Secular progressive moral agenda...
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
he could not trust you with the information
Perhaps he felt he was in with a chance. You know what they say..."takes one to know one" :)
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Given that you published the information on the web, that we all here know your real name and that that the person in question was a workmate, I think it's safe to say the guy was wrong; he could not trust you with the information.
Yeah right. You don't know where I live and you don't know where I have worked and you don't know who the person is. I don't even know his name so how is this letting the cat out of the bag?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
Yeah right. You don't know where I live and you don't know where I have worked and you don't know who the person is. I don't even know his name so how is this letting the cat out of the bag?
I wasn't talking about me. Obviously I was referring to someone who knows you. A coworker for example. I admit that the chances are fairly slim; but nevertheless the internet is a very public place to publish very private details entrusted to you by another individual.
Steve
-
led mike wrote:
because of someone's size or financial status that somehow "proves" their sense of morality is correct.
I didn't say it proves anything one way or another about his morality. The point would be that even someone as powerful as Hardaway has no power against the moral authoritarianism of the secularist agenda. He must humbly and meekly bow, as we all do, to the moral elitist of our age (such as yourself, for example).
led mike wrote:
I see. So all those statements you made of "what" Christianity is were not based on your own personal experience of Christianity. Interesting, but you should not find it surprising that someone would take your statements to mean you are a practicing Christian.
And I never said I was not a practicing christian. The hypocricy here isn't mine. It is entirely your own. The notion that the only possible reason someone could have for opposing the Marxist agenda people like you are trying to force down the throat of our society is some form of 'Right-wing-christian-extremism' is an example of your own bigotry and prejudice - or stupidity. Take your pick. Frankly, I happen to agree that 'hating homosexuals' is not somthing an otherwise moral person should do. However, unlike yourself, I don't believe that my morality should hold any more sway in society than should anyone elses. And I believe that the sight of Hardaway being compelled to recant his 'sins' against the might of elitist secular moral authoritarianism should strike fear in the hearts of all of those who trully understand the importance of 'separation of church and state'. People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any fucking kind.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any f****ing kind.
Well there lies the rub, eh Stan? When someone with power or influence says things like "I hate gays" or "I hate blacks" and that individual is not criticized, thats the same as saying that everyone approves of those statements and then gays and blacks do suffer social, professional and economic repercussions of every f***ing kind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe that my morality should hold any more sway in society than should anyone elses.
Good lord, you really are a moral relatavist, aren't you? Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong? All behavior is OK with you? The KKK is just one more center of moral authority, just like the Catholic Church?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps he felt he was in with a chance. You know what they say..."takes one to know one"
HA HA HA cough cough cough ... J/K it wasn't funny.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
HA HA HA cough cough cough
Dont cough too hard, I've heard it can cause you guys little accidents :)
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
Dont cough too hard, I've heard it can cause you guys little accidents
:confused: What are you talking about and what do you mean as "you guys". I assure you I am not gay if that is what you are implying.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Dont cough too hard, I've heard it can cause you guys little accidents
:confused: What are you talking about and what do you mean as "you guys". I assure you I am not gay if that is what you are implying.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
What are you talking about
Think about it for a bit, you'll get it
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I assure you I am not gay if that is what you are implying
Im not so sure, I know a crush when I see it ;P
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
What are you talking about
Think about it for a bit, you'll get it
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I assure you I am not gay if that is what you are implying
Im not so sure, I know a crush when I see it ;P
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
I'm not going to argue with you about my own damn sexuality. I said I am not gay and that is all there is to it.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
you're reaching here.
No, I'm not. Its a crucial point.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
How is this wrong?
The NBA is free to enforce whatever standards it pleases. The question is why this paticular standard? I have no problem with this guy being 'banished' by the NBA. But neither would I have a problem if the NBA had treated a player in the same way for being gay. Whats the difference? Why isn't the NBA free to enforce what ever morality it choices? Yours or the Baptists? The answer is that, socially, we are not controlled by any moral agenda of the Baptists, we are controlled by that of the secularists. Just because it happens to be a moral agenda some, such as yourself, happen to endorse, doesn't mean that we are any less under the control of moral authoritarianism.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And other's have asked this same question but you won't answer this point. Trolling?
I have addressed that very point repeatedly.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
we are controlled by that of the secularists
But how do you know they made this desicion because of the control of moral seculatists? Its equally possible that the NBA is headed by a raving queen who got his panties in a knot
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
HA HA HA cough cough cough
Dont cough too hard, I've heard it can cause you guys little accidents :)
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
:laugh:
Steve
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Dont cough too hard, I've heard it can cause you guys little accidents
:confused: What are you talking about and what do you mean as "you guys". I assure you I am not gay if that is what you are implying.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
He was implying that if you cough too hard you may accidentally shit yourself. You can probably work out the secondary implication yourself.
Steve
-
John Carson wrote:
That is a non sequitur.
No, it isn't.
John Carson wrote:
Whether restrictions on reasonable civil liberties come from a democracy or some sort of autocracy, the restrictions should be opposed just the same. Abolishing democracy in the former case is an extreme solution that could only be endorsed in the most extreme circumstances (if, say, there was majority backing for a holocaust).
But who gets to define 'civil liberties'? The secular moralists, thats who. When did the issue of where you put your penis become a civil liberty? What about the civil liberty of being allowed to say "I hate people who put there penises into the body cavities of other men". Why isn't such free speech a protected 'civil liberty'? Because the secular moral agenda says so, thats why - and we had all damned well better like it, or we'll be socially bludgeoned into accepting it just as Hardaway was.
John Carson wrote:
People who helped slaves escape from their masters were engaging in civil disobedience, based on the belief that slaves had moral rights independently of society's willingness to grant them. I believe they did right, notwithstanding that their neighbours disapproved.
Except, in this case, it was Hardaway who was engaging in civil disobedience, and the system you support disapproving of it and therefore punishing him. You are the one who now punishes forms of civil disobedience you disapprove of just as did those who opposed the abolitionist movement.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
But who gets to define 'civil liberties'? The secular moralists, thats who.
Whoever wins gets to define civil liberties. You have some strange belief that secular moralists have super powers. They are in a contest for hearts and minds, just like the churches are.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did the issue of where you put your penis become a civil liberty?
I would regard it as a self evident issue of civil liberties, but you obviously don't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What about the civil liberty of being allowed to say "I hate people who put there penises into the body cavities of other men". Why isn't such free speech a protected 'civil liberty'?
I half agree with this. I have no problem, for example, with the churches preaching that homosexuality is sinful. Arguing a philosophical position is almost always OK in my book. I don't, however, agree with your ludicrous position that hatred is a benign emotion. It very easily leads to violence. In fact, I can only see it as socially harmful. Even so, consistent with my earlier remarks, I don't favour action against it if the cure is worse than the disease and most of the time it is. Most hate speech will do less damage if ignored (or calmly reasoned with) than if confronted, thereby exacerbating tensions. Nevertheless, in extreme cases, where hate speech seems to be a clear contributor to violence, there may be a case for legal action. I would point out that Hardaway didn't fall foul of any law. He was in a public relations position and it isn't normal public relations practice to go around saying you hate people. <edit> I would also point out that interfering with a person's right to choose the gender of the person with whom they establish perhaps a lifelong loving partnership is a far more fundamental interference than merely requiring that people exercise some moderation in the way they criticise others. </edit>
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except, in this case, it was Hardaway who was engaging in civil disobedience, and the system you support disapproving of it and therefore punishing him. You are the one who now punishes forms of civil disobedience you disapprove of just as did those who opposed the abolitionist movement.
Except that we are not talking about the law. We are talking about a
-
led mike wrote:
because of someone's size or financial status that somehow "proves" their sense of morality is correct.
I didn't say it proves anything one way or another about his morality. The point would be that even someone as powerful as Hardaway has no power against the moral authoritarianism of the secularist agenda. He must humbly and meekly bow, as we all do, to the moral elitist of our age (such as yourself, for example).
led mike wrote:
I see. So all those statements you made of "what" Christianity is were not based on your own personal experience of Christianity. Interesting, but you should not find it surprising that someone would take your statements to mean you are a practicing Christian.
And I never said I was not a practicing christian. The hypocricy here isn't mine. It is entirely your own. The notion that the only possible reason someone could have for opposing the Marxist agenda people like you are trying to force down the throat of our society is some form of 'Right-wing-christian-extremism' is an example of your own bigotry and prejudice - or stupidity. Take your pick. Frankly, I happen to agree that 'hating homosexuals' is not somthing an otherwise moral person should do. However, unlike yourself, I don't believe that my morality should hold any more sway in society than should anyone elses. And I believe that the sight of Hardaway being compelled to recant his 'sins' against the might of elitist secular moral authoritarianism should strike fear in the hearts of all of those who trully understand the importance of 'separation of church and state'. People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any fucking kind.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
He must humbly and meekly bow, as we all do, to the moral elitist of our age (such as yourself
Yeah... good one... cause I was all over that Hardaway comment. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any f****ing kind.
Yeah because that is exactly what that world needs more of, hate, I mean it has worked so well for us for the past 3000 years. Like I said, if people like you are going to be in heaven, that's the last place I want to be.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He must humbly and meekly bow, as we all do, to the moral elitist of our age (such as yourself
Yeah... good one... cause I was all over that Hardaway comment. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
People in our society should be allowed to say 'I hate homosexuals' 'I hate blacks' 'I hate women' 'I hate liberals' 'I hate conservatives' with absolutely no social, professional or economic repercussions of any f****ing kind.
Yeah because that is exactly what that world needs more of, hate, I mean it has worked so well for us for the past 3000 years. Like I said, if people like you are going to be in heaven, that's the last place I want to be.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I mean it has worked so well for us for the past 3000 years.
'Hate' is merely an emotion, it has never harmed anyone (aside from the hater's blood pressure increases). However, political power, which you want to increase in order to control hate, has, in fact, destroyed millions of lives. So, yeah, good plan. Increase the power of the state to control hate. I'm sure that will end well. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
led mike wrote:
I mean it has worked so well for us for the past 3000 years.
'Hate' is merely an emotion, it has never harmed anyone (aside from the hater's blood pressure increases). However, political power, which you want to increase in order to control hate, has, in fact, destroyed millions of lives. So, yeah, good plan. Increase the power of the state to control hate. I'm sure that will end well. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Increase the power of the state
Since when is the NBA part of the State? The NBA made a business decision based on what they think is "good for business". They are allowed to run their own business aren't they Stan? Or should the "State" force them to consider the Marxist ramifications of their "business" decisions? Maybe they should run them all by you first? Nice logic... I guess you ran that through the (D)espeir logic prism. Hey, maybe with a few tweaks on that puppy you can turn it into a time machine that will transport you back to the dark ages where you can burn a few gays at the stake without fear of reprisal. Probably not I suppose, but hey nothing stops a fella from dreaming... right? Sweet dreams buddy.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Increase the power of the state
Since when is the NBA part of the State? The NBA made a business decision based on what they think is "good for business". They are allowed to run their own business aren't they Stan? Or should the "State" force them to consider the Marxist ramifications of their "business" decisions? Maybe they should run them all by you first? Nice logic... I guess you ran that through the (D)espeir logic prism. Hey, maybe with a few tweaks on that puppy you can turn it into a time machine that will transport you back to the dark ages where you can burn a few gays at the stake without fear of reprisal. Probably not I suppose, but hey nothing stops a fella from dreaming... right? Sweet dreams buddy.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Since when is the NBA part of the State?
You're the one that brought up the last 3000 year of the legacy of the horrors of hate. I was merely pointing out the state's actual contribution to that legacy.
led mike wrote:
The NBA made a business decision based on what they think is "good for business". They are allowed to run their own business aren't they Stan? Or should the "State" force them to consider the Marxist ramifications of their "business" decisions? Maybe they should run them all by you first?
For the upteenth time, I agree completely that the NBA had every right to do anything they pleased - including similar treatment of gay players. The fact that they are only punishing people for anti-secular opinions and not anti-Baptist ones is my complaint.
led mike wrote:
where you can burn a few gays at the stake without fear of reprisal.
You're the one that wants people punished for expressing opinions you disagree with, not me.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
led mike wrote:
Since when is the NBA part of the State?
You're the one that brought up the last 3000 year of the legacy of the horrors of hate. I was merely pointing out the state's actual contribution to that legacy.
led mike wrote:
The NBA made a business decision based on what they think is "good for business". They are allowed to run their own business aren't they Stan? Or should the "State" force them to consider the Marxist ramifications of their "business" decisions? Maybe they should run them all by you first?
For the upteenth time, I agree completely that the NBA had every right to do anything they pleased - including similar treatment of gay players. The fact that they are only punishing people for anti-secular opinions and not anti-Baptist ones is my complaint.
led mike wrote:
where you can burn a few gays at the stake without fear of reprisal.
You're the one that wants people punished for expressing opinions you disagree with, not me.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that they are only punishing people for anti-secular opinions and not anti-Baptist ones is my complaint.
I am equally outraged about "hate" statements from NBA players towards Baptists... wait... that has occurred? Please post your reference(s) to hate mongering aimed at Baptists.
led mike