and patriotism, with patriotism being the good one. Americans should have freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Unamerican is whenever someone seeks to restrict your rights for the sole purpose of satisfying their desire for power or control over what others do.
There is a huge difference between nationalism and patriotism, with patriotism being the good one. Americans should have freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
I agree completely. Good post.

Just because some psychotic scum-of-the-planet putrid pig is going to search out, hunt down, and pick up some gullible fifteen year old girl at some local skinny dipping spot and drug her all up and take her home and have his way with her and then lets his friend’s borrow her for a few bucks while she’s still doped up and then takes her on over to the abortion clinic and get’s it all taken care of before dropping her off at home again a couple of months later… Just because it’s going to happen anyway doesn’t mean we should legalize it.


What a bunch of crack-pots to think otherwise.

Whats with all this "UnAmerican", "UnAustralian", "UnTahitian" nonsence anyways?

...i don't know, i think it's a quirk of the american psyche. if somebody tried to use the word "uncanadian" in mainstream political discourse up here, they'd mostly just get laughed at. i honestly couldn't tell you what the difference is.

Just because some psychotic scum-of-the-planet putrid pig is going to search out, hunt down, and pick up some gullible fifteen year old girl at some local skinny dipping spot and drug her all up and take her home and have his way with her and then lets his friend’s borrow her for a few bucks while she’s still doped up and then takes her on over to the abortion clinic and get’s it all taken care of before dropping her off at home again a couple of months later… Just because it’s going to happen anyway doesn’t mean we should legalize it.


What a bunch of crack-pots to think otherwise.
Who the hell wants to legalize that?

I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. Why? Because adults may choose to use them and they shouldn't be punished for making their own decisions about their bodies.

I'm in favor of prostitution so long as it's between consenting adults.

I'm in favor of abortion, even for teens, because I recognize that teens have sex. Hell, even I managed to get laid when I was a teen. They should have access to abortion in case the girl gets pregnant.

I'm not in favor of grown men having sex with young girls.

I'm also not in favor of attacking defenseless straw men. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hrm, just to randomly pop in on the Gay-acceptance class...
We have to deal with enough BS classess in our schools.
I personaly dont care about gay people, unless they try to 'put their moves' on me, but if I have to sit through an hour and fourtyfive minutes of "Gay people are just like us!" I will go insane. Hell Sex-Ed (the heterosexual kind) was boring enough, and naturaly rather humiliating the first time I had to take it (in sixth grade, when saying 'penis' was still an exercize in willpower).

Perhaps a 'minorities acceptance' class would be acceptable, they could turn it into a sort of patchwork history class covering the basic history of a bunch of minorities throughout history, as opposed to 'You will accept gays. You will accept gays. You will accept gays.'
Of course, in the end, it doesnt matter. The class will end up as one semester (or year) of PC bullshit thrown at us by some school-psychiatrist sounding teacher.

On another note, I cant STAND school psyciatrists. The voice they use makes me want to kill everybody around me, starting with myself.

Just because some psychotic scum-of-the-planet putrid pig is going to search out, hunt down, and pick up some gullible fifteen year old girl at some local skinny dipping spot and drug her all up and take her home and have his way with her and then lets his friend’s borrow her for a few bucks while she’s still doped up and then takes her on over to the abortion clinic and get’s it all taken care of before dropping her off at home again a couple of months later… Just because it’s going to happen anyway doesn’t mean we should legalize it.


What a bunch of crack-pots to think otherwise.

Hi sweetie,

Wow that was rather rabid. Niccce strawman! Very nice!

Making drugs legal sounds good to me.
Sex with minors doesn't sound good to me.
Access to abortion sounds good to me.

You have some more spittle right there.

Who the hell wants to legalize that? And feeble attempt at using the word "Strawman" as a defense ...
*snip*

I didn’t add anything that wasn’t on that list of stuff, all of those things are on the list of things I listed... even down to the age of consent. You do want to legalize it, only you want it regulated by the government so that it’s all ‘safer.’

The arguments for legalizing this garbage, this refuse, is all claptrap nonsense. Freedom and liberties, my ass.

I didn’t add anything that wasn’t on that list of stuff, all of those things are on the list of things I listed... even down to the age of consent. You do want to legalize it, only you want it regulated by the government so that it’s all ‘safer.’

The arguments for legalizing this garbage, this refuse, is all claptrap nonsense. Freedom and liberties, my ass.

Sweetie? Do you understand what a strawman is?

I didn’t add anything that wasn’t on that list of stuff, all of those things are on the list of things I listed... even down to the age of consent. You do want to legalize it, only you want it regulated by the government so that it’s all ‘safer.’

The arguments for legalizing this garbage, this refuse, is all claptrap nonsense. Freedom and liberties, my ass.

Right because denying people rights (#2 on your list) does one fine fucking job of giving people freedom and liberty.

I didn’t add anything that wasn’t on that list of stuff, all of those things are on the list of things I listed... even down to the age of consent. You do want to legalize it, only you want it regulated by the government so that it’s all ‘safer.’

The arguments for legalizing this garbage, this refuse, is all claptrap nonsense. Freedom and liberties, my ass.
Remember when the government tried to ban alcohol? Didn't that work out well? They helped build criminal empires, contributed to people being poisoned by bad booze, and just generally wrecked urban society. They've made the same mistake with other drugs with the same consequences. You can't force a free people to obey a stupid law. They'll get around it somehow and lose respect for the government in the process.

Freedom and liberties my ass? Move to N. Korea then. You'll find people there to be more in line with your beleifs.

Sweetie? Do you understand what a strawman is?

Do you understand that saying the word isn't itself a defense? :rolleyes:

Do you understand that saying the word isn't itself a defense? :rolleyes:
Do you understand that "strawman" means we don't need a defense because you've failed to hit our argument? You've only succeded in showing that you don't really know what the opposition's argument is and that you're incapable of understanding it even when it's been stated many times in writing.

Do you understand that saying the word isn't itself a defense? :rolleyes:

Well why didn't you say so. Here you go.

strawman

n 1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man] 2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 3: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer]

Right because denying people rights (#2 on your list) does one fine fucking job of giving people freedom and liberty.


I haven't taken away any rights... But you can pretend all you want.

They didn't have those rights, they never did have those rights, therefore, I'm not taking anything away from them. :rolleyes:

OH! 'That kind of Strawman... The kind you cracked-pots use to suggest that morality laws infringe on your supposed liberties... :eek:

I haven't taken away any rights... But you can pretend all you want.

They didn't have those rights, they never did have those rights, therefore, I'm not taking anything away from them. :rolleyes:
Face it dude, you don't want to live in a free country. You'd be much happier in a place like Iran, Saudi Arabia or N. Korea. You'd like those people. They obey their god or leader unquestioningly. They hate freedom, just like you. Meanwhile in a free country you'll constantly be challenged by opinions you don't agree with and people living their lives the way they, not you, see fit.

OH! 'That kind of Strawman... The kind you cracked-pots use to suggest that morality laws infringe on your supposed liberties... :eek:

Yeaa! Good job sweetie!

See you can learn something! There is hope for you!

Ahhh the establishment clause! Thank you Mr. Madison!

Oh BTW sweetie.

If you are an american, what state do you live in?

I haven't taken away any rights... But you can pretend all you want.

They didn't have those rights, they never did have those rights, therefore, I'm not taking anything away from them. :rolleyes:

So just because a group of people didn't have a right in the first place means that they can't ever get that right??? How the fuck do you reach that conclusion???

OMGosh, You’re right! :eek: I'm advocating a theocracy because I don't think you should have the legal liberties to drug and seduce minors and marry three of them even if one of them is a boy!!!

I'm such a liberty hating jerk... :p :D :rolleyes:

OH! 'That kind of Strawman... The kind you cracked-pots use to suggest that morality laws infringe on your supposed liberties... :eek:
Yep, some moral codes do. Not everyone has the same morality. My morality says there's nothing wrong with two homos marrying each other. Why? Because my morality is based on liberty and human dignity. Where does your morality come from.

OMGosh, You’re right! :eek: I'm advocating a theocracy because I don't think you should have the legal liberties to drug and seduce minors and marry three of them even if one of them is a boy!!!

I'm such a liberty hating jerk... :p :D :rolleyes:

Nice strawman! Really nice. You set them up so well!

I would suggest Saudi. You would like it there as women have little rights and are veiled so you don't get any dirty thoughts.

Can't drink in public.

So you might like them very much.

OMGosh, You’re right! :eek: I'm advocating a theocracy because I don't think you should have the legal liberties to drug and seduce minors and marry three of them even if one of them is a boy!!!

I'm such a liberty hating jerk... :p :D :rolleyes:
Again with seducing minors. That seems to be an obsession of yours. Nobody here has said they want to screw kids or make it legal for others to do so. Get over it.

Nice strawman! Really nice. You set them up so well!

I would suggest Saudi. You would like it there as women have little rights and are veiled so you don't get any dirty thoughts.

Can't drink in public.

So you might like them very much.

Actually, I think Saudi would be good for you, since there they will let you have polygamy anyway, it's a start. :p

Just a few comments on age of consent, drug use, and polygamy.

a) You'll note a lot of teenagers are pushing for age of consent - but not so that they can screw 30 year olds. It's so they can screw each other. Actually, they already do (and do so most in the states with the highest support for that 'abstinence education' BS, like Texas) and fixing the age of consent laws would stop a lot of the running around. So maybe a four year or three year age difference limit is good. 14 year old dating a 17 year old? A bit extreme but okay. 14 year old dating a 28 year old? Noooo. But it's utterly stupid that a girl caught with a 17 year old guy has "sexual assualt against a minor" on her criminal record. Utterly stupid.
And if any parents have a problem with their kids' sexual activity, work on the trust and responsibility aspect of your relationship with you children, please. The government should not be making things illegal so that you don't have to worry about your parental responsibilities.

b) About drug use: Pot is fine. Other more dangerous stuff should be banned, but as of yet going to the hospital (tens of thousands of accidental deaths in U.S. hospitals a year, this is all from stupid stuff like getting the wrong needle from a nurse who's sleepy after her 12-hour work shift with no break) or getting into a car (look the accident numbers up yourself) is more dangerous than smoking weed. On top, there will be no weed business when anyone can grow a little on the pots outside their window.
Other than that, fix a lot of poverty problems and you should be able to keep crack and the like illegal without difficulty.

c) One man many wives polygamy is unfair. Technically, women should have as much right to multiple husbands as any man has to multiple wives. However, my big beef with polygamy is not any moral issue, but a health issue. One-gender-sided polygamy would drastically increase the spread of STDs, 'fair' polygamy would cause pandemics. As such, just stick to monogamy for the moment.
Alternatively, 'fair' polygamy increases the chances that a Big Pharma CEO will catch AIDs, and once that happens you'll probably see a cure for AIDs within one year.

Again with seducing minors. That seems to be an obsession of yours. Nobody here has said they want to screw kids or make it legal for others to do so. Get over it.


ACLU does, go look at reducing consent age, you should read some of the stuff they advocate and defend :eek:

Actually, I think Saudi would be good for you, since there they will let you have polygamy anyway, it's a start. :p

It wouldn't work as they would not like my viewpoints on the establishment clause. Nor would they like my viewpoints on womans rights.

ACLU does, go look at reducing consent age, you should read some of the stuff they advocate and defend :eek:

If you are going to quote the ACLU, at least get it right.

They don't advocate reducing the age of concent.

They defend NAMBLA's right to say it should be reduced.

Freedom of speech includes the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

If you are going to quote the ACLU, at least get it right.

They don't advocate reducing the age of concent.

They defend NAMBLA's right to say it should be reduced.

Freedom of speech includes the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.
Now don't go clouding this issue up with facts. They only confuse people. BTW, maybe we should look into repealing that pesky first ammendment to the constitution. [/sarcasm]

...
If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth ...

Christ on a stick, man! Where do I sign up?!

But seriously...



Where do I sign up?



Anyways, as mentioned before, the limiting of our freedoms is just not the way we do things here. Half those things you have mentioned there truly need to be stopped (ie. Drug Enforcement), and some that I do agree with (ie. Minors *should* discuss with parents regarding abortions. I am not against abortion, but something that serious should be talked about as a family regardless - especially seeing as she would be a minor), but for the most part, all these do is restrict freedoms based on a christian fear that these will undermine all social structure and lead us astray into a Mad-Max Post Apocalyptic country and lend way to a hellish afterlife.

Blech.

Oh, and I almost feel like I'm watching the Wizard of Oz over here. "If I only had a brain..."

*whistles rest of tune sung by that one "person made of straw"*

Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages…

Every raincloud has a silver lining.

As was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…
I agree. You should take a strong stance against all-sexuals with that lifestyle, and stand up for your beliefs.

So maybe a four year or three year age difference limit is good.

You should still set an age limit as that approach would allow for

15 and a 12 or 11 year old.
14 and a 11 or 10 year old.
13 (yes I know a couple people who did have their first at that age) and a 10 or 9 year old.

I don't know a good age limit. I thought 16 was right but it appears many 15 and 14 year olds are starting these days......

Face it dude, you don't want to live in a free country. You'd be much happier in a place like Iran, Saudi Arabia or N. Korea. You'd like those people. They obey their god or leader unquestioningly. They hate freedom, just like you. Meanwhile in a free country you'll constantly be challenged by opinions you don't agree with and people living their lives the way they, not you, see fit.

So every state in the Union except Nevada can be compared to Iran or North Korea because they don't have prostitution? Without legalized pot we might as well live under the Taliban? Oh I forgot the Christian Right is the American Taliban.

Oh I forgot the Christian Right is the American Taliban.

You've got to keep up with the memos or you'll just get hopelessly mixed up by Friday afternoon.

Greenlander… Greenlander… calm down. Honestly, you resemble one of the films of Hitler… just calm down, calm down… you might get listened to a bit more. It works for me.

I'd love to have "gay acceptance classes" in my school, 'cos I could pretend to have outrageous views, and ask the teacher questions like "Surely if we shoot them all the problem would go away?". I'd love to see the reaction to that… especially as my friends would probably tell me to do something like it.

Lowering consent age? Feck off. Keep it where it is or raise it, it makes no difference as it's never enforced.

Abortion? Why doped-up 15 year olds should never have to take responsibility for their actions is beyond me, I know I would… although the government should provide social this that and the other. No, that's not sarcasm.

Polygamy? You'd end up with the gender ratios imbalanced.

Drugs? Erm… my personal jury's still out on that one. Sorry.

Prostitution? See other threads… I prefer to help them not let them keep on doing it.

I'm quite happy to be unAmerican, since I live in the UK.

Now don't go clouding this issue up with facts. They only confuse people. BTW, maybe we should look into repealing that pesky first ammendment to the constitution. [/sarcasm]

:D

You know something you are right! It is a rather liberal *washes his mouth out with soap* document. We should repeal the whole thing!

;)

You said "Feck Off". I love you.

I *knew* somebody would mention Hitler. :)

So every state in the Union except Nevada can be compared to Iran or North Korea because they don't have prostitution? Without legalized pot we might as well live under the Taliban? Oh I forgot the Christian Right is the American Taliban.

Don't recall him saying that as it is directed at Greenlander. Unless you are him.

As to the American Taliban? Yes there are members of the Christian Right who fit that description rather well.

You said "Feck Off". I love you. Thank you.

I *knew* somebody would mention Hitler. :) I wasn't comparing his views to those of Hitler (I'm not that stupid!), merely drawing attention to the similarities between the delivery style. Except Greenlander made more sense.

I don't know a good age limit. I thought 16 was right but it appears many 15 and 14 year olds are starting these days...... Oh, just leave it as it is. Nobody pays any attention, so changing the law will achieve nothing. If you really want to prevent teenagers from… er… "rabbiting on", just put the fear of Woden into them some way or another. Fear works best.

So every state in the Union except Nevada can be compared to Iran or North Korea because they don't have prostitution? Without legalized pot we might as well live under the Taliban? Oh I forgot the Christian Right is the American Taliban.
The people who want to keep such things illegal and force drug users and prostitutes to go to prisons where they face rape, beatings, and murder are somewhat like the taliban. Yep. I stand by my statement.

Hey, been to worship Baal today?

Man, I'm beat. I've just spent twelve hours being sodomized in an opium den.

Hey, cool!

Yeah, I thought I'd make it up to Baal by giving him a burnt offering tonight. Wanna come?

Let's have gratuitous oral sex on the sidewalk out front of the daycare centre first, eh?

Cool! I got us a six-pack of Molson's goat's blood, btw.

Hey, alright! It's good to be Canadian!

Oh, just leave it as it is. Nobody pays any attention, so changing the law will achieve nothing. If you really want to prevent teenagers from… er… "rabbiting on", just put the fear of Woden into them some way or another. Fear works best.

Well you forget we americans are rather like our lawsuits. After all why talk it over? *sigh*

Just a few days ago a I read a tiny article of a 17 year old being brought up on statutory rape since his GF is 15. It seems the parents "walked" in on them....

If you are going to quote the ACLU, at least get it right.

They don't advocate reducing the age of concent.

They defend NAMBLA's right to say it should be reduced.

Freedom of speech includes the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

When age of concent regards getting an abortion, the ACLU is all for it... Don't fool yourself.

Hey, been to worship Baal today?

Man, I'm beat. I've just spent twelve hours being sodomized in an opium den.

Hey, cool!

Yeah, I thought I'd make it up to Baal by giving him a burnt offering tonight. Wanna come?

Let's have gratuitous oral sex on the sidewalk out front of the daycare centre first, eh?

Cool! I got us a six-pack of Molson's goat's blood, btw.

Hey, alright! It's good to be Canadian!

YOU ARE NOT Canadian!

You didn't use "eh" once! :p

When age of concent regards getting an abortion, the ACLU is all for it... Don't fool yourself.
What? Care to clarify that statement? Age of consent is about when you can legaly have sex. Abortion is a different issue. Your post didn't make much sense to me.

What? Care to clarify that statement? Age of consent is about when you can legaly have sex. Abortion is a different issue. Your post didn't make much sense to me.

Reaching the 'age' limits change from topic to topic. So, when it suits your needs (like you want to have sex with them) lets lower it, maybe a little higher for a drivers license, maybe a little higher before they can vote or join the military and maybe a little higher before we let them buy a beer :rolleyes:

But an abortion, unsupervised, no need to talk to someone's guardian, well, we don't need no stinking age limits there, everyone knows an eleven year old can do that... :eek:


What rubbish...

Reaching the 'age' limits change from topic to topic. So, when it suits your needs (like you want to have sex with them) lets lower it, maybe a little higher for a drivers license, maybe a little higher before they can vote or join the military and maybe a little higher before we let them buy a beer :rolleyes:

But an abortion, unsupervised, no need to talk to someone's guardian, well, we don't need no stinking age limits there, everyone knows an eleven year old can do that... :eek:

What rubbish...

Got proof for the eleven year old?

Strawman!

YOU ARE NOT Canadian!

You didn't use "eh" once! :p

"Let's have gratuitous oral sex on the sidewalk out front of the daycare centre first, eh?"

Thus proving my status as a Godless northern sodomite...

Praise be to Baal!

Reaching the 'age' limits change from topic to topic. So, when it suits your needs (like you want to have sex with them) lets lower it, maybe a little higher for a drivers license, maybe a little higher before they can vote or join the military and maybe a little higher before we let them buy a beer :rolleyes:

But an abortion, unsupervised, no need to talk to someone's guardian, well, we don't need no stinking age limits there, everyone knows an eleven year old can do that... :eek:


What rubbish...
Nobody here is trying to screw kids, so please drop the subject. It only makes me suspect that your obsession with underage sex is a symptom of something psychological.

As for parental notification of abortion, how about if a father is screwing his daughter and gets her pregnant. Should she be forced to ask her rapist for the right to abort the pregnancy? What if her parents beat her? Should she risk a beating in order to control her own life?

Got proof for the eleven year old?

Strawman!

Got proof you have a clue? Try reading the news once in awhile, geez, act like it’s not real and pretend we don’t know about it is not a very effective defense. :rolleyes:

The ACLU is all over letting minors get abortions without a guardians consent. :eek:

"Let's have gratuitous oral sex on the sidewalk out front of the daycare centre first, eh?"

Thus proving my status as a Godless northern sodomite...

Praise be to Baal!

I don't even know what side your on, but that's funny as hell :D :p

Got proof you have a clue? Try reading the news once in awhile, geez, act like it’s not real and pretend we don’t know about it is not a very effective defense. :rolleyes:

The ACLU is all over letting minors get abortions without a guardians consent. :eek:

So, in other words, no, you have no proof of eleven year olds getting abortions.

Got proof you have a clue? Try reading the news once in awhile, geez, act like it’s not real and pretend we don’t know about it is not a very effective defense. :rolleyes:

The ACLU is all over letting minors get abortions without a guardians consent. :eek:
Then it should pose no problem to come up with several sources about that, right?

Nobody here is trying to screw kids, so please drop the subject. It only makes me suspect that your obsession with underage sex is a symptom of something psychological.

As for parental notification of abortion, how about if a father is screwing his daughter and gets her pregnant. Should she be forced to ask her rapist for the right to abort the pregnancy? What if her parents beat her? Should she risk a beating in order to control her own life?

How about if some twenty five year old sicko neighbor has some twelve year old depressed kid brainwashed and is raping her every night... In your world he can protect his identity as he drives her to the abortion clinic and her parents never even have to be told... And worse than it happening anyway, YOU want it to be easier for him to do it! :eek: :headbang:

How about if some twenty five year old sicko neighbor has some twelve year old depressed kid brainwashed and is raping her every night... In your world he can protect his identity as he drives her to the abortion clinic and her parents never even have to be told... And worse than it happening anyway, YOU want it to be easier for him to do it! :eek: :headbang:

Can I buy pot from you?

So, in other words, no, you have no proof of eleven year olds getting abortions.

We're talking about legal liberties here, is it going to be legal or not?

How about if some twenty five year old sicko neighbor has some twelve year old depressed kid brainwashed and is raping her every night... In your world he can protect his identity as he drives her to the abortion clinic and her parents never even have to be told... And worse than it happening anyway, YOU want it to be easier for him to do it! :eek: :headbang:
Whereas you would saddle a mentally disturbed twelve year old with a baby she couldn't take care of just because her parents are anti-abortion or because she's afraid to tell them. Now that's compassionate conservatism.

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

1. Yes, although they would obviously have to be over 18.
2. No more legal marriage, only civil unions. The term marriage should be left to churches(or, if you want to get PC about it, places of worship.)
3. For the most part yes, although drugs like pcp would be a different story simply because they induce a high probability of the user harming others under their influence.
4. Nope.
5. Yes and no. Anybody who engages in polygamy for religious reasons and not because they genuinely like/love(depends on type of polygamist relationship) all of those involved is fucking stupid, but it should still be legal.
6. Nope, 18 is fine.
7. Nope, if the girl in question is under 18 and the male who induced pregnancy is over 5 years older or raped her, charges should most certainly be pressed.
8. See above.
9. No fucking way.
10. See above.

We're talking about legal liberties here, is it going to be legal or not?

Here is a simple lesson for you.

If you want to make a system of law unusable, then create a law for every what if scenerio.

That's why you have the 10 commandments and not the 10 million commandments.

Can I buy pot from you?

I think he's got the hard stuff, myself.

Baal-candy. Devil-dank. Mephisto mix. The Dark One's Own Private Executive-Quality Supremo.

Spin me in and light me up!

Whereas you would saddle a mentally disturbed twelve year old with a baby she couldn't take care of just because her parents are anti-abortion or because she's afraid to tell them. Now that's compassionate conservatism.

Oh, oh oh,!!! Looky there!!! I think I see a, a strawman! :D

We're talking about legal liberties here, is it going to be legal or not?
So you made something up to prove your point?

Oh, oh oh,!!! Looky there!!! I think I see a, a strawman! :D
Is it really a strawman, or is it just an example of what could and in many cases would happen if you got your way?

Oh, oh oh,!!! Looky there!!! I think I see a, a strawman! :D
Learn some reading comprehension. That's not a strawman. That was him responding (correctly) to your strawman.


On an aside, has this guy been warned yet? It seems every thread he starts is trolling.

To heck with straw men, men covered in strawberries is more to the point. Especially the pointiest bit.

So you made something up to prove your point?

It's called, "parental Notification laws" and the ACLU wants to make them illegal. :rolleyes:

Sheesh, you really should think to get out more often.

Learn some reading comprehension. That's not a strawman. That was him responding (correctly) to your strawman.


On an aside, has this guy been warned yet? It seems every thread he starts is trolling.

Trolling because you don't agree with it? Or trolling because I actually stand up for something that you like to ridicule without challenge?

Is it really a strawman, or is it just an example of what could and in many cases would happen if you got your way?

And I pointed out what would happen if you got your way and you didn't like that much... :rolleyes:

Yummy strawberries...

And I pointed out what would happen if you got your way and you didn't like that much... :rolleyes:
No, you claimed that I supported kidfucking. Then you attacked liberals like me who, according to you, want the right to screw little kids. That's not only a straw man, thats an insult.

And I pointed out what would happen if you got your way and you didn't like that much... :rolleyes:
Werent you looking for the word could? Or is it an automatism and all 25 year old guys who live next to 12 year old depressed girls are waiting for the get, set, go?

Trolling because you don't agree with it? Or trolling because I actually stand up for something that you like to ridicule without challenge?
Trolling because you, in the title of this fucking thread, called an entire group of people "Baal worshippers". Your insults aren't helping your cause either.

Trolling because you, in the title of this fucking thread, called an entire group of people "Baal worshippers". Your insults aren't helping your cause either.

Oooh, he swore at me :eek: I'm Soo intimidated by your strong stance now ...

And how many times does the word "Hitler, NeoCon or Theocrat etc., etc., etc. get used in this forum? What a non-issue.

Oooh, he swore at me :eek: I'm Soo intimidated by your strong stance now ...

And how many times does the word "Hitler, NeoCon or Theocrat etc., etc., etc. get used in this forum? What a non-issue.
You went a little too far in saying that liberals are all in favor of banging children. That's a bit more insulting than being called a NeoCon IMHO.

No, you claimed that I supported kidfucking. Then you attacked liberals like me who, according to you, want the right to screw little kids. That's not only a straw man, thats an insult.

Don't blame me, blame the ACLU ...

Is this thread in any way related to BAAL ? No.
What a deceptive title.
By the way, "Baal" is just a general word in the Babylonian language, it just means "Lord of...". Each babylonian city had its own baal, with a different name. Babylone itself had a baal named "Baal Zebub", which means (in old semitic) "Lord of the flies". Each city had a different animal on its crest and royal sceal; thus Babylong had a fly on it. Heck, why not.

"Baal Zebub" gave "Belzebuth", when Christianism became a highly concurrential religion.
"Jupiter", written "Lux Pater" ("father of the light") at the time, gave "Lucifer". "Lucifer" means literally "bearer of light". It was chosen to give a bad name to Roman paganism.

So what the heck.

PS: Our time system is based on the number 60, which was a religious number in the time of Baal Zebub and Babylone. It fact, this whole system in a Babylonian legacy, thus pagan. Will we include the hour and the minute in our religious rants about satan?

Don't blame me, blame the ACLU ...
The ACLU doesn't support sex with kids either. You really do love to beat those strawmen.

Werent you looking for the word could? Or is it an automatism and all 25 year old guys who live next to 12 year old depressed girls are waiting for the get, set, go?

Nope. Looking for the word, 'it does happen,' and I don't want a bunch of laws passed making it easier for them to get away with it...

Is this thread in any way related to BAAL ? No.
What a deceptive title.
By the way, "Baal" is just a general word in the Babylonian language, it just means "Lord of...". Each babylonian city had its own baal, with a different name. Babylone itself had a baal named "Baal Zebub", which means (in old semitic) "Lord of the flies". Each city had a different animal on its crest and royal sceal; thus Babylong had a fly on it. Heck, why not.

"Baal Zebub" gave "Belzebuth", when Christianism became a highly concurrential religion.
"Jupiter", written "Lux Pater" ("father of the light") at the time, gave "Lucifer". "Lucifer" means literally "bearer of light". It was chosen to give a bad name to Roman paganism.

So what the heck.

PS: Our time system is based on the number 60, which was a religious number in the time of Baal Zebub and Babylone. It fact, this whole system in a Babylonian legacy, thus pagan. Will we include the hour and the minute in our religious rants about satan?


Exactly, that's why I picked it. "False God of their ideology" and then I don't have to name each and every one or non-religious ideaology they might have or share...

Baal is just about a perfect choice for what I was trying to say.

Is this thread in any way related to BAAL ? No.
What a deceptive title.
By the way, "Baal" is just a general word in the Babylonian language, it just means "Lord of...". Each babylonian city had its own baal, with a different name. Babylone itself had a baal named "Baal Zebub", which means (in old semitic) "Lord of the flies". Each city had a different animal on its crest and royal sceal; thus Babylong had a fly on it. Heck, why not.

"Baal Zebub" gave "Belzebuth", when Christianism became a highly concurrential religion.
"Jupiter", written "Lux Pater" ("father of the light") at the time, gave "Lucifer". "Lucifer" means literally "bearer of light". It was chosen to give a bad name to Roman paganism.

So what the heck.

PS: Our time system is based on the number 60, which was a religious number in the time of Baal Zebub and Babylone. It fact, this whole system in a Babylonian legacy, thus pagan. Will we include the hour and the minute in our religious rants about satan?
Cool! Our whole civilization is built on Beelzebub and Lucifer. We rock!

Exactly, that's why I picked it. "False God of their ideology" and then I don't have to name each and every one or non-religious ideaology they might have or share...

Baal is just about a perfect choice for what I was trying to say.
It just occured to me that you're saying that other religions besides yours support raping children.

And yet you deny that you are trolling.

Where are the mods when you need them?

You went a little too far in saying that liberals are all in favor of banging children. That's a bit more insulting than being called a NeoCon IMHO.

Then don't support the ACLU in trying to remove ALL morality laws... I didn't make those issues up. People are pushing for that stuff and I'm against it. If you put yourself on their side then that's not my fault.

It just occured to me that you're saying that other religions besides yours support raping children.

And yet you deny that you are trolling.

Where are the mods when you need them?


That sounds about right... Censor those that disagree with you! Stop freedom of speech if it's not going your way! :rolleyes:

Then don't support the ACLU in trying to remove ALL morality laws... I didn't make those issues up. People are pushing for that stuff and I'm against it. If you put yourself on their side then that's not my fault.
The ACLU fights for free expression, not for the abolition of moral behavior. You're attacking an organization you don't even understand. Damn I wish the mods weren't on my back. I would flame the hell out of you. Your arguments deserve that sort of treatment.

Then don't support the ACLU in trying to remove ALL morality laws... I didn't make those issues up. People are pushing for that stuff and I'm against it. If you put yourself on their side then that's not my fault.
Apparently the ACLU is in support of childfucking. Keep erecting strawmen, kid. It only shows your utter inability to debate.

Don't blame me, blame the ACLU ...

Greenlander, you've been called out. You ought to apologize for the whole kidfucking business before things turn uglier than they ought to be.

That sounds about right... Censor those that disagree with you! Stop freedom of speech if it's not going your way! :rolleyes:
Look. I'm trying to help you, kid. Your insults are not productive to debate, and will get you a suspension. You really need to cool off.

Greenlander, you've been called out. You ought to apologize for the whole kidfucking business before things turn uglier than they ought to be.

I'm not going to apologize for NOT wanting to reduce the age of consent...

Why would I want to do that? :confused:

I'm not going to apologize for NOT wanting to reduce the age of consent...

Why would I want to do that? :confused:
He's asking you to apologize for saying that he, and most of the other people on this thread, are in favor of raping kids. I'd advise you to do so, before things turn even uglier.

Look. I'm trying to help you, kid. Your insults are not productive to debate, and will get you a suspension. You really need to cool off.

Insults? Swear words are okay, name calling is okay, saying ridiculous story telling of extremism is all okay ... provided it’s all against Christians and conservatives, mind you. :rolleyes:

But saying it like it is, or unashamedly resisting is somehow wrong?

He's asking you to apologize for saying that he, and most of the other people on this thread, are in favor of raping kids. I'd advise you to do so, before things turn even uglier.


It's a strawman. I said that their laws would make it easier to get away with it... And it would.

Bah, I thought this thread was about how best to please Baal, and instead is about strawmen.

Let's all sing!

There's a strawman, waiting in the sky.
He'd love to come and meet us,
but he's afraid he'll blow our minds...

It's a strawman. I said that there laws would make it easier to get away with it... And it would.
Don't try denying what you said, kid. It makes you look like a fool. You claimed that we supported raping children. Apologize.

Bah, I thought this thread was about how best to please Baal, and instead is about strawmen.

Let's all sing!

There's a strawman, waiting in the sky.
He'd love to come and meet us,
but he's afraid he'll blow our minds...

Let the children lose it,
Let the children use it,
Let all the children boogie!

Insults? Swear words are okay, name calling is okay, saying ridiculous story telling of extremism is all okay ... provided it’s all against Christians and conservatives, mind you. :rolleyes:

But saying it like it is, or unashamedly resisting is somehow wrong?
I don't know. Try telling it like it is and we'll find out. So far you've only been spouting libel and insults and we've been responding in a rather civil and reasoned manner. Please note that I am not normally inclined to respond in a civil manner to people like you. I'm only doing so because the mods will delete me if I make my true feelings known.

Bah, I thought this thread was about how best to please Baal, and instead is about strawmen.

Let's all sing!

There's a strawman, waiting in the sky.
He'd love to come and meet us,
but he's afraid he'll blow our minds...
*dresses up androgynously and joins in*

Oh, how I wish David Bowie wasn't a married man.

Oh, how I wish David Bowie wasn't a married man.

...hey, his first marriage didn't stop him, why would this one ;)

I'm not going to apologize for NOT wanting to reduce the age of consent...

Why would I want to do that? :confused:

Aw sweetie,

You have a short attention span as well?

Nobody here has promoted sex with children.

Nobody here has promoted sex with children.

The Forrest is right, you know. But if you can't see the Forrest for the trees, well...


*Edit: yeah that sucked.

Insults? Swear words are okay, name calling is okay, saying ridiculous story telling of extremism is all okay ... provided it’s all against Christians and conservatives, mind you. :rolleyes:

But saying it like it is, or unashamedly resisting is somehow wrong?

Ahhh the victim analogy.

Sorry sweetie, some people here are against Christians.

Most people here are against your kind of Christians.

Don't try denying what you said, kid. It makes you look like a fool. You claimed that we supported raping children. Apologize.

No, they claimed that I support incestuous fathers raping and beating their daughters... :rolleyes: And their daughters need to be able to get abortions so "notification laws" need to be repealed.

Nice distraction your try to throw there though.

I stand by what I said. All ten of those things are issues that I didn't make up, I addressed my displeasure of them.

I think he left. His persecution complex must have gotten the better of him.

Edit: Nope, he's back. With more strawmen and evasion.

Originally Posted by GreenlanderJust because some psychotic scum-of-the-planet putrid pig is going to search out, hunt down, and pick up some gullible fifteen year old girl at some local skinny dipping spot and drug her all up and take her home and have his way with her and then lets his friend’s borrow her for a few bucks while she’s still doped up and then takes her on over to the abortion clinic and get’s it all taken care of before dropping her off at home again a couple of months later… Just because it’s going to happen anyway doesn’t mean we should legalize it.


What a bunch of crack-pots to think otherwise.


*hands you a Xanax* Dude, chill out. :cool:

No, they claimed that I support incestuous fathers raping and beating their daughters... :rolleyes: And their daughters need to be able to get abortions so "notification laws" need to be repealed.

Nice distraction your try to throw there though.

I stand by what I said. All ten of those things are issues that I didn't make up, I addressed my displeasure of them.


Ahhh another strawman. Ever been to the burning man festival? They could really use your abilities.

No, they claimed that I support incestuous fathers raping and beating their daughters
Learn to read. It was pointed out that that situation would be an effect of your ideas if they were put into effect. Stop evading. You claimed we support child-raping, and we demand an apology. Is that too hard to do?

The Forrest is right, you know. But if you can't see the Forrest for the trees, well...


*Edit: yeah that sucked.

It wasn't so bad. I like trees, it makes it harder to get a scope on me! :p

No, they claimed that I support incestuous fathers raping and beating their daughters... :rolleyes: And their daughters need to be able to get abortions so "notification laws" need to be repealed.

Nice distraction your try to throw there though.

I stand by what I said. All ten of those things are issues that I didn't make up, I addressed my displeasure of them.
Bullshit. Way to keep lying. I said that if children are forced to notify their parents for abortions then abusive parents will further traumatize their kids. I didn't say you support incestuous fathers. I pointed out a problem with your argument.

You are the one who made an ad-hominem attack as well as raising a straw man when you claimed that liberals are in favor of raping children. Typical. I've seen alot of bullies claim that it's unfair when someone stands up to them. I guess you're no different.

With all this talk of straw men, I wonder whether Greenlander would like to

*drops voice down an octave to Christopher Lee-like proportions*

Keep an appointment with the Wicker Man?

Learn to read. It was pointed out that that situation would be an effect of your ideas if they were put into effect. Stop evading. You claimed we support child-raping, and we demand an apology. Is that too hard to do?

Ummm, maybe we'll all learn to read together shall we?

As for parental notification of abortion, how about if a father is screwing his daughter and gets her pregnant. Should she be forced to ask her rapist for the right to abort the pregnancy? What if her parents beat her? Should she risk a beating in order to control her own life?

:rolleyes: Right along there, if ones a Strawmen, then all are strawmen.

Ummm, maybe we'll all learn to read together shall we?



:rolleyes: Right along there, if ones a Strawmen, then all are strawmen.
"What if?" isn't a strawman. I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a strawman is.

With all this talk of straw men, I wonder whether Greenlander would like to

*drops voice down an octave to Christopher Lee-like proportions*

Keep an appointment with the Wicker Man? Can you believe they're making a remake with Nicholas Cage?! :confused:

And he won't even be a virgin in it! :eek:

"What if?" isn't a strawman. I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a strawman is.

I don't have to say "what if" about statutory rape victims. We all know it really happens. And I don't support making the laws easier for those sickos to get away with it. I'm not for reducing the age of consent, I'm not for repealing notification laws for minors to get an abortion without notifying their guardians and I'm not for adults being able to take minors to abortion clinics while hiding their identities...

I don't need to say "what if." It really happens, that's why they have laws about it and why the ACLU (among others) have court cases challenging them.

Can you believe they're making a remake with Nicholas Cage?! :confused:

And he won't even be a virgin in it! :eek:
WTF? You can't sacrifice him if he's not a virgin, right?

Can you believe they're making a remake with Nicholas Cage?! :confused:

And he won't even be a virgin in it! :eek:

Then there's really no point to it, then.

Ah, well. that's Hollywood for you.

I don't have to say "what if" about statutory rape victims. We all know it really happens. And I don't support making the laws easier for those sickos to get away with it. I'm not for reducing the age of consent, I'm not for repealing notification laws for minors to get an abortion without notifying their guardians and I'm not for adults being able to take minors to abortion clinics while hiding their identities...

I don't need to say "what if." It really happens, that's why they have laws about it and why the ACLU (among others) have court cases challenging them.
Chill out, kid. You're going to get an ulcer.

By the way, isn't he shifting the goalposts? I could be mistaken, but he seems to be committing that fallacy.

LOL :p

Perhaps it's time you restarted at the beginning; you don't seem to know what the conversation is about.

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution


Nothing wrong with this, its their body, why not let them sell it?


2: Same-Sex Marriage


Doesn't infringe on your rights any, now does it?


3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use


I think Marijuana should be legalized, but thats the only 'Narcotic'.


4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property


Absolutely. Religion should be a private matter. (Although any group should be able to rent a space for their religious practice/celebration)


5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)


I have no immediate issue with this. Although the divorce proceedings would be a HUGE pain.


6: Decrease the age of Consent


Uhm.. Err.. Hrmm.. Never really thought about this. 16 should be the youngest age of consent. But thats as far as I'd go.


7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians


Yup, absolutely. Their body, their business.


8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics


See #7


9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised


*hmms* I don't see any major issue with this either. Define - Minor.


10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*


I'm pro-gay marriage, have a plethora of gay friends, and a bi-sexual wife. And I still say this is re-gawd-damn-diculous.

I think the mechanics of reproduction and sex should be address in Sex Ed classes and thats *IT*. None of this 'this is right, this is wrong', just. "This is how it works, this is what you do to prevent yourself from getting pregnant/infected with a disease.. Abstinence is the only sure-fire method to prevent either. Do with this info what you will" Morality/religion should be taught in the home, not the school. Its not their place to address right/wrong.


(resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools)


All for the resisting of that. The teachers at public schools don't get paid enough as it is, and many schools have substandard educational equipment/room. You want to send your child to a private school, do it. You want your child raised in a particular religion, you raise them in it. You want to teach your child gay relationships are wrong.. YOU DO IT. Its your responsibility as their parent after all. Or should the government start a diaper-changing program too?


If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…


Odd.. I can't think of a single person I associate with who lives in the style that you have just described. And I many of those I associate with support everything I just mentioned. Sooo.. Who are you talking about?

They make good money, they're monogamous with their partner, remarkably unmaterialistic, don't do drugs, and aren't interested in government hand-outs. (This is one couple I'm talking about, but many of the others are the same way, straight/bi/gay)

Soooo... Who the hell are you referring to?

Oh.. And incidentally, are you aware the Catholic Church ran brothels for as late as the late 1500's?

Preached reincarnation for 650 years?

Didn't always believe that priests shouldn't marry/have sex/concieve children?

Isn't it great to live some place where everyone is free to tell you how to live, regardless of your own choices?

Then there's really no point to it, then.

Ah, well. that's Hollywood for you.

Note: In many cultures (ireland specifically) Virgin merely meant 'A woman who was her own master', as opposed to 'Never had sex'. That is, until they brought in Christianity..

I didn't know Baal had worshippers in the US. Still, if Baal can get followers, so can I.

Personally I don't see why it's necessary to ban wanton lust, gluttony, and drug use. If such things are so bad, why not give people a choice? Choosing not to do those things even when you could is much more moral than choosing not to because the state will kick your ass for it.

I didn't know Baal had worshippers in the US. Still, if Baal can get followers, so can I.

Personally I don't see why it's necessary to ban wanton lust, gluttony, and drug use. If such things are so bad, why not give people a choice? Choosing not to do those things even when you could is much more moral than choosing not to because the state will kick your ass for it.

However much we might dream of perfect world of total freedom and liberty, the reality is that we can't actually do it. There will always be the people that push their 'freedoms' too far. The reality is, we live in communities and we grant the right to these communities to have decency laws and morale codes and rules of conduct of what we, through the community, agree to be a standard of acceptable behaviors.

For those that disagree, It's called 'civilization' maybe you read about it once in a history book or something, try to think back now... A group of individuals 'agree' to live together within a set standard of conduct that they enforce on each other. If some individuals can't adjust, they are booted out of the community or leave voluntarily, but the agreed to community standards are necessary. To avoid anarchy and chaos the community maintains a civil code of conduct.

We are simply disagreeing on where those codes should be drawn. The Christian code is just as good as theirs, despite what they say...

The Christian code is just as good as theirs, despite what they say...

suport for this statement? are you talking in terms of some strange reactionary version of moral relativism or what?

suport for this statement? are you talking in terms of some strange reactionary version of moral relativism or what?

Support for the idea that Christians can vote and decide community standards that are just as good as anything the anti-Christian fanatics can come up with.

Support for the idea that Christians can vote and decide community standards that are just as good as anything the anti-Christian fanatics can come up with.

so absolutely any set of standards would be acceptable if it was supported by x% of the population?

Support for the idea that Christians can vote and decide community standards that are just as good as anything the anti-Christian fanatics can come up with.

How about all people, not just Christians, voting and deciding upon these "community standards" you seem to be all clenched and uptight over? After all, a community is made of more than one groups of people, however well-intentioned (though I'm not persuaded about the intentions, actually) that one group - in this instance Christians - may feel itself to be.

How about all people, not just Christians, voting and deciding upon these "community standards" you seem to be all clenched and uptight over? After all, a community is made of more than one groups of people, however well-intentioned (though I'm not persuaded about the intentions, actually) that one group - in this instance Christians - may feel itself to be.

so absolutely any set of standards would be acceptable if it was supported by x% of the population?

It's the way things are. I do not dictate the rules of every society, I am defending and advancing both my right to have my views AND the right to defend them... Meaning, if it comes to a vote and/or court challenge etc., the Christians have just as much right as anyone else to support their standards and they shouldn't need to feel ashamed of them either.

I already stated my view on the first page/opening post, so, I won't do it again now.

Wow. Someone afraid of change. Don't worry. When the last of your kind die off, change will happen. Even among Christians you're beginning to be a dying breed.

May not like change, but too bad. It happens, or the nation simply dies. Your choice of which, and Fate really doesn't give a damn if you don't like the choices.

Maybe, maybe not. Not all change is good. Not all change is beneficial.

Change is not always progress...Sometimes change is just change and sometimes it's regression because people have forgotten why they stopped doing certain stuff before (they've forgotten their history) and they are bound to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors...

This entire list minus the religious symbols thing is the reason why we are in the the top 10 for quality of life. Notice people are more happy here in Canada and I can say that because I lived in the USA and trust me everybody here is much more happy, peaceful and (oh my God) religiously astute. When you give people freedom of social liberty they most often turn out to be more moralistic. People only abuse that which they cannot have.
My god this is first semester sociology. Go to school America.
-Chris

Unfortunately, the repeating of history is just the norm. Humans as a whole have yet to evolve the capacity to truly learn from their mistakes. The individual may learn from past mistakes, but the species as a whole is completely incapable of it. The only real difference is that the bonfire that burns us every time we stick our hands in keeps getting bigger and hotter.

I never said change was good or even progress. But fighting against it is just as stupid as allowing it to happen. You allow it to happen, you willingly allow bad events to happen. You successfully prevent it, you cause stagnation and death. You attempt to prevent it, you're attempting to cause stagnation and death.

At the end of the day, change in some form happens and most people lose out as a result.

Unfortunately, the repeating of history is just the norm. Humans as a whole have yet to evolve the capacity to truly learn from their mistakes. The individual may learn from past mistakes, but the species as a whole is completely incapable of it. The only real difference is that the bonfire that burns us every time we stick our hands in keeps getting bigger and hotter.

I never said change was good or even progress. But fighting against it is just as stupid as allowing it to happen. You allow it to happen, you willingly allow bad events to happen. You successfully prevent it, you cause stagnation and death. You attempt to prevent it, you're attempting to cause stagnation and death.

At the end of the day, change in some form happens and most people lose out as a result.

Actually, I'm not going to argue with that at all.

I 'choose,' at this time, to not willingly change in the directions they (as listed on first post) desire to go... :D

Damn. Thought I had you for a moment.

Congrats on sticking your ground on that one.

Actually, I'm not going to argue with that at all.

I 'choose,' at this time, to not willingly change in the directions they (as listed on first post) desire to go...


And no one says you have to. What I think people are saying is don't make others' decisions for them, and don't insult them for what they believe.

Just one clarifying comment: Polygamy is the union of several people, undisclosed gender, in marriage or marriagelike union. Polyandry is when one woman have several husbands as lifecompanions and finally, polygyny is when one man have multiple wives. Polygamy includes both polyandry and polygyny but is not restricted to those.
Just so you who object with the gender ratio argument knows exactly what you are objecting against.

It's the way things are. I do not dictate the rules of every society, I am defending and advancing both my right to have my views AND the right to defend them... Meaning, if it comes to a vote and/or court challenge etc., the Christians have just as much right as anyone else to support their standards and they shouldn't need to feel ashamed of them either.

I already stated my view on the first page/opening post, so, I won't do it again now.

But sweetie.

You can have any view you like. You just can't expect everybody else to have to have them.

I have my "moral" code. I don't expect anybody to follow and I don't judge others by it. It's mine and nobody can have it! IT"S MINE! ;)

I am defending and advancing both my right to have my views AND the right to defend them...

and that's all fine and dandy. just don't be surprised when we all laugh at you and your stupid views. having the right to hold your own views doesn't automatically give them equal intellectual standing.

Just one clarifying comment: Polygamy is the union of several people, undisclosed gender, in marriage or marriagelike union. Polyandry is when one woman have several husbands as lifecompanions and finally, polygyny is when one man have multiple wives. Polygamy includes both polyandry and polygyny but is not restricted to those.
Just so you who object with the gender ratio argument knows exactly what you are objecting against.
Thank you for the clarification. Now I only oppose it on public health grounds.

I disagree with Greenlander strongly, but I don't think you guys are exactly debating with him in a fair manner. It's not a 'ganging-up' style complaint - if he's going to argue like that he deserves the crush - but forcing the argument into the "another backwards Christian" rut is overused and cheap, not to mention unnecessary when you could stick to disproving the logical fallacies.
His being Christian is irrelevant to the argument, and should not be brought up unless anyone wants to use the Bible and/or the teaching of the saints to argue against his position. Which is entirely possible, but I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

Thank you for the clarification. Now I only oppose it on public health grounds.

I disagree with Greenlander strongly, but I don't think you guys are exactly debating with him in a fair manner. It's not a 'ganging-up' style complaint - if he's going to argue like that he deserves the crush - but forcing the argument into the "another backwards Christian" rut is overused and cheap, not to mention unnecessary when you could stick to disproving the logical fallacies.
His being Christian is irrelevant to the argument, and should not be brought up unless anyone wants to use the Bible and/or the teaching of the saints to argue against his position. Which is entirely possible, but I haven't seen anyone do so yet.


Ah but I disagree with you. He bases his argument on his moral code; his christian moral code.

The fact he argues like "another backwards Christian" does not exclude the use of the label.

As to using the Bible; why? We aren't all Christians here.

Ah but I disagree with you. He bases his argument on his moral code; his christian moral code.
Then we differ on what makes a Christian. I don't feel illogical moral codes and theocracy make a Christian, and a lot of the views put forward by Greenlander I would not consider Christian in any sense. Certainly not in the sense of Christian thinking put forward by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assissi, Dorothy Day, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa, and others.

As to using the Bible; why? We aren't all Christians here.
In that case his being a Christian or not shouldn't concern you. Hell, I don't think of myself as a Christian (philosophical technicalities - I disagree with small but important details to the faith, lot of good stuff in the Bible if you read it carefully though) and few would call me a Christian, but would use the Bible to argue with Greenlander. If he considers his position Christian, he must be willing to accept what would be considered Christian arguments against his position.

As was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…

First off, what the fuck do you mean by Baal worshippers? Baal as a demon only exists in Christian mythology, so for anyone to have heard of him would have to be a Christian. Unless you mean as a pantheist God of storms, then you have no right to talk, because more people have been killed in the name of Jesus than anyone, even Hitler.

#1
This makes sense. I don't see the point of legalizing it. Best thing would be to encourage them to work in a legitamate strip club.

#2
Ooooh, the so-called evils of homosexuals. Gay marraige doesn't affect anyone but gays themselves, so why should anyone else have a say in it?

#3
Some good could come out of this. Drugs would have all the horrible side affects listed, and marijuana would come in cigarettes with filters, so they would be little more, if not less, dangerous than cigarettes.

#4
Seperation of Church and State. The government never tries to control religion, why should religion be allowed to control the government? And if all religious symbols are allowed, this includes symbols of Satanism, Setianism, and Luciferism. These would get defiled by hypochristians and would result in hurt feelings.

#5
No comment.

#6
For sex? So long as they know how sex works, and all the risks involved, they should be allowed to. I think restricting them based on knowledge rather than age makes more sense, because there could be 18 year olds who don't know what they're getting into.

#7 & 8
I think these go together. It's personal surgery, why should everyone here about it?

#9
Minors as in under 18, or young children? Young children shouldn't go anywhere unsupervised. But if you uphold the law that you can only be publicly nude in these specific parks, and prevent minors from going in there, you're oppresing their beliefs.

#10
That would be pointless. Instead, turn Black History month into Tolerance month, where you learn to accept everyone who is different than you.

And using a thesaurus doesn't making you the expert on everything. Morality is relative. If someone thinks eating meat is wrong, or immoral why should he be able to stop everyone else from eating meat?

: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
Oh my. They're pushing a little far, aren't they? What's next, genital mutilations?

Further proof that the left should focus more and, yes, make choices sometimes.

Then we differ on what makes a Christian. I don't feel illogical moral codes and theocracy make a Christian, and a lot of the views put forward by Greenlander I would not consider Christian in any sense. Certainly not in the sense of Christian thinking put forward by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assissi, Dorothy Day, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa, and others.


I am not the one defining what is a Christian. The fact there are many like him; makes it kind of hard to simply dismiss him as "he's not really a christian"


In that case his being a Christian or not shouldn't concern you. Hell, I don't think of myself as a Christian (philosophical technicalities - I disagree with small but important details to the faith, lot of good stuff in the Bible if you read it carefully though) and few would call me a Christian, but would use the Bible to argue with Greenlander. If he considers his position Christian, he must be willing to accept what would be considered Christian arguments against his position.

The fact his is or isn't a Christian doesn't concern me.

The fact he is "another dumb Christian" preeching for a theocracy is what concerns me.

Note: In many cultures (ireland specifically) Virgin merely meant 'A woman who was her own master', as opposed to 'Never had sex'. That is, until they brought in Christianity..
Ironically, of course, the virgin birth was no such thing. There is no word for virgin in hebrew. There is, however, the word for young woman. Got to love those mistranslations.

Kicked in the Baals.

I am not the one defining what is a Christian. The fact there are many like him; makes it kind of hard to simply dismiss him as "he's not really a christian"
It's not a question of "he's not really a christian", it's a question of the language being used. It pressures sensible Christians to always be apologizing for and distancing themselves from this kind of thinking, just as the acts of people like OBL pressures sensible Muslims to always be apologizing for and distancing themselves from that nonsense. Which is unfair. And of course, if we fix the language we pre-empt the rise of the totally false assumption that Christianity is what makes him irrational, which is biased.

The fact his is or isn't a Christian doesn't concern me.

The fact he is "another dumb Christian" preeching for a theocracy is what concerns me.
If his being Christian or not doesn't concern you then there is no need to attach Christianity to his actions, and thus no need to say anything about Christianity or Christians in general. If his theocratic views are the problem you have, call him a theocrat. The truly unbiased are only concerned about "another dumb theocrat", not "another dumb Christian".

Kicked in the Baals.
now this was worth reading. :D

As was already pointed out in another thread, they want to legalize prostitution, but it is already within the power of some State legislatures, and most Americans don't seem to want to allow it to go any further... So what’s the point? That the federal system should mandate 'legalized prostitution?'

Okay, let’s see now:

The nincompoops list of what they want us to legislate/legalize:

1: Prostitution
2: Same-Sex Marriage
3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use
4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property
5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)
6: Decrease the age of Consent
7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians
8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics
9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised
10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)


Well, I’m sure glad Canada legalized same-sex marriages, because now you will all have a nice close place to move to when we start passing amendments to permanently stop this crap, this rubbish, this refuse, this garbage.

If you want to live a life of drug addiction and participate in unrestrained orgies of wanton lust, of abandoned abomination and gluttony, of greedy hording of more and more filth, slow to work and quick to ask for government hand-outs, immediate wrath against those who oppose you (Christians), jealous of those that have more stuff and prettier sexual partners, and last but not least, Pride in you own intellectal putridness…

Then by all means, go wallow in the pig sty of your own making, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us finally stand up and say enough is enough and we decide that you and your nonsensical talk of tolerance and imaginary ‘free-acceptance’ of others and their supposed life-style choices is really an empty gesture, an intellectual sleight-of-hand trick, just so that you can get your sickness stamped with public protection and approval of your vile ways…

And if it’s ‘old-fashioned’ to be against all of this stuff, then I’m proud to call myself a relic…



Long live the relic's! May we always be as strong as this wall.
:headbang:

I agree we live in a society that makes it decisions based on majority rule. However that does not mean majority rule is always right. Ignorance, hatred, and discrimination are going to be with us for quite some time. That is why we have institutions such as the supreme court, electoral college, and a balance of power to make sure that if the majority steps out of line there is a counter point to set against it. Surely greenlander you wouldnt say slavery was right because the majority of people supported it at one time?

The fact he is "another dumb Christian" preeching for a theocracy is what concerns me.

Theocracy? I had to laugh when I read your post. It's funny how nowadays anything considered moral or traditional is now all of a sudden theocratic, yet just 20-30 years ago the same views would be considered not only acceptable but commonplace.

Surely greenlander you wouldnt say slavery was right because the majority of people supported it at one time?

Whoever said that morality is a "majority-rules" situation. You obviously didn't get what Greenlander said. The problem is that the points he illustrated ARE the growing majority, and that the "traditional" values are slowly being thrown down the toilet.

People like you always like to bring up the slavery issue as a refutation to my claim. However, there were PLENTY of people who argued against slavery when it was introduced to America. The problem lies with most people who settled in the colonies were pro-slavery, which gave a seemingly pro-slavery bent to the early formation of the U.S. As people continued to emigrate to the U.S. the issue was heightened (especially amongst the religious who, as you recall were fleeing Europe from religious persecution)Furthermore, we had a Civil War against slavery (there were many factors, but most historians consider slavery to be the key issue). The one and only Civil War in the history of the U.S. was fought over the morality of this issue. Hmm. Seems like most people did give a damn. Need more evidence of the hatred against slavery? The Republican party was originally a third party with an anti-slavery platform, and grew in popularity and (while it changed a lot), is currently one of the two most popular political parties.

On that note, consider the ten points Greenlander proposed. Why is it that all of a sudden these points are suddenly morally correct and acceptable, when previously they were not. Did morality change? Or perhaps we've experienced a prevalence of moral decay...

Call me a theocratic nut-job, but in doing so, you would be calling most of our American ancestors (including the Founding Fathers), the same.

Surely greenlander you wouldnt say slavery was right because the majority of people supported it at one time?[/QUOTE]

while coming from a biblical stand point even God supported slavery granted there were rules and they were set free after 7 years but still.

However much we might dream of perfect world of total freedom and liberty, the reality is that we can't actually do it. There will always be the people that push their 'freedoms' too far. The reality is, we live in communities and we grant the right to these communities to have decency laws and morale codes and rules of conduct of what we, through the community, agree to be a standard of acceptable behaviors.
Agreed. Hobbes and Locke are really big into this. However we dont grant the right to these communities to have decency laws and moral codes. What we do is we give up certain rights in order to make sure we are protected and can live in peace. It doesnt have to deal with religion at all.

For those that disagree, It's called 'civilization' maybe you read about it once in a history book or something, try to think back now... A group of individuals 'agree' to live together within a set standard of conduct that they enforce on each other. If some individuals can't adjust, they are booted out of the community or leave voluntarily, but the agreed to community standards are necessary. To avoid anarchy and chaos the community maintains a civil code of conduct.
I agree with the statement that community standards are necessary. However these standards are not directly linked to religion. Common sense, the urge to socialize, and wanting to live without fighting/killing/looting are all things we experience which are not always associated with religion. Individuals who can not conform to said standard are removed from the society in question. However these individuals are removed when they become a danger to themselves and others. Most people these days can voice decent without fear of retribution or the threat of physical action like removal from the community. If you live in the United States you can do this because of the First amendment. If you dont like it well then you can voice your opinion about it. However that does not mean you can force your beliefs on others.

We are simply disagreeing on where those codes should be drawn. The Christian code is just as good as theirs, despite what they say...
Except the Christian code is not just moral laws. It is a way of life which is not shared by every individual. It dictates social interactions/private interactions/economic situations. Not only that but it also requires the belief in a supernatural entity which may or may not exist. You go far beyond moral laws when you use the Christian code and not everyone agrees with them. The question becomes well if there are so many religions which one is right. The USA made a smart decision when it said you know what we wont deal with religion. Lets just set down some rules which are common sense and everyone can agree on. How you live your life aside from that is up to you. And so far its been a good system. People have been living lives contrary to the christian code for a long time and as we have seen America has not gone to hell in a handbasket yet.

Oh my. They're pushing a little far, aren't they?

how so? is there any actual argument against polygamy? it's not like people don't already have such relationships anyway.

Theocracy? I had to laugh when I read your post. It's funny how nowadays anything considered moral or traditional is now all of a sudden theocratic, yet just 20-30 years ago the same views would be considered not only acceptable but commonplace.



It's theocratic when you talk about creating laws based on your religious code.

Thirty years ago? Let's see that was the 70s. There was a big morality movement? :eek:

Forty years ago it was perfectly "moral" to have seperate drinking fountains as you might get darky cooties.

*edit*

Nah let's not go off on a tangent.

By the way, have any Modern Day American Baal Worshippers responded to this thread? I haven't found any.

I believe this letter/thread/post thing is addressed to the wrong people.

But then... if you called anyone but fictitious "Baal Worshippers" a bunch of 'nincompoops' it might be considered trolling yes? And more honest and direct and meaningful. As it is, one is forced to refute the first post by defending "they" and "nincompoops" and other vague people whose points are obviously easy to misconstrue - if not invent totally on the spot. Or, ignore the whole thing as the ranting of yet another holier-than-thou moralist who thinks his shit doesn't stink.

A few are rising to the challenge but most I see are choosing the latter option. I think I will too. Good day. ;)

'nincompoops'


ehehhehhmehehheh you said poop ehehhhehehee


A few are rising to the challenge but most I see are choosing the latter option. I think I will too. Good day. ;)

Nahh rather bored today so it was more poking an angry dog with a stick thing.

It's theocratic when you talk about creating laws based on your religious code.

It has nothing to do with creating laws to suit a religious code. If you are going to get that technical, why have laws against murder, rape, polygamy, incest, etc.? Using your twisted logic all of these laws should be repealed because they possibly infringe upon the rights of criminals and perverts and their "religious" views. C'mon, admit it. The issue is not whether or not these issues are permissible due to possible "religious code", it is simply an attempt to remove any semblence of Christianity (as well as other religions that aren't targeted as often), out of lawmaking. Now, I believe in the Separation of Church and State, but I also believe in democracy, and the context in which the Constitution was founded. We weren't founded on a valueless society, and many of the precepts established at the founding of our country are now being torn down. Remember, Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the CHURCH from the State, not the other way around.

Thirty years ago? Let's see that was the 70s. There was a big morality movement?

Forty years ago would have been more accurate, however the 70s was still relatively "moral-driven", so to speak, in comparison to modern times. However, I do concede that it was the beginning of the corruption of morality that we now experience in modern times.

Forty years ago it was perfectly "moral" to have seperate drinking fountains as you might get darky cooties.

Did you read my post regarding slavery? If not, please do. If so, just because it was socially acceptable to allow segregation of blacks and whites (much in the same way as it is now currently acceptable for gays to marry, for abortion laws to be loosened, for a strong movement towards legalizing certain illegal drugs, allowing prostitution and polygamy to occur...the list goes on), does not mean the action is right. In fact, I maintain that majority opinion is growing increasingly in favor of more liberal (not meaning politically liberal, but "loose") views towards morality, just as slavery was thought to be okay for a long period in U.S. history. Please read my entire post before blabbing on about something that I've already covered.

Nah let's not go off on a tangent.

Too late. :D

Forty years ago would have been more accurate, however the 70s was still relatively "moral-driven", so to speak, in comparison to modern times. However, I do concede that it was the beginning of the corruption of morality that we now experience in modern times.


Then I guess you missed out on all the wife-swapping, dope-smoking, beer-drinking (and there wasn't such a thing as "lite" beer then, either) and other socially-accepted forms of debauchery that were de rigeur in the suburbs throughout the 60s and 70s.

Or did you think the older generation had no genitals below their belts?

It has nothing to do with creating laws to suit a religious code. If you are going to get that technical, why have laws against murder, rape, polygamy, incest, etc.? Using your twisted logic all of these laws should be repealed because they possibly infringe upon the rights of criminals and perverts and their "religious" views.

strawman.

murder = harm of a non-consenting individual
rape = same as above
polygamy = ought be legal, no rational argument against it
incest = harm of a non-consenting individual in the case of rape or child molestation. the legal situation for consenting adults already murky (just what relationships count as incest anyways?) and it is highly unlikely to ever develop into any sort of a common occurance anyway, so really, what's the point of illegalizing it for consenting adults?

Call me a theocratic nut-job, but in doing so, you would be calling most of our American ancestors (including the Founding Fathers), the same. {/quote]

I was under the impression that they were mostly 'theocratic nut-jobs'. Salem, anybody?

how so? is there any actual argument against polygamy?

The problem with polygamy is primarily a legal and organizational one. Marriage allows certain rights and demand certain responsibilities by both law and society. One issue that comes to mind is the joint filing of tax returns. If polygamy was allowed, then twenty people could get married to each other and file one tax return. Not to mention how chaotic public records would become, and then there is the question of where legal parental responsibility lies. All in all, it isn’t practical to create legal recognition of polygamy.

1: Prostitution

And what is wrong with that? there is demand by horny men, and there are women who are willing to supply to meet that demand.

Its freemarket baby, get used to it.

2: Same-Sex Marriage

What is wrong with that?

3: Legalize Narcotic Drug Use

What is wrong with that? what a person does in the comfort of their own home, either by themselves or with other conscenting adults is none of the governments business.

4: Ban All Religious Symbols on Public Property

So you'd be ok if I were to slam a big Buddhist symbol on public property? how about making a poster with the Seven Noble Truths, and have them hanging in the court house?

5: Allow Polygamy (See published ACLU statements)

If all the parties conscent to it, why not?

6: Decrease the age of Consent

To what? the age of 18 is puritannical at best; Europe, which has the age of 16, has far low rates of STDs and teen pregnancy - all it tells me is that the US hasn't got its act together.

7: On Demand Abortion for any age group without notification of guardians

So you're quite happy with a father who has raped his daughter, not being able to go off and confidentially seek an abortion without her mother or father knowing?

8: Protect privacy rights of people who take minors to a abortion clinics

9: Allow minors to attend Nudist Camps unsupervised

Who said anything about that? why would a minor wish to go to a nudist camp anyway? you know of a minor who has a few hundred just sitting around to pay for one of those camping 'experiences'.

10: Mandate Homosexual Acceptance Classes*

(* side note: Mandate classes at all public schools AND resist school voucher programs so that poor parents can’t use their child’s school tax money to take their children to private schools and thus avoid Gay indoctrination and can have school prayers and religious trainings of any kind…)

And how is that bad? we're forced to tolerate the 'Christian lifestyle', what is so bad about, at the very least, tolerating and not giving gays a hard time at school, in the work place or in public.

How about you using your brain for once instead of pushing the same tired old crap of 'coversion' and 'recruitment' - all we ask is that we're treated with respect and dignity, and for christsake, so teasing and beating the crap out of teens who come out at highschool/college - is that *really* too much to ask?

How about if some twenty five year old sicko neighbor has some twelve year old depressed kid brainwashed and is raping her every night... In your world he can protect his identity as he drives her to the abortion clinic and her parents never even have to be told... And worse than it happening anyway, YOU want it to be easier for him to do it! :eek: :headbang:

Great, and I had a friend who was sexually abused by his father; when I convinced him that he should tell his mother; his mother then turned around and blamed HIM (my friend!).

Heterosexual; protecting their mate before their off spring - why aren't I surprised.

Great, and I had a friend who was sexually abused by his father; when I convinced him that he should tell his mother; his mother then turned around and blamed HIM (my friend!).

Heterosexual; protecting their mate before their off spring - why aren't I surprised.

And both of the parents should be locked up and have the key thrown away, but that's relavent to this topic how?

how so? is there any actual argument against polygamy? it's not like people don't already have such relationships anyway.

One really quick, non-religious reason against polygamy is employment covered health care plans. "Gee State Job boss man, that sure is nice of you to offer family coverage plans for one simple price becuase I've got 17 wives and 43 children!!! Whoo hoo!" :D

and that's all fine and dandy. just don't be surprised when we all laugh at you and your stupid views. having the right to hold your own views doesn't automatically give them equal intellectual standing.


:rolleyes:

And both of the parents should be locked up and have the key thrown away, but that's relavent to this topic how?
Gosh, holding the parents responsible for what happens for the kid. Maybe they should be responsible for not letting some 25 year old enjoy the rub and tug, rather than people who merely want some privacy rights. Perhaps?
I fail to see how keeping abortions secret makes pedophile's lives easier, why isn't the kid going to the police in the first place?

One really quick, non-religious reason against polygamy is employment covered health care plans. "Gee State Job boss man, that sure is nice of you to offer family coverage plans for one simple price becuase I've got 17 wives and 43 children!!! Whoo hoo!":D
lol, good thinking, another reason.

Gosh, holding the parents responsible for what happens for the kid. Maybe they should be responsible for not letting some 25 year old enjoy the rub and tug, rather than people who merely want some privacy rights. Perhaps?
I fail to see how keeping abortions secret makes pedophile's lives easier, why isn't the kid going to the police in the first place?


Here's why, IMO, I think they should do a DNA/blood test on all aborted fetuses from ALL underage abortions across the board. It should be standard policy to find out who the father's are and if a crime has been committed. They wouldn’t even need to ask the girl who she thinks the father is, like fingerprints as crime scene, find out who the father is and press charges if he’s of legal age or related or a rapist etc., etc., etc.

I don't think the father's should have any rights to privacy from criminal prosecution here.

The problem with polygamy is primarily a legal and organizational one. Marriage allows certain rights and demand certain responsibilities by both law and society. One issue that comes to mind is the joint filing of tax returns. If polygamy was allowed, then twenty people could get married to each other and file one tax return. Not to mention how chaotic public records would become, and then there is the question of where legal parental responsibility lies. All in all, it isn’t practical to create legal recognition of polygamy.

that isn't particularly compelling. of course we would have to make changes to some of the paper work and probably create more of it. but so what? it's not like bureaucracies have ever let that stop them before - the fuckers thrive on making the paper trail bigger and more complex.

One really quick, non-religious reason against polygamy is employment covered health care plans. "Gee State Job boss man, that sure is nice of you to offer family coverage plans for one simple price becuase I've got 17 wives and 43 children!!! Whoo hoo!" :D

which means that such things wouldn't come in single cost levels. not like they ever did anyway. i mean, shit, what about those people with like a dozen kids running around now? you'll have to do better than that.

which means that such things wouldn't come in single cost levels. not like they ever did anyway. i mean, shit, what about those people with like a dozen kids running around now? you'll have to do better than that.

No I don't, it's in the public's interest and therefore the government's interest and ability to be able to regulate it.



p.s., Divorce, how does property get sold and split up when it's multivariable? You can't have a 50% liquidation of properties if you have 4 wives and one husband. The women didn't marry each other, they all only have one husband...

Divorce, how does property get sold and split up when it's multivariable? You can't have a 50% liquidation of properties if you have 4 wives and one husband. The women didn't marry each other, they all only have one husband...

this sounds like a job for a marriage contract!

i would assume that the basic system would wind up being equal division of economic assets between all adult members of the household. 4 people involved, one divorces the household, they get 25%, remaining household keeps the rest. seems simple enough for me. especially if we simplified the divorce procedure while we're at it.

this sounds like a job for a marriage contract!

i would assume that the basic system would wind up being equal division of economic assets between all adult members of the household. 4 people involved, one divorces the household, they get 25%, remaining household keeps the rest. seems simple enough for me. especially if we simplified the divorce procedure while we're at it.


You see, what if I decide to marry one wife, and then years later to take another wife, but the first doesn't agree to it? Can she stop me?

What if she doesn't even know about it until after the fact? Perhaps it is best if we just don't do it? Yes, I suggest that it is in the community's interest to just not allow it.

You see, what if I decide to marry one wife, and then years later to take another wife, but the first doesn't agree to it? Can she stop me?

What if she doesn't even know about it until after the fact?

sounds like clear grounds for a divorce to me. i really fail to see why you think anything you've said is even a minor difficulty, let alone an insurmountable obstacle. it's all pretty fucking trivial.

You see, what if I decide to marry one wife, and then years later to take another wife, but the first doesn't agree to it? Can she stop me?

What if she doesn't even know about it until after the fact? Perhaps it is best if we just don't do it? Yes, I suggest that it is in the community's interest to just not allow it.


It's called divorse.

If he approachers her about it and she doesn't like it and he still wants it then she can divorse him.

If he doesn't approach her, then she should divorse him.