PDA

View Full Version : New US church leader says homosexuality no sin


Pages : [1] 2 3

DaKCMan AP
06-20-2006, 11:14 AM
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin

Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.


Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.

It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

Three years ago when the Church last met in convention, a majority of U.S. bishops backed the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.

Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc;_ylt=Au8C.3w9fPLYrUPMp7IkMhCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 11:19 AM
outa start a nice bruhaha on the right


http://www.serendipity.li/more/nuclear_explosion.jpg

Stinger
06-20-2006, 11:25 AM
"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc;_ylt=Au8C.3w9fPLYrUPMp7IkMhCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Not sure if she read the whole book or not but she might want to re-read it because I believe the whole 10 comandments are not just suggestions. Just because a society doesn't observe certain rules doesn't make that society right. I know people will say they believe that the the bible is not soverign but to many it is and this is an abomination of that. (IMO) She might want to read that last book where God does judge people. Also she might want to be familiar with love the person but hate the sin.

luv
06-20-2006, 11:26 AM
Not sure if she read the whole book or not but she might want to re-read it because I believe the whole 10 comandments are not just suggestions. Just because a society doesn't observe certain rules doesn't make that society right. I know people will say they believe that the the bible is not soverign but to many it is and this is an abomination of that. (IMO) She might want to read that last book where God does judge people. Also she might want to be familiar with love the person but hate the sin.
:clap:

chagrin
06-20-2006, 11:26 AM
great, thanks for posting this...

Brock
06-20-2006, 11:28 AM
Not sure if she read the whole book or not but she might want to re-read it because I believe the whole 10 comandments are not just suggestions. Just because a society doesn't observe certain rules doesn't make that society right. I know people will say they believe that the the bible is not soverign but to many it is and this is an abomination of that. (IMO) She might want to read that last book where God does judge people. Also she might want to be familiar with love the person but hate the sin.

Which one of the ten commandments covers homosexuality?

DaKCMan AP
06-20-2006, 11:28 AM
great, thanks for posting this...

:thumb:

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 11:28 AM
This is just my opinion, and I'm not even sure how well formed it is, but perhaps the best way to define sin is 'that which separates you from God.'
Therefore, homosexuality may or may not be 'sin.' If you accord yourself as a follower of Jesus and lover of the Lord, who happens to situate his family and obtain sexual release through a homosexual partner, the sexuality itself is no different than any other. If you allow your sexuality [homo or hetero, married or unmarried] to dominate over your striving for a relationship with God, it's sin.

luv
06-20-2006, 11:28 AM
I don't trust any woman that is in a leadership role at a church (church, not sunday school class or women's outreach ministries). There are also passages in the bible about that, too.

alanm
06-20-2006, 11:29 AM
And the Episcopal Church wonders why all their members are leaving.

Count Alex's Losses
06-20-2006, 11:30 AM
And why does her opinion matter more than someone else's?

Bunch of bullshit.

Brock
06-20-2006, 11:30 AM
I don't trust any woman that is in a leadership role at a church (church, not sunday school class or women's outreach ministries). There are also passages in the bible about that, too.

ROFL

luv
06-20-2006, 11:32 AM
ROFL
Laughing at a person's beliefs?

Brock
06-20-2006, 11:33 AM
Laughing at a person's beliefs?

What exactly are your beliefs? "I think I read somewhere in the bible that maybe women shouldn't be ministers"? :rolleyes:

SquirrellyBastard
06-20-2006, 11:34 AM
She might want to read up on what happen to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 11:34 AM
I don't trust any woman that is in a leadership role at a church (church, not sunday school class or women's outreach ministries). There are also passages in the bible about that, too.

sexist









:moon:

luv
06-20-2006, 11:35 AM
What exactly are your beliefs? "I think I read somewhere in the bible that maybe women shouldn't be ministers"? :rolleyes:
I'm not sure, but I think it's in James where it talks about deacons and such being the husband of one wife. How is a woman a husband of one wife?

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 11:37 AM
Who really gives a **** what this stupid box thinks?

vailpass
06-20-2006, 11:38 AM
She only represents a portion of the Episcopal church. Upon news of her election several US factions wrote to the Episcopalian boss in England asking to be placed under the leadership of another bishop.

Theirs is a house divided and I see now way, short of a wholesale splintering, for them to ever get it together and move forward.

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 11:38 AM
"The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 11:39 AM
Who really gives a **** what this stupid box thinks?
bet you would if she was pimping pitbulls.






ROFL ROFL

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 11:39 AM
Who really gives a **** what this stupid box thinks?

Probably gays. :shrug:

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 11:40 AM
Probably gays. :shrug:

Oh yea I forgot about the ghey planet. Forgive me.

BigMeatballDave
06-20-2006, 11:41 AM
I don't know if it is a 'sin' or not, but it ain't 'normal' behavior. Having said that, I don't give a shit what fags do in the privacy of their own homes...

BigMeatballDave
06-20-2006, 11:42 AM
I don't know if it is a 'sin' or not, but it ain't 'normal' behavior. Having said that, I don't give a shit what Rump Rangers do in the privacy of their own homes...That is a good filter for F.ags...
ROFL

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 11:43 AM
Oh yea I forgot about the ghey planet. Forgive me.

Thatís all right. Youíve even admitted to beín partially ghey, lesbian stuck in a mans body, right? ;)

ROYC75
06-20-2006, 11:44 AM
OK, I just back from making a triple batch of popcorn, what did I miss ?

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 11:45 AM
bet you would if she was pimping pitbulls.






ROFL ROFL

She is just eyeing up some sweet little 18 year old with a killer rack, fat box and nice chops out there in her congegation asking herself how she can pull this off without losing her job. :dom:

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 11:53 AM
Thatís all right. Youíve even admitted to beín partially ghey, lesbian stuck in a mans body, right? ;)

ROFL

You got it. :thumb:

I am just bored with it all and tired of hearing about it. The gay movement continues to advance and they they get more rights all the time. They should have equal rights in the eyes of the state IMO. However, various religions and the schools should not be forced to promote their agenda. That's when their rights cross the line and infringe on other people's rights. Like I said before they won't be happy until pole smoking and carpet munching are classes taught to same age 5 year olds in school.

Count Alex's Losses
06-20-2006, 11:54 AM
There are no gays that want sexual practices taught in school. :rolleyes:

58-4ever
06-20-2006, 11:57 AM
She only represents a portion of the Episcopal church. Upon news of her election several US factions wrote to the Episcopalian boss in England asking to be placed under the leadership of another bishop.

Theirs is a house divided and I see now way, short of a wholesale splintering, for them to ever get it together and move forward.

In other words, one of the other bosses is gonna have her whacked.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:59 AM
She is just eyeing up some sweet little 18 year old with a killer rack, fat box and nice chops out there in her congegation asking herself how she can pull this off without losing her job. :dom:

Because no one can be accepting of gays without being gay themselves :rolleyes: . It's nice to see that you are more tolerant of an artificial category of dog than your fellow human beings :thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 12:01 PM
I don't trust any woman that is in a leadership role at a church (church, not sunday school class or women's outreach ministries). There are also passages in the bible about that, too.

And the Bible was written by a bunch of semi-literate Hebrew tribesmen who would be considered schizophrenic by the standards of the DSM-IV.

I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face :shake:

John_Wayne
06-20-2006, 12:02 PM
Who really gives a **** what this stupid box thinks? She also believes there should be a ban on certain breeds of dogs. :)

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 12:04 PM
Because no one can be accepting of gays without being gay themselves :rolleyes: . It's nice to see that you are more tolerant of an artificial category of dog than your fellow human beings :thumb:

You're a ****ing moron. My girl is bisexual and I am all for them having the same rights. How much more on board can I get without actually promoting the lifestyle for a legal standpoint. It's just ****ing sex people need to relax.

Please explaing to me what an artificial category of dog means? That makes not sense.

To tell you the truth I am getting sick and tired of people speaking for god all the time too.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 12:13 PM
There are no gays that want sexual practices taught in school. :rolleyes:

That's why we have celebrate diversity week. That's why we had the thread about the school backing the teacher telling stories of the prince and the prince to 5 year olds. Lifestyle promotion to little kids now who shouldn't have to deal with this shit, sexual practices tomorrow.

I must be on the right side of this subject I got goat cheese, Hamas and Phoney Gonzales all on the other side. IMO that's gods way of telling me I am doing something VERY right.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 12:23 PM
Episcopal. This is nothing new. If there is a more liberal denomination out there I couldn't name it. The tide of opinion isn't turning in the mainstream.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 12:24 PM
That's why we have celebrate diversity week. That's why we had the thread about the school backing the teacher telling stories of the prince and the prince to 5 year olds. Lifestyle promotion to little kids now who shouldn't have to deal with this shit, sexual practices tomorrow.

I must be on the right side of this subject I got goat cheese, Hamas and Phoney Gonzales all on the other side. IMO that's gods way of telling me I am doing something VERY right.

Soon the line between adult-child relations will be broken down. Wait and see.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 12:26 PM
You're a ****ing moron. My girl is bisexual and I am all for them having the same rights. How much more on board can I get without actually promoting the lifestyle for a legal standpoint. It's just ****ing sex people need to relax.

Please explaing to me what an artificial category of dog means? That makes not sense.

To tell you the truth I am getting sick and tired of people speaking for god all the time too.

Because this post just reeks of tolerance for gays:

She is just eyeing up some sweet little 18 year old with a killer rack, fat box and nice chops out there in her congegation asking herself how she can pull this off without losing her job.

The warrant behind your claim is that this Episco woman's viewpoint is obviously fallacious b/c for her to espouse pro-gay viewpoints must automatically mean that she wants to do someone in her congregation.

An artifical category of dog was used for emphasis--you spend more time advocating for a breed created through artificial selection and seem to care more for it than you do the rights of your fellow citizens. It seems to me like your priorities are a little f*cked up.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-20-2006, 12:27 PM
Soon the line between adult-child relations will be broken down. Wait and see.

Yeah i heard about Colorado changing the law that allows children to be married at age 15 without parental consent a couple days ago. I'll try and dig up the story. Can anyone who lives there help me out with this?

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 12:29 PM
However, various religions and the schools should not be forced to promote their agenda. That's when their rights cross the line and infringe on other people's rights.
This 'forcing' isn't coming from without.
Right or wrong, she is the elected head of the Church.

Pitt Gorilla
06-20-2006, 12:31 PM
This is just my opinion, and I'm not even sure how well formed it is, but perhaps the best way to define sin is 'that which separates you from God.'
Therefore, homosexuality may or may not be 'sin.' If you accord yourself as a follower of Jesus and lover of the Lord, who happens to situate his family and obtain sexual release through a homosexual partner, the sexuality itself is no different than any other. If you allow your sexuality [homo or hetero, married or unmarried] to dominate over your striving for a relationship with God, it's sin.Excellent post; that seems to agree with much of what I've been taught.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 12:31 PM
This 'forcing' isn't coming from without.
Right or wrong, she is the elected head of the Church.

Steadily declining membership in the Episcopal Church over the past 3 decades or so, says she's the head of a church in decline. A trend that accelerated three years ago. It is also a part of the Anglican Church which is on the verge of being expelled from the worldwide body...

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 12:37 PM
I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face :shake:
Not so fast, Lenin. :harumph:

One of the main reasons women make less is because they choose professions that pay less but provide more flexibility in time and committment, take periods of time out of their careers and/or do not want the responsibility that such positions brings due to conflicts with other personal choices etc. It's a matter of having a different set of priorities, needs and wants. Why is it that homosexuals choices are considered innate, even genetic, but not a woman's choices? Little inconsistent aren't we?

Subject of a different thread.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 12:40 PM
Because this post just reeks of tolerance for gays:


The warrant behind your claim is that this Episco woman's viewpoint is obviously fallacious b/c for her to espouse pro-gay viewpoints must automatically mean that she wants to do someone in her congregation.

An artifical category of dog was used for emphasis--you spend more time advocating for a breed created through artificial selection and seem to care more for it than you do the rights of your fellow citizens. It seems to me like your priorities are a little f*cked up.

No you're ****ed up. I don't care if she wants the hot 18 year old girl in her congregation, hell I would probably want her too. I have already said I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. How much more tolerant do you want me to be? I am very tolerant of the lifestyle I am just not for forcefeeding it to everyone on the planet especially young children.

As far as the dogs go WTF are you talking about artificially selected? What does that mean? Last time I checked we weren't rounding up the homo's and executing them. We are talking about their right to force feed everyone their lifestyle. My lifestyle would be considered alternative I have no problem with people doing whatever they want until they infringe on the rights of others. That's what we are really talking about here. You have become sooooooo PC you don't even try to see what is really going on you just want to pull the homo victim card. Why is it their right to infiltrate any religion they want? Why is it their right to promote their lifestyle in our school to young children who shouldn't even be thinking about this shit?

ck_IN
06-20-2006, 12:43 PM
Sin? I'm not in a position to comment. I'll leave that to a Higher Authority.

Disgusting and all kinds of wrong? You betcha!

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 12:48 PM
This 'forcing' isn't coming from without.
Right or wrong, she is the elected head of the Church.

It's infiltration. It's the church's problem at this point nobody else's. This infiltration thing is nothing new. This is a big gay year. From school textbooks to the Soprano's to gay cowboys and the church. Once again I am all for people doing whatever they want but at some point I get sick of it. We hit the saturation point long ago IMO. Hell the gays are beginning to have more rights than the average Joe like in hate crimes for example.

bogie
06-20-2006, 12:50 PM
There are no gays that want sexual practices taught in school. :rolleyes:

good point.

redbrian
06-20-2006, 12:51 PM
Steadily declining membership in the Episcopal Church over the past 3 decades or so, says she's the head of a church in decline. A trend that accelerated three years ago. It is also a part of the Anglican Church which is on the verge of being expelled from the worldwide body...

Really a steady decline, Iím sure you have all kinds of data to back up these statements.

All I can say is that both parishes that I have been involved in (one in St. Louis, the other here in KC), over the last twenty years have been growing leaps and bounds.

Our biggest influx is from ex-Catholics and Methodist, who prefer a formal service but donít care for a priest telling them how they should view there own personal beliefs (a thinking persons Catholicism if you will).

It should be noted that in the Episcopal Church the Bishops do not deal with set doctrine, there purpose is to set the mechanics in place doctrine, for the most part is left up to the individual to develop and interpret on a personal level.

Quit frankly we (Iím speaking of the parish I attend), are more concerned with the state of poverty and hunger in the world than what consenting adults do in the confines of there personal relationships (and that includes all the sexual persuasions including heterosexual).

KILLER_CLOWN
06-20-2006, 12:59 PM
No you're ****ed up. I don't care if she wants the hot 18 year old girl in her congregation, hell I would probably want her too. I have already said I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. How much more tolerance do you want me to be? I am very tolerant of the lifestyle I am just not for forcefeeding it to everyone on the planet especially young children.

As far as the dogs go WTF are you talking about artificially selected? What does that mean? Last time I checked we weren't rounding up the homo's and executing them. We are talking about their right to force feed everyone their lifestyle. My lifestyle would be considered alternative I have no problem with people doing whatever they want until they infringe on the rights of others. That's what we are really talking about here. You have become sooooooo PC you don't even try to see what is really going on you just want to pull the homo victim card. Why is it their right to infiltrate any religion they want? Why is it their right to promote their lifestyle in our school to young children who shouldn't even be thinking about this shit?

Well stated ma man, well stated! :clap:

bogie
06-20-2006, 01:00 PM
Really a steady decline, Iím sure you have all kinds of data to back up these statements.

All I can say is that both parishes that I have been involved in (one in St. Louis, the other here in KC), over the last twenty years have been growing leaps and bounds.

Our biggest influx is from ex-Catholics and Methodist, who prefer a formal service but donít care for a priest telling them how they should view there own personal beliefs (a thinking persons Catholicism if you will).

It should be noted that in the Episcopal Church the Bishops do not deal with set doctrine, there purpose is to set the mechanics in place doctrine, for the most part is left up to the individual to develop and interpret on a personal level.

Quit frankly we (Iím speaking of the parish I attend), are more concerned with the state of poverty and hunger in the world than what consenting adults do in the confines of there personal relationships (and that includes all the sexual persuasions including heterosexual).

good post

Saulbadguy
06-20-2006, 01:03 PM
My pit bull is homosexual.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 01:04 PM
My pit bull is homosexual.

Just because you like doing it with your dog doesn't make him gay.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 01:11 PM
My pit bull is homosexual.

Don't be gay, Sparky. Don't be gay.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/givemetoys/W94-H180-Bffffff/f4_sp_sparky_plush.jpg

noa
06-20-2006, 01:11 PM
Really a steady decline, Iím sure you have all kinds of data to back up these statements.

All I can say is that both parishes that I have been involved in (one in St. Louis, the other here in KC), over the last twenty years have been growing leaps and bounds.

Our biggest influx is from ex-Catholics and Methodist, who prefer a formal service but donít care for a priest telling them how they should view there own personal beliefs (a thinking persons Catholicism if you will).

It should be noted that in the Episcopal Church the Bishops do not deal with set doctrine, there purpose is to set the mechanics in place doctrine, for the most part is left up to the individual to develop and interpret on a personal level.

Quit frankly we (Iím speaking of the parish I attend), are more concerned with the state of poverty and hunger in the world than what consenting adults do in the confines of there personal relationships (and that includes all the sexual persuasions including heterosexual).

Precisely. It blows my mind by how some people pick and choose what they want from the New Testament to make it a religion of intolerance rather than compassion, which is what Jesus was all about. Jesus spent the majority of his time talking about poverty and the corruption that wealth causes, yet in America, we worship money and don't find that to be a problem. Pat Robertson owns diamond mines in Africa!
The Bible was written by a group of people who were trying to survive in a time when they were outnumbered. Thus, homosexuality wouldn't fly because then they couldn't reproduce enough. The first commandment of the Old Testament is to be fruitful and multiply. From the people who wrote the Old Testament came the Christians, who continued some of the Jewish teachings and disregarded others. Now that we have 6 billion people on this planet and a good many of them are Christian, I think we can disregard this homosexuality ban as well. Christians don't seem to mind disregarding bans on wearing wool and cotton at the same time, and other similar commandments. Why care so much about this one? Christianity ought to be a religion of compassion and caring for others, even if they are "sinners."

stevieray
06-20-2006, 01:12 PM
never trust a woman that needs the last name of two men.

;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Not so fast, Lenin. :harumph:

One of the main reasons women make less is because they choose professions that pay less but provide more flexibility in time and committment, take periods of time out of their careers and/or do not want the responsibility that such positions brings due to conflicts with other personal choices etc. It's a matter of having a different set of priorities, needs and wants. Why is it that homosexuals choices are considered innate, even genetic, but not a woman's choices? Little inconsistent aren't we?

Subject of a different thread.

I'm sure that women also "choose" to make up 2/3 of the people in the world living below the poverty line....that flexibility is oh so important when you can't feed your family. Try doing some research into the glass ceiling before you run your mouth about shit you have no idea you are talking about.

Give me a f*cking break.

To answer your question, it is because gender is considered by most respected intellectuals to be a social construction. In the introduction to the Second Sex, Simone Beauvoir said "One is not born, but is made a woman." If you honestly think that duties such as child-rearing, knitting, and cooking are innate, then you are sorely mistaken. It's a matter of cultural training.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 01:16 PM
No you're ****ed up. I don't care if she wants the hot 18 year old girl in her congregation, hell I would probably want her too. I have already said I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. How much more tolerant do you want me to be? I am very tolerant of the lifestyle I am just not for forcefeeding it to everyone on the planet especially young children.

As far as the dogs go WTF are you talking about artificially selected? What does that mean? Last time I checked we weren't rounding up the homo's and executing them. We are talking about their right to force feed everyone their lifestyle. My lifestyle would be considered alternative I have no problem with people doing whatever they want until they infringe on the rights of others. That's what we are really talking about here. You have become sooooooo PC you don't even try to see what is really going on you just want to pull the homo victim card. Why is it their right to infiltrate any religion they want? Why is it their right to promote their lifestyle in our school to young children who shouldn't even be thinking about this shit?

You aren't for teaching children tolerance instead of the culturally ingrained intolerance of gay people :spock:

Artificial selection: a process that runs counter to natural selection, namely when humans interfere in normal genetic reproduction of animals in order to get desired traits out of them. It's a value neutral term, but it's a pretty damned far jump for someone to argue so stridently for a grouping of animals (Pit Bulls, which have an incredibly malleable definition) and yet be so lax when it comes to teaching people the merits of diversity and inclusion. Hypocrisy anyone??

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 01:31 PM
I'm sure that women also "choose" to make up 2/3 of the people in the world living below the poverty line....that flexibility is oh so important when you can't feed your family. Try doing some research into the glass ceiling before you run your mouth about shit you have no idea you are talking about.
That's not what I was talking about Uncle Joe.

To answer your question, it is because gender is considered by most respected intellectuals to be a social construction.

By whom?

In the introduction to the Second Sex, Simone Beauvoir said "One is not born, but is made a woman." haven't picked it up yet.
Ah yes by another self-appointed expert.

Please don't tell me what the female experience is. I am one. I am both a mother and a professional, even if these days that's more part-time.

I've read numerous studies backing up what I just said on choices. One most recent. I was also a feminist in college and abandoned much of it once out of college. It just doesn't work as claimed. I have had my own business once and made more money than some men for a period of time. I coulda' continued but didn't, at least not at that level, for the reasons the same studies say about women's choices. I am happy with those decisions even if I have suffered on the pay scales. ( I can make more again if I wanted to) But I could NEVER put a PRICE on seeing my child grow up. Time is more valuable to me as it is to many other women. The trend has been for women to return home if they have children. I've been on both sides as a dependent and independent. But your reasons for women being poorer are nonsense. They are just commonly and uncritically accepted by Marxists.

If you honestly think that duties such as child-rearing, knitting, and cooking are innate, then you are sorely mistaken. It's a matter of cultural training.

Yeah, I also never said that. The sarcasm was over your head. Read it again.

One thing is undeniable: a women's natural biology is totally set up for producing offspring. That's exactly what our bodies are made for. This includes the rush of hormones after birth that make a woman inclined to nuture. It was really modern technology that is responsible for the major portion of a woman's freeing as it gave her more time, even the ability to control her reproduction so that she could break out of traditional roles if she so chose.

Unfortunately, being a communist and all, you subscribe to Marx's version of female liberation: to free her from her social and biological because his belief was that the bourgeois family needed to go. Unfortunately, that family is society's smallest governing unit. When it goes, so does the society. But that's where the Marxists step in with state sponsored day-care and full-service schools.

I say in some ways we've paid a high price for the cultural Marxist version.

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 01:33 PM
Which one of the ten commandments covers homosexuality?You shall not commit adultery. It basically covers any sexual relation outside of the marriage bond. Gee, I wonder why those Christians are so up in arms about teh ghey getting married. :shrug:

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 01:35 PM
This is just my opinion, and I'm not even sure how well formed it is, but perhaps the best way to define sin is 'that which separates you from God.'
Therefore, homosexuality may or may not be 'sin.' If you accord yourself as a follower of Jesus and lover of the Lord, who happens to situate his family and obtain sexual release through a homosexual partner, the sexuality itself is no different than any other. If you allow your sexuality [homo or hetero, married or unmarried] to dominate over your striving for a relationship with God, it's sin.Now if only I can use moral relativism on whom I can steal from. Wait, them evil Oil companies are a good target.

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 01:36 PM
She might want to read up on what happen to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah The "conservative" U.S. Supreme court ruled Sodomy constitutional.

luv
06-20-2006, 01:37 PM
And the Bible was written by a bunch of semi-literate Hebrew tribesmen who would be considered schizophrenic by the standards of the DSM-IV.

I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face :shake:
I make more than anyone on my shift at work. I really don't see what that has to do with this discussion. Is your future wife gonna be the head of your household? Call me old-fashioned, but I was not in on the woman's lib movement.

stevieray
06-20-2006, 01:37 PM
I say in some ways we've paid a high price for the Marxist version.

It's infiltrated itself into the media. schools and now becoming culture...the effects are everywhere.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 01:40 PM
You aren't for teaching children tolerance instead of the culturally ingrained intolerance of gay people :spock:

Artificial selection: a process that runs counter to natural selection, namely when humans interfere in normal genetic reproduction of animals in order to get desired traits out of them. It's a value neutral term, but it's a pretty damned far jump for someone to argue so stridently for a grouping of animals (Pit Bulls, which have an incredibly malleable definition) and yet be so lax when it comes to teaching people the merits of diversity and inclusion. Hypocrisy anyone??

1. First of all I am not for teaching children young children any sexual crap. That should be MY RIGHT as a parent.

2. I think you are mixing up teaching tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate you Hamas but I absolutely DO NOT accept and will not promote your far left agenda. It's perfectly alright to not accept and dislike certain people or lifestyles. I do not expect everyone to like mine. I find it perfectly acceptable that many may hate me for mine. The difference is they will have to tolerate my lifestyle and I am able to live the life I choose. IT would not be OK for me to promote my lifestyle with their children. It would not be alright for me and people like me to try and infiltrate the church and force feed the acceptance of our lifestyle amoungst those who do not wish to be exposed to it. That were the infringing on the rights of other people begins. In school they are not teaching tolerance they promoting acceptance and the lifestyle. As a parent I should have the right to not have my young children exposed to this. That is where their right to promote the lifestyle infinges on my right as a parent. You should not have the ability to trample on parents rights no matter how riteous you think you are.

As far as the dogs go all domestic animals breeding was selected by people. That doesn't make the selection artificial Mr. PETA member. The more I talk to you the more wacked you come across every time.

I am gone for the day in 10 minutes so don't think for a second I my lack of a response to your next post means anything.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 01:43 PM
It's infiltration.
She was raised Roman Catholic, converted, and eventually was elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church by its congregants.
I don't think you understand the term 'infiltrate.'

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 01:47 PM
Another thing Hamas Jenkins;

Have you ever heard of a thing called division of labor?

It's very efficient. That is really all a traditional family set up is.

I have a gf who told me recently that when she doesn't work and takes care of the house and her two kids that her husband's ( who has his own business ) income actually goes up. Interesting eh? Division of labor, same concept, that a successful business, even a successful economy is based on. But no, to collectivists we're all alike and should all be same, doing the same thing with no individual talents or abilities...one big androgenous society wearing socialist scrubs! How boring!

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 01:48 PM
Really a steady decline, Iím sure you have all kinds of data to back up these statements.

All I can say is that both parishes that I have been involved in (one in St. Louis, the other here in KC), over the last twenty years have been growing leaps and bounds.

....Well, your parishes are the exception then...

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

33% drop in actual membership, 58% drop in per capita membership since 1960 would qualify as a pretty precipitous drop in the minds of most people.....I would think.

I will talk trash with the best of them. However, if I cite a stat or research, generally, I'm not talking out of my ass; and I've usually done my homework. I realize stats can be twisted, but this one's pretty clear...

As for your personal experience, fine. The Episcopal Church, and some other liberal churches seem to be pursuing this "niche" if you will.....perhaps as a strategy to attract new members for the first time in decades, or to stop the bleeding so-to-speak. And it may be working.....however, it goes against the trends.....

If you look at that same page, see which churches are losing members.....and, generally, they are the more liberal churches, with a couple of exceptions. The conservative churches? Most have been growing....several of them, substantially. But I'll let you look at the stats yourself, since you seem dubious.....

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 01:51 PM
She was raised Roman Catholic, converted, and eventually was elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church by its congregants.
I don't think you understand the term 'infiltrate.'

So someone can't have and agenda IYO and still be elected and bring it our later? Interesting.

For the record I think calling any sex between consenting adults is ridiculous. That's my right. It is also my opinion that taking what I think is right and infiltrating a church I know does not carry my same belief and getting myself elected into a high position so I can pull that out and divide the church is wrong. Then again that's JMHO.

stevieray
06-20-2006, 01:55 PM
Another thing Hamas Jenkins;

Have you ever heard of a thing called division of labor?

It's very efficient. That is really all a traditional family set up is.

I have a gf who told me recently that when she doesn't work and takes care of the house and her two kids that her husband's ( who has his own business ) income actually goes up. Interesting eh? Division of labor, same concept, that a successful business, even a successful economy is based on. But no, to collectivists we're all alike and should all be same, doing the same thing with no individual talents or abilities...one big androgenous society wearing socialist scrubs! How boring!

"when everyone is special, nobody is..'

The Incredibles.

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 01:59 PM
You aren't for teaching children tolerance instead of the culturally ingrained intolerance of gay people :spock:

Artificial selection: a process that runs counter to natural selection, namely when humans interfere in normal genetic reproduction of animals in order to get desired traits out of them. It's a value neutral term, but it's a pretty damned far jump for someone to argue so stridently for a grouping of animals (Pit Bulls, which have an incredibly malleable definition) and yet be so lax when it comes to teaching people the merits of diversity and inclusion. Hypocrisy anyone??There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 02:02 PM
So someone can't have and agenda IYO and still be elected and bring it our later? Interesting.

For the record I think calling any sex between consenting adults is ridiculous. That's my right. It is also my opinion that taking what I think is right and infiltrating a church I know does not carry my same belief and getting myself elected into a high position so I can pull that out and divide the church is wrong. Then again that's JMHO.Its a great opinion. It is why even though I disagree with some of your lifestyle choices, I still respect you greatly as a human being.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 02:07 PM
There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

Comparing slaughtering to promotion of a lifestyle is beyond ridiculous as well but it's what we have come to expect from Hamas.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 02:07 PM
That's not what I was talking about Uncle Joe.



By whom?


Ah yes by another self-appointed expert.

Please don't tell me what the female experience is. I am one. I am both a mother and a professional, even if these days that's more part-time.

I've read numerous studies backing up what I just said on choices. One most recent. I was also a feminist in college and abandoned much of it once out of college. It just doesn't work as claimed. I have had my own business once and made more money than some men for a period of time. I coulda' continued but didn't, at least not at that level, for the reasons the same studies say about women's choices. I am happy with those decisions even if I have suffered on the pay scales. ( I can make more again if I wanted to) But I could NEVER put a PRICE on seeing my child grow up. Time is more valuable to me as it is to many other women. The trend has been for women to return home if they have children. I've been on both sides as a dependent and independent. But your reasons for women being poorer are nonsense. They are just commonly and uncritically accepted by Marxists.



Yeah, I also never said that. The sarcasm was over your head. Read it again.

One thing is undeniable: a women's natural biology is totally set up for producing offspring. That's exactly what our bodies are made for. This includes the rush of hormones after birth that make a woman inclined to nuture. It was really modern technology that is responsible for the major portion of a woman's freeing as it gave her more time, even the ability to control her reproduction so that she could break out of traditional roles if she so chose.

Unfortunately, being a communist and all, you subscribe to Marx's version of female liberation: to free her from her social and biological because his belief was that the bourgeois family needed to go. Unfortunately, that family is society's smallest governing unit. When it goes, so does the society. But that's where the Marxists step in with state sponsored day-care and full-service schools.

I say in some ways we've paid a high price for the cultural Marxist version.

That is preposterous, a sheer emanation of Reagan-era culture wars and the facade of family-values. Well, riddle me this then, why have many other societies flourished for centuries with social units that in no way resembled the artifice of the American nuclear family?? Could it be that the nuclear famility as a panacea is a complete myth?? Ding, ding ding!!

I love that you automatically assume that I'm a Marxist feminist, a la Catherine MacKinnon, but you could not be further from the truth. Of course you still assume I'm a communist because I said "anarcho-socialist" which is about the same assumption as calling patteau and Donger "liberal" since they both participate in the traditional conservative wing of Western Liberal Humanism.

Of course you mention nothing of the cultural impetus behind woman being the rearer of children...well if this belief is in fact so immutable, why do female lionness do the majority of the hunting while males nurture the offspring?? You are speaking in absolutes where absolutes do not exist. The feminine and what is considered "women" do not exist, they are cultural constructions that seek to lump females into a single underclass by which their continued discrimination can be engaged in more willingly

Furthermore, this expert which you choose to so ignornantly shuck aside, also stated that women are also responsible in part for their roles in society as they accept and encourage their own marginalization. You are a direct affirmation of that very belief.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 02:11 PM
There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

No shit, dumbass. The mere point of that post sailed way over your head. I find it funny that he can debase the push for equality among people as so reprehensible (as this push desires to do) and yet finds it so damnable for dogs to be considered for specific legislation when they might be considered dangerous. It's a logical inconsistency that I was pointing out. :thumb:

FringeNC
06-20-2006, 02:12 PM
I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face :shake:

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 02:14 PM
It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.
Oh yeah?? Well what about the LION-esses, Marthafocker???!!!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 02:15 PM
Another thing Hamas Jenkins;

Have you ever heard of a thing called division of labor?

It's very efficient. That is really all a traditional family set up is.

I have a gf who told me recently that when she doesn't work and takes care of the house and her two kids that her husband's ( who has his own business ) income actually goes up. Interesting eh? Division of labor, same concept, that a successful business, even a successful economy is based on. But no, to collectivists we're all alike and should all be same, doing the same thing with no individual talents or abilities...one big androgenous society wearing socialist scrubs! How boring!

Of course a woman must always also perform the household chores in order for this to work. It's funny that you are the one running your mouth about people being all the same when you are the one advocating that women stick to the same tired professions that they have held for centuries. Well, thanks, but no thanks Phyllis Schafly. Believe it or not, a man can do the household work, and a woman can be a primary breadwinner, but a great deal of men (who still hold the overwhelming amount of political power in this country) still feel threatened by the possibility of a woman in position of power, so why not just collectivize them into mindless "bitches" who are always pregnant and barefoot making dinner for their husbands. :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 02:18 PM
It doesn't bother me at all. Ever ask yourself why women only make 75 cents on the dollar? Why wouldn't a profit-maximizing firm hire all women? There's an obvious reason women earn less than men, and it has nothing to do with disrimination.

For low-skilled jobs with no training required, women make as much as men. For high-skilled jobs that require long-term on-the-job training, women make much less than men. Why? Because women are much more likely to temporalily or permanently leave the job market, in which case the firm is ****ed for having invested in the employee who will not be around very long.

Because god knows, men can't be the ones at home rearing the children, now can they??

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 02:20 PM
Because god knows, men can't be the ones at home rearing the children, now can they??
Jason Seaver, bitches!!!

Stinger
06-20-2006, 02:30 PM
Which one of the ten commandments covers homosexuality?

My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying. She is not the only one who does this. All denominations are having this battle today maybe not in the forfront like the Episcopal Church, but they are with their infrastructure as in a liberal intertpretation or a conservative interpretation.

redbrian
06-20-2006, 02:35 PM
Well, your parishes are the exception then...

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

33% drop in actual membership, 58% drop in per capita membership since 1960 would qualify as a pretty precipitous drop in the minds of most people.....I would think.

I will talk trash with the best of them. However, if I cite a stat or research, generally, I'm not talking out of my ass; and I've usually done my homework. I realize stats can be twisted, but this one's pretty clear...

As for your personal experience, fine. The Episcopal Church, and some other liberal churches seem to be pursuing this "niche" if you will.....perhaps as a strategy to attract new members for the first time in decades, or to stop the bleeding so-to-speak. And it may be working.....however, it goes against the trends.....

If you look at that same page, see which churches are losing members.....and, generally, they are the more liberal churches, with a couple of exceptions. The conservative churches? Most have been growing....several of them, substantially. But I'll let you look at the stats yourself, since you seem dubious.....

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

The large drop in ďEpiscopalĒ population is in large part due to the break away of the 1929 group and the charismatic group.

Whole churches left the fold if you will, on an individual base most parishes have grown along with the reemergence of religion in the US population.

The 1929 group is steadfast in itís belief that only the 1929 prayer book should be used, this group I believe is dying off as itís members die off.

The charismatic faction is more in line with the evangelical movement and includes such things as the talking in tongues.

Will there be another break in the Church over this whole issue of gays and women in the pulpit, very likely, although Iím guessing a very small group will break away over this. At the parish which I attend I know of only one family who is upset by this, historically G&HT Cathedral has been a very open parish, gays have been attending service as far back as the 40ís (and maybe even since the churches started back in the 1800ís, although I do not have personal information to state such).

To tag the Episcopal Church liberal I donít know if that is an accurate statement, the service for the most part is very traditional.

We have a weekly mass with communion in accordance to Catholicism, from this stand point the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are the conservatives compared to the other Protestant religions.

I guess the radical and ďliberalĒ ideology is that we do not believe in restricting people from worship nor do we dictate to them how they should strictly interpret the scriptures.

Brock
06-20-2006, 02:41 PM
My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying.

I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 02:43 PM
Of course a woman must always also perform the household chores in order for this to work.

I never said that either. You favor a loose construction of what someone writes to suit your antagonism.

I said woman are choosing more to stay home if they have children.
These are choices they are making and such choices lower thier pay overall.

It's funny that you are the one running your mouth about people being all the same when you are the one advocating that women stick to the same tired professions that they have held for centuries.

I'm not recommending anything. Again, I used the word "choose" on their own self-determined basis.


Well, thanks, but no thanks Phyllis Schafly.

That's a compliment for me.

Believe it or not, a man can do the household work,
No one said they couldn't. I never did that part, I paid someone.

...and a woman can be a primary breadwinner, but a great deal of men (who still hold the overwhelming amount of political power in this country) still feel threatened by the possibility of a woman in position of power, so why not just collectivize them into mindless "bitches" who are always pregnant and barefoot making dinner for their husbands. :shake:

Again, my original point is that it's free choices that ARE being made. Some do the role-reversal but most aren't. It's a free country at least what's left of it. And I don't care what you say, this does not mean woman aren't capable of other skills. Technology has freed her more than politics and laws.

So are you telling me you won't let your soon-to-be new bride grow hair on her legs and under her arms?

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 02:43 PM
I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.
Why would a Christian follow a rule the bible condemns? ;)

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 02:44 PM
You favor a loose construction of what someone writes to suit your antagonism.
D@mn near sig-worthy. :thumb:

noa
06-20-2006, 02:45 PM
I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.


I second this point. Nobody actually follows the bible literally today, which is a good thing IMO.

redbrian
06-20-2006, 02:47 PM
My response was not on the 10 Commandments itself but as the bible being a sovergn document. Either you believe what it says or you don't you can't pick and choose what rules and commands to or not to follow as I believe she was saying. She is not the only one who does this. All denominations are having this battle today maybe not in the forfront like the Episcopal Church, but they are with their infrastructure as in a liberal intertpretation or a conservative interpretation.

The bible (especially the gospels) must be read from a historical perspective that quite frankly most people do not posses.

The Bible for the most part was written down after hundreds of years of an oral tradition, the art of leading ones life based on the bible is to understand what the circumstances were surrounding the passage and how it relates to the modern world (kind of like the US constitution if you will).

The whole purpose of this exercise is to lead a life which is spiritually rewarding and of benefit to your self, your family, the community and the world.

It should not be forced on anyone nor denied to anyone.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 02:50 PM
The bible (especially the gospels) must be read from a historical perspective that quite frankly most people do not posses.

The Bible for the most part was written down after hundreds of years of an oral tradition, the art of leading ones life based on the bible is to understand what the circumstances were surrounding the passage and how it relates to the modern world (kind of like the US constitution if you will).

The whole purpose of this exercise is to lead a life which is spiritually rewarding and of benefit to your self, your family, the community and the world.

It should not be forced on anyone nor denied to anyone.
Don't forget the part about the dumbass schizo Hebes.

el borracho
06-20-2006, 02:51 PM
"What is the riddle of steel?"

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 02:53 PM
Nothing coming from the mouth of a woman that enjoys dressing and looking like a priest would surprise me.

noa
06-20-2006, 02:59 PM
Nothing coming from the mouth of a woman that enjoys dressing and looking like a priest would surprise me.


What if she enjoys dressing like Priest Holmes?

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 03:03 PM
What if she enjoys dressing like Priest Holmes?
What is the summation of her encyclical on nachos?

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:07 PM
The large drop in ďEpiscopalĒ population is in large part due to the break away of the 1929 group and the charismatic group.

Whole churches left the fold if you will, on an individual base most parishes have grown along with the reemergence of religion in the US population.

The 1929 group is steadfast in itís belief that only the 1929 prayer book should be used, this group I believe is dying off as itís members die off....

First you denied the decline, now you seem to be mischaracterizing it. The decline I pointed to was from 1960-2004. It says nothing about the 1929 breakaway, or any trend from 1929 to 1960. The drop has come in the last 45 years or so. And it parallels similar drops in the membership of other liberal churches, amid a simultaneous increase in membership in conservative congregations.

The Reagan "conservative tide" that historians write about, is actually more symptomatic of the culture than the cause of the cultural change. And the demographics on the site I pointed you to, support that.

I was a member of the ELCA until 2004. Our churches politics and studies on the issue have led to a similar exodous from the ELCA. My family has been attending a local Luthern Free congregation--as we aren't sure we are quite ready for the Missouri Synod.

redbrian
06-20-2006, 04:22 PM
First you denied the decline, now you seem to be mischaracterizing it. The decline I pointed to was from 1960-2004. It says nothing about the 1929 breakaway, or any trend from 1929 to 1960. The drop has come in the last 45 years or so. And it parallels similar drops in the membership of other liberal churches, amid a simultaneous increase in membership in conservative congregations.

The Reagan "conservative tide" that historians write about, is actually more symptomatic of the culture than the cause of the cultural change. And the demographics on the site I pointed you to, support that.

I was a member of the ELCA until 2004. Our churches politics and studies on the issue have led to a similar exodous from the ELCA. My family has been attending a local Luthern Free congregation--as we aren't sure we are quite ready for the Missouri Synod.

Sorry but you misunderstood me; I donít think you can find anywhere where I stated that the decline in overall population did not happen.

My claim is that individual parishes have not greatly declined.

I was not talking about a time period when I referred to the 1929 prayer book. The date 1929 is when one of the common prayer books was written, a modern prayer book was adopted in the late 70ís.

Both the 1929 prayer book group and the charismaticís broke away from the church during the period you point out the large reduction of members of the church. I hope that cleared that up.

Of all the churches in the NW MO Diocese, I know of only one which may break away, and that is one of the suburban style churches located in Johnson County.

Missouri Synod is about as an unfriendly group as you will find, and this is from a friend of mine who grew up in the Missouri Synod.

Spicy McHaggis
06-20-2006, 04:37 PM
What is the summation of her encyclical on nachos?

We must refer to the "Council of Powdered Cheese" in 1295 to find the answer. And I quote, "Chips of the cornish descent shall be consumed upon the night of Arena and shall be topped with the cheese of nacho and no less than 4 jalapenos." Amen.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:38 PM
Sorry but you misunderstood me; I donít think you can find anywhere where I stated that the decline in overall population did not happen.

My claim is that individual parishes have not greatly declined.

I was not talking about a time period when I referred to the 1929 prayer book. The date 1929 is when one of the common prayer books was written, a modern prayer book was adopted in the late 70ís.

Both the 1929 prayer book group and the charismaticís broke away from the church during the period you point out the large reduction of members of the church. I hope that cleared that up.

Of all the churches in the NW MO Diocese, I know of only one which may break away, and that is one of the suburban style churches located in Johnson County.

Missouri Synod is about as an unfriendly group as you will find, and this is from a friend of mine who grew up in the Missouri Synod.

Communicating here, can be ambiguous. But I hear what you are saying now. The decline though, in many liberal congregations is a concern among many folks I know though; especially, when compared to the increases made by conservatives--heck, even the Missouri Synod is gaining. All I know, is the politics of the ELCA is driving members away; and the phenomena appears to be similar in your denomination.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 04:39 PM
Furthermore, this expert which you choose to so ignornantly shuck aside, also stated that women are also responsible in part for their roles in society as they accept and encourage their own marginalization. You are a direct affirmation of that very belief.



:thumb: :D I enjoy being a girl! :)

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
We must refer to the "Council of Powdered Cheese" in 1295 to find the answer. And I quote, "Chips of the cornish descent shall be consumed upon the night of Arena and shall be topped with the cheese of nacho and no less than 4 jalapenos." Amen.
And lo, the Cheez did emit a heavenly glow, causing the scribes of the day to turn thine eyes from the multitude of montrous men engaging in cataclysmic battle, and rest upon a beatific visage, surveying the scene from a lowly luxury box.

Jilly
06-20-2006, 04:54 PM
Well, your parishes are the exception then...

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

33% drop in actual membership, 58% drop in per capita membership since 1960 would qualify as a pretty precipitous drop in the minds of most people.....I would think.

I will talk trash with the best of them. However, if I cite a stat or research, generally, I'm not talking out of my ass; and I've usually done my homework. I realize stats can be twisted, but this one's pretty clear...

As for your personal experience, fine. The Episcopal Church, and some other liberal churches seem to be pursuing this "niche" if you will.....perhaps as a strategy to attract new members for the first time in decades, or to stop the bleeding so-to-speak. And it may be working.....however, it goes against the trends.....

If you look at that same page, see which churches are losing members.....and, generally, they are the more liberal churches, with a couple of exceptions. The conservative churches? Most have been growing....several of them, substantially. But I'll let you look at the stats yourself, since you seem dubious.....

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

The decline in membership of liberal churches has everything to do with money and a society that promotes disconnect and the "easy" way of doing things. Conservative churches teach people what to believe adn how to believe...they talk in black and white. They teach this is right and this is wrong. The liberal church? Actually promotes thinking for one's self. Putting in the work to actually read and study what the Bible does say instead of taking it for face value. Conservative churches are growing, because we live in a world where people don't want to put in that kind of work for their faith or sacrifice anything to become a fuller, more connected Chrisitan. Answers...that's what everyone wants...and well, liberal churches rarely give answers....

Dave Lane
06-20-2006, 04:59 PM
She might want to read up on what happen to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


You mean like nothing? Thats what really happened...

Dave

Jilly
06-20-2006, 05:02 PM
I don't trust any woman that is in a leadership role at a church (church, not sunday school class or women's outreach ministries). There are also passages in the bible about that, too.

I was all supportive of you in other threads, until this statement. What the hell makes it right for a woman to teach Sunday School, but not preach? Or lead a Bible study, but not a church board? Seriously...that's assanine and ignorant.
According to the Gospels of John, Luke, and Mark, and even Matthew... Can I just say that if it wasn't for Mary Magdalene - that noone would have even heard Jesus was resurrected? If it wasn't for Mary, the Mother of Jesus, Jesus wouldn't have been born? What does that say about God's belief about the role of women in the church? That God chose to appear resurrected to them first and deem them to tell everyone else? And any passage you quote from Scripture about women keeping silent are from the letters of Paul....and they address a specific church at a specific time who had problem people in those churches.... Did you know that the first "deacons" or "ministers" (it's the same word in Greek) of the church that were ordained, by Paul, were women???? You might have heard of Priscilla???

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:06 PM
The decline in membership of liberal churches has everything to do with money and a society that promotes disconnect and the "easy" way of doing things. Conservative churches teach people what to believe adn how to believe...they talk in black and white. They teach this is right and this is wrong. The liberal church? Actually promotes thinking for one's self. Putting in the work to actually read and study what the Bible does say instead of taking it for face value. Conservative churches are growing, because we live in a world where people don't want to put in that kind of work for their faith or sacrifice anything to become a fuller, more connected Chrisitan. Answers...that's what everyone wants...and well, liberal churches rarely give answers....
That. . . or conservative churches promote study and adherence, while liberal church promote your personal relationship with Jesus, however you choose to define it.

Jilly
06-20-2006, 05:08 PM
That. . . or conservative churches promote study and adherence, while liberal church promote your personal relationship with Jesus, however you choose to define it.

Or the conservative church promotes having a relationship with God so that you can get to heaven and the liberal church says, hey, let's make heaven happen right now.... ????

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:10 PM
Or the conservative church promotes having a relationship with God so that you can get to heaven and the liberal church says, hey, let's make heaven happen right now.... ????
Are you hitting on me?

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:11 PM
What I've read, and it was three years ago so I don't have a stinkin' link, was that it's the fundementalist faiths that are growing fastest. I also, read that building of mosques in the US is outstripping the building of churches.

Seems to me that in uncertain times, people prefer the guidance of clearly set rules instead of having to analzye everything for themselves. Is it thinking always or is it confusion sometimes?

Jilly
06-20-2006, 05:12 PM
Are you hitting on me?

I don't know, am I?

KUalum
06-20-2006, 05:16 PM
It's infiltration. It's the church's problem at this point nobody else's. This infiltration thing is nothing new. This is a big gay year. From school textbooks to the Soprano's to gay cowboys and the church. Once again I am all for people doing whatever they want but at some point I get sick of it. We hit the saturation point long ago IMO. Hell the gays are beginning to have more rights than the average Joe like in hate crimes for example.


I am a bit curious. I don't understand exactly what it is that's "infiltrating". Do the gay people you know (if you know any) do things differently from everyone else? - Of course sex in the privacy of ones home is excluded. Don't gay people go to work, buy homes and cars, pay taxes etc. I just want to understand what identifies this "lifestyle" that is being force fed upon everyone.

As far as rights - yeah I think you are a bit off base there. The only right that gay people have that heterosexuals do not is the right to have their violent attackers also charged with a hate crime. That's not much of a right in my opinion.
What rights do they not have. Well they can not get married. If they are hospitalized and do not have the correct paperwork they can be denied access to a partner of countless years (because they can not be married). When they die (hopefully not unexpectedly) they hope to have enough protection in wills and other legal documents that they only have to pay excessive taxes on all that one partner leaves to the other. Oh and they can still be fired in many states just because they are gay. I think those example alone are enough to show that gays have significantly less rights than the average Joe.

As far as being in the Church if the church does not want them there they will not be there.

Adept Havelock
06-20-2006, 05:17 PM
Is homosexuality a sin? I guess it depends on which set of superstitions you subscribe to. :shrug:

What I've read, and it was three years ago so I don't have a stinkin' link, was that it's the fundementalist faiths that are growing fastests. I also, read that building of mosques in the US is outstripping the building of churches.

Seems to me that in uncertain times, people prefer the guidance of clearly set rules instead of having to analzye everything for themselves. Is it thinking always or is it confusion sometimes?

Is that much different from "Times are uncertain, so I prefer to be told what to do, instead of figuring it out for myself"? ;)

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:23 PM
people prefer the guidance of clearly set rules instead of having to analzye everything for themselves
And again, not to be too pedantic, particularly as we applying terms like liberal/conservative [which we have enough trouble achieving definitional consensus on in the political realm] to the entirety of religiosity, . . .
But I take issue with the dichomoty you present.

Having grown up in a church that has liberalized as radically as any out there, I've seen a transformation from;

preferring full and animated exposition of all aspects and stories of the bible, drawing inferences from disparate parts of the text to illimunate the interplay between faith, agency, adherence, parables, wrath, joy, fidelity. Almost Jewish in the way that the stories of the Bible/Torah live with you and inform day to day decisions.

to;

"Isn't God great, and isn't it great to get together today and think about how great God is? You know, God's real cool. . . blah, blah, blah, Personal journey, . . . blah, blah. . . dictates of your own personal truth . . . blah, blah, God is awesome."

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 05:24 PM
No shit, dumbass. The mere point of that post sailed way over your head. I find it funny that he can debase the push for equality among people as so reprehensible (as this push desires to do) and yet finds it so damnable for dogs to be considered for specific legislation when they might be considered dangerous. It's a logical inconsistency that I was pointing out. :thumb:Duhhh.

Do you have 50 cent?

I need to buy a cup of coffe with all of your smarts man. I be too dum to work, I need yo help.


Is it o.k. if I breed? I be to dumn fo dat. Yus betta come and fix me sos dat I caint do dat no mo.

Please don'ts owtlaws my breed o humankind, causin dats not fayer.

Yous so smart dat you have all da ansas fo my ignoant ass, please tell me wats Im supoosse to do,

do you have it figured out!

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 05:27 PM
What the hell makes it right for a woman to teach Sunday School, but not preach? Something is just not right with this sentence.

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 05:28 PM
You mean like nothing? Thats what really happened...

DaveSo sayeth the Lord Dave, or was it Josephus?

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:34 PM
Is that much different from "Times are uncertain, so I prefer to be told what to do, instead of figuring it out for myself"? ;)

I'm just speculating on why fundamentalist faiths seem to be growing the fastest in what is generally considered to be a secular era.

To be honest with you I don't think the average person has the same reasoning powers person-to-person.

That being said, is there really anything wrong with that?
I don't think so.

If one finds a faith ( or any philosophy ) that provides him a clearer path over others, then if that works then fine. If another doesn't...that's fine too. I do think overall, we all can't figure everything out on our own...so borrow from each other. We can always reject what doesn't seem to work. Then people can fall into the trap of being self-serving only.

BabyLee, I didn't really understand your post?

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 05:35 PM
I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else adhere to all the rules proscribed in the bible.If fact, the Bible says as much.

"No one is righteous, no not one."

"For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God."

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:35 PM
BabyLee, I didn't really understand your post?
Which one?

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:36 PM
If fact, the Bible says as much.

"No one is righteous, no not one."

"For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God."
Does anyone know what 'proscribed' means?

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2006, 05:37 PM
I am a bit curious. I don't understand exactly what it is that's "infiltrating". Do the gay people you know (if you know any) do things differently from everyone else? - Of course sex in the privacy of ones home is excluded. Don't gay people go to work, buy homes and cars, pay taxes etc. I just want to understand what identifies this "lifestyle" that is being force fed upon everyone.

As far as rights - yeah I think you are a bit off base there. The only right that gay people have that heterosexuals do not is the right to have their violent attackers also charged with a hate crime. That's not much of a right in my opinion.
What rights do they not have. Well they can not get married. If they are hospitalized and do not have the correct paperwork they can be denied access to a partner of countless years (because they can not be married). When they die (hopefully not unexpectedly) they hope to have enough protection in wills and other legal documents that they only have to pay excessive taxes on all that one partner leaves to the other. Oh and they can still be fired in many states just because they are gay. I think those example alone are enough to show that gays have significantly less rights than the average Joe.

As far as being in the Church if the church does not want them there they will not be there.

Like I said it is a church problem.

Do I know any gay people? Hell I have probably hired more gay people than anybody else here at chiefsplanet including the gays. 18 years in the health club industry will do that. Living in California? Come on.

Infiltrating. If you got voted into the position to act in the best interest of the church knowing you were going to pull this that would be the case. A lot of people donate serious money so the church can do good things for people. If she knew her position and didn't let people know that before voting her in on an issue that big it is deception and infiltration. It's not like this is anything new.

My point was hate crime. There are also insurance issues on both sides but that is a whole subject unto itself. I believe they should have the same rights as everyone. I believe marriage should be made a union but a union should not necessarily be considered a marriage if that makes any sense.

Hamas and people like him are the essence of the problem IMO. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is a just a word he uses as a dagger to go after others when in reality he has no more tolerance than anyone he criticizes. It's a real groovy word to use when it fits your agenda. Denise was the master of that.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:37 PM
Which one?

Wow! That was fast, I hadn't finished editing.

#110.

beer bacon
06-20-2006, 05:38 PM
Are you hitting on me?

I just want to put my deacon in your steeple baby.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:40 PM
Wow! That was fast, I hadn't finished editing.

#110.
My point is that conservative/liberal isn't as simple as 'spelled out for you' -v- 'figure it out for yourself.'
It can also be, 'put serious thought into the overall message' -v- 'a shallow 'God is awesome' mentality.'

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:45 PM
My point is that conservative/liberal isn't as simple as 'spelled out for you' -v- 'figure it out for yourself.'
It can also be, 'put serious thought into the overall message' -v- 'a shallow 'God is awesome' mentality.'

Ah, I see.

Well I didn't really equate the original subject of this thread as "liberal" versus "conservative"ó at least of the political kind.

I also don't consider myself religious, but more spiritual and that is of an eclectic kind. I don't fall into the non-thinking catagory. I have dabbled in Judaism as well Eastern things but was raised a Roman Catholic. Don't know if that helps ya.' And I don't feel my search has ended by any means either.

I'm pretty tolerant of different faith systems, including agnostic and atheists. In general though I don't care for religion hater/bashers.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:49 PM
Well I didn't really equate the original subject of this thread as "liberal" versus "conservative"ó at least of the political kind.
I wasn't commenting on the original topic. I was commenting on your and TM's parallel reasoning on, in TM's case conservative-v-liberal congregations, and in your case, fundamentalist-v-'whatever you were envisioning as the opposite of fundamentalist' congregations.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:49 PM
Now, I'm re-reading what you wrote last BL.


"My point is that conservative/liberal isn't as simple as 'spelled out for you' -v- 'figure it out for yourself."

I would agree with this point...seeing it differently than before.

EDIT: I'll have to go look at what TM said....because I don't know.

rad
06-20-2006, 05:49 PM
Because god knows, men can't be the ones at home rearing the children, now can they??

Not when It's the women that carry the child in their womb for 9 months, retard.

Blame God. Not men

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:51 PM
Not when It's the women that carry the child in their womb for 9 months, retard.

Blame God. Not men

He's just jealous his boobs don't swell with milk after childbirth. ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 05:58 PM
TM
Or the conservative church promotes having a relationship with God so that you can get to heaven and the liberal church says, hey, let's make heaven happen right now.... ????

I kinda agree with this. There is one thing in modern thought today that emphasizes getting everything now, that this is it because we are just physical matter.

I saw his/her earlier post too, can't say I disagree...or that I disagree with anything in between either, such as what you say.

I know I'm sounding wishy-washy. I'm just not really a church-goer. I was just speculating as to why fundamentalist churches are growing faster. I do however,feel that we've advanced technologically and I feel the humanities have not kept up with these advances.

rad
06-20-2006, 06:01 PM
He's just jealous his boobs don't swell with milk after childbirth. ROFL

:spock: Hamas is a dude?

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 06:03 PM
:spock: Hamas is a dude?

Yap!

Calcountry
06-20-2006, 06:04 PM
:spock: Hamas is a dude?Yes, but he is still somebodies bitch.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 06:04 PM
TM
I saw his/her earlier post too
If I remember correctly, TitsMagee is the type who has tits. They might even swell with milk after childbirth. ;)

|Zach|
06-20-2006, 06:05 PM
My thoughts on issues like this have been rpetty well documented but during this whole thing...I never for the life of me understood why some go out of ther way to try and change a church's mind or anything of that nature.

Their church...their philosophy. No matter what that may be...

rad
06-20-2006, 06:07 PM
Yes, but he is still somebodies bitch.

It's just that.... reading his posts on the first page......... just....seemed....confused....and I... boobies....

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 06:09 PM
If I remember correctly, TitsMagee is the type who has tits. They might even swell with milk after childbirth. ;)

:doh!: Wasn't sure if it was a dude who liked tits a lot or a woman who had them. Thanks for the clarification. And I do hope she chooses nursing over formula someday. :)



My thoughts on issues like this have been rpetty well documented but during this whole thing...I never for the life of me understood why some go out of ther way to try and change a church's mind or anything of that nature.

Their church...their philosophy. No matter what that may be...


:thumb: That's exactly right! Couldn't have said it better myself!!

Sully
06-20-2006, 07:01 PM
Did you just grab my ass?

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 07:50 PM
The decline in membership of liberal churches has everything to do with money and a society that promotes disconnect and the "easy" way of doing things. Conservative churches teach people what to believe adn how to believe...they talk in black and white. They teach this is right and this is wrong. The liberal church? Actually promotes thinking for one's self. Putting in the work to actually read and study what the Bible does say instead of taking it for face value. Conservative churches are growing, because we live in a world where people don't want to put in that kind of work for their faith or sacrifice anything to become a fuller, more connected Chrisitan. Answers...that's what everyone wants...and well, liberal churches rarely give answers....
You know, I'm not even gonna go here....cause it just ain't worth it. The idea, that only "liberals" are enlightened and the only ones who use their brain though....wow.

The incredible arrogance and sheer delusional aspect of that type of thinking, is dumbfounding....but, no, I'm gonna just let it go. And liberals wonder why many "average" folks despise them....ROFL

I mean, how can I rail against a woman who puts "Tits" in her username. I'm willing to bet you are a natural fuggin' blonde though, in every sense of the word.....heh. :)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 07:57 PM
I never said that either. You favor a loose construction of what someone writes to suit your antagonism.

I said woman are choosing more to stay home if they have children.
These are choices they are making and such choices lower thier pay overall.

Again, my original point is that it's free choices that ARE being made. Some do the role-reversal but most aren't. It's a free country at least what's left of it. And I don't care what you say, this does not mean woman aren't capable of other skills. Technology has freed her more than politics and laws.

So are you telling me you won't let your soon-to-be new bride grow hair on her legs and under her arms?

These are not free choices that are being made. You are going to love this one...your entire post speaks of false consciousness. You think that women enjoy being in the occupations they are and enjoy working traditional 'pink-collar' jobs, then you suffer from a serious dearth of imagination. There is a difference between someone wanting to do a job, and someone being told there are only certain jobs that they can do. Think about it. If you were a male executive at a company, would you want to hop on the equal rights bandwagon, knowing that it would increase the relative competition in your field, making it harder for you to rise to the top? Absolutely not. And yet you honestly believe that women aren't having deleterious messages sent through them through various forms of media and throughout our culture that affect their ability to make decisions that aren't influenced by these various messages?? If you say no, then I'm going to take it that you also believe that advertising has no effect on the purchases people make.

Your status as a woman does not give you any more weight in this argument than does my status of a man give me in a discussion about football.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 08:30 PM
Your status as a woman does not give you any more weight in this argument than does my status of a man give me in a discussion about football.
Yes it does. Believe me you have to experience it...hormonal fluctuations and all.

And of course I believe advertising influences people buying products since I work in that industry.I am only adjunct faculty where I teach at night.

But you are making of case of nuture verus nature when it's a combination. As for those messages being "deleterious" that's just an opinion based on values. That implies the rearing of children or women's work as having no value and a man's job, a CEO's as superior. That's demeaning. That's my main beef with the feminazis position. We have the most important role...we create the future generation. I said all along that it's technology, including medical, that has allowed women more freedom to fulfull other roles as she can control reproduction. But you act like women don't like some of the choices they make and are just a stimulus-response Pavolian dog and who isn't sentient at all about it. You act like I'm advocating a return to chattel.



Look at the woman's history: Women's roles were a matter of sheer survival at one time for the race. Even in the Renaissance, which was no Renaissance for her, the average woman had fifteen births because only about 7 would survive and maybe 4 would make it to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth. It was even worse for the aristocratic women with the pressure of producing male heirs to keep property in the family. They'd have as many as 25 pregnancies. It was survival. It took up most of their lives and times. That's no longer true.

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 08:40 PM
"How do you like that, Eva? I'm skull****ing Hitler!"

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 08:59 PM
Yes it does. Believe me you have to experience it...hormonal fluctuations and all.

And of course I believe advertising influences people buying products since I work in that industry.I am only adjunct faculty where I teach at night.

But you are making of case of nuture verus nature when it's a combination. As for those messages being "deleterious" that's just an opinion based on values. That implies the rearing of children or women's work as having no value and a man's job, a CEO's as superior. That's demeaning. That's my main beef with the feminazis position. We have the most important role...we create the future generation. I said all along that it's technology, including medical, that has allowed women more freedom to fulfull other roles as she can control reproduction. But you act like women don't like some of the choices they make and are just a stimulus-response Pavolian dog and who isn't sentient at all about it. You act like I'm advocating a return to chattel.



Look at the woman's history: Women's roles were a matter of sheer survival at one time for the race. Even in the Renaissance, which was no Renaissance for her, the average woman had fifteen births because only about 7 would survive and maybe 4 would make it to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth. It was even worse for the aristocratic women with the pressure of producing male heirs to keep property in the family. They'd have as many as 25 pregnancies. It was survival. It took up most of their lives and times. That's no longer true.

I'm not saying that some women wouldn't desire to rear children in a home environment, but I have a very hard time believing that the sheer number of women that do so, do so because they honestly desire to. Do you really think all people work jobs that they desire to? That's just naive. The fact that you call feminists feminazi's undermines your position...it bespeaks an extreme right wing hatred of progressivism on behalf of women.

Here is the difference: 95% of all CEOs are male, and yet you can honestly make an argument (and believe it) that there is true gender equity because only 5% of women truly desire to ascend to the top of the corporate ladder?? I find it far more likely that a great majority of women are held down precisely because they are not part of the boys club. Your position seems to be indicative of a desire to believe things are good so that you don't have to think about changing your ways than an honest analysis of how things really are.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 09:48 PM
I'm not saying that some women wouldn't desire to rear children in a home environment, but I have a very hard time believing that the sheer number of women that do so, do so because they honestly desire to. Do you really think all people work jobs that they desire to? That's just naive. The fact that you call feminists feminazi's undermines your position...it bespeaks an extreme right wing hatred of progressivism on behalf of women.

Honestly, it is not naive. I was a professional first and worked in exactly the field I wanted to work in and loved it. A creative profession and self employed with good money. I never thought I'd say what I say today when I was in college. The images you call deleterious, they not traditional images that promote this whole idea that a woman can have it all...be at the top of a high paying career and still be a great relaxed and patient mom. And it's just not true. I found some things had to go or be completely frazzled and make a lot of mistakes on my job. I've other professional friends who found the same. Even Maria Shriver, a liberal found the same. She wrote a book on it.

You may be able to have it all but not all at the same time. I've a girlfriend who chooses to continue with the big salary but she uses babysitters 24/7. She spends no time with her kid at all. Her kid is also out of control. I notice this correlation with other kids too. Or it just costs some too much to work and it's cheaper to stay home. Best case scenarios is other types of work with flexible schedules or work from home set-ups.

Anyhow, once my daughter was born, and I had faxes being run into the hospital on current projects as I was ordered to a rush C-section, I WANTED to cut back on working and be home. After seeing my work in print, on billboards for national firms I thought: "What was I thinking? This is better than all that!"

I did not completely stop working, I kept my hand in it just not to the same degree. But you lose out in other ways moneywise and opportunity-wise when you make those choices. Some things about staying home can be boring and not stimulating too.

Here is the difference: 95% of all CEOs are male, and yet you can honestly make an argument (and believe it) that there is true gender equity because only 5% of women truly desire to ascend to the top of the corporate ladder??
Yep! That's what I am saying...maybe not those exact numbers though. I should see if I can find this report for you. You don't get the big bucks for nothing. They have big responsibilities that are attached. These can conflict when you have children.

I find it far more likely that a great majority of women are held down precisely because they are not part of the boys club. Your position seems to be indicative of a desire to believe things are good so that you don't have to think about changing your ways than an honest analysis of how things really are.
No they're not. I think a woman can find success in business...I did at one time. I have a gf with a PR firm that also does well. Self employment or having your own business is a way around those issues. You call the shots! You have a great product or service the market shouldn't care.

I find that inequality can even work to a woman's advantage...even in securing that work.

That's not to say I haven't met with blatant discrimination, I have. I had a rep drop me after I got pregnant making my becoming a Mom his basis. It turned out later I didn't care but he said something discriminatory and he used to give me the top clients. In fact I won an 2 Addy awards the year I had my daughter on a project he gave me.

You must be young Hamas. You can't get this stuff all out of book in an Ivory Tower. You gotta live some life. As far as the feminazis statement that's exactly what radical feminists are. Even Judge Roberts wife belongs to ifemnists which is not a radical femnist group but conservative/libertarian.

|Zach|
06-20-2006, 09:55 PM
"How do you like that, Eva? I'm skull****ing Hitler!"
That was funny as hell.

Sully
06-20-2006, 10:10 PM
You know, I'm not even gonna go here....cause it just ain't worth it. The idea, that only "liberals" are enlightened and the only ones who use their brain though....wow.

The incredible arrogance and sheer delusional aspect of that type of thinking, is dumbfounding....but, no, I'm gonna just let it go. And liberals wonder why many "average" folks despise them....ROFL

I mean, how can I rail against a woman who puts "Tits" in her username. I'm willing to bet you are a natural fuggin' blonde though, in every sense of the word.....heh. :)


One church believes that the Bible is inerrant and holds all the answers any of us need, and one doesn't. One type of church preaches that you are not to question the Bible, and one allows questioning. Sounds like her description fits pretty fairly to me, as far as I can tell. Sure, the descriptions of both sides are broad generalizations and only based on one's personal experience, but I think it's fair to say that the inerrance of the Bible, and whether it holds all the "answers" is a good measuring stick for the difference.

And as far as questioning someone's username, Kotter(?), why don't you go watch "Anchorman," and get over yourself. For someone who claims that the majority of his posts are based in humor, that one sure flew over your head... :rolleyes: ROFL ROFL

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:18 PM
Look at the woman's history: Women's roles were a matter of sheer survival at one time for the race. Even in the Renaissance, which was no Renaissance for her, the average woman had fifteen births because only about 7 would survive and maybe 4 would make it to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth. It was even worse for the aristocratic women with the pressure of producing male heirs to keep property in the family. They'd have as many as 25 pregnancies. It was survival. It took up most of their lives and times. That's no longer true.

Exactly.

So you can just STFU about how bad a time you have when "yer' friend" comes to visit once a month unless you'd prefer to go retro and act as the host nation to an every 16 month infant luge competition through yer' pelvis. Hell, there's even shots and pills that stop that from happening.

If you live in America every race, religon, and sex has it MADE compared to 200 years ago...

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:28 PM
One church believes that the Bible is inerrant and holds all the answers any of us need, and one doesn't. One type of church preaches that you are not to question the Bible, and one allows questioning. Sounds like her description fits pretty fairly to me, as far as I can tell. Sure, the descriptions of both sides are broad generalizations and only based on one's personal experience, but I think it's fair to say that the inerrance of the Bible, and whether it holds all the "answers" is a good measuring stick for the difference.


Kotter does have a point though. It's no longer ok to judge another person's beliefs because if you do it's assumed YOU are the ignorant one.

It's flawed logic. To be smurt one must willing to admit validity and merrit in all belief systems, which you can't do because of the conflicts between belief systems. If I admit yours is as valid as mine I really can't believe 100% in mine, now can I?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 10:35 PM
. As far as the feminazis statement that's exactly what radical feminists are.

Where is Baby Lee to invoke Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies when you need him :rolleyes:

Probably chained to the other 999 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, I guess :banghead:

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 10:36 PM
Exactly.

So you can just STFU about how bad a time you have when "yer' friend" comes to visit once a month unless you'd prefer to go retro and act as the host nation to an every 16 month infant luge competition through yer' pelvis. Hell, there's even shots and pills that stop that from happening.

If you live in America every race, religon, and sex has it MADE compared to 200 years ago...

ROFL


It's flawed logic. To be smurt one must willing to admit validity and merrit in all belief systems, which you can't do because of the conflicts between belief systems. If I admit yours is as valid as mine I really can't believe 100% in mine, now can I?

That is an excellant point! :thumb:
Or you can just show courtesy and respect to what another believes, called good manners, without having to agree.

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:38 PM
ROFL




That is an excellant point! :thumb:
Or you can just show courtesy and respect to what another believes, called good manners, without having to agree.

Bull$#it.

I don't have to respect your opinion, just your right to have one and voice it.

Then I get to voice mine... :)

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 10:40 PM
Where is Baby Lee to invoke Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies when you need him :rolleyes:

Probably chained to the other 999 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, I guess :banghead:

Feminazi means they want to use force of law to make people do as they think should be done.

Anyhow...these links are not the original study which was pretty in depth but is the closest I could find. They in the main liberal sources but do cover some of what I said. I don't agree with their solutions though.

The 76-cent myth
Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn't the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/

Guardian
http://www.businesspundit.com/50226711/do_women_make_less_because_they_prefer_fixed_salaries.php

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm

German study:
http://www.businesspundit.com/50226711/do_women_make_less_because_they_prefer_fixed_salaries.php


Now,now on the lawyer thingy...we know that academics can't make it in the real world so they teach right?

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:42 PM
Feminazi means they want to use force of law to make people do as they think should be done.

Sounds good to me...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 10:53 PM
Feminazi means they want to use force of law to make people do as they think should be done.



And how is this different from any number of conservative groups???

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 10:55 PM
Now,now on the lawyer thingy...we know that academics can't make it in the real world so they teach right?

You are referring to the statement "those who can't do, teach". I'm 23 years old and teaching college. That statement is full of shit.

Rausch
06-20-2006, 11:02 PM
And how is this different from any number of conservative groups???

Like there's all that much difference between the two at this point. The midwest wants to jam Jesus down your throat and the west coast wants to shove gay up yer arse. The Libs are all about rights unless you want to smoke tobacco, protect the borders, or own a gun. The conservatives are all about rights unless you need an abortion, want to buy or sell adult material, or have some privacy in yer' own home.

I really didn't want to vote for a Communist or Zealot this year but since I refuse to give up voting I'm kinda' up a creek here...

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 11:02 PM
You are referring to the statement "those who can't do, teach". I'm 23 years old and teaching college. That statement is full of shit.
That explains it...I mean the age and some of your thinking.
Other than that you went from the Ivory Tower to the Ivory Tower eh?
How does that qualify you for making statements about the business world and life in it for a woman?

Rausch
06-20-2006, 11:04 PM
You are referring to the statement "those who can't do, teach". I'm 23 years old and teaching college. That statement is full of shit.

Now I KNOW yer' communist... :mad:

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 11:07 PM
And how is this different from any number of conservative groups???
It doesn't in all cases...but let's face it "conservative" means to preserve the status quo right? How are they trying to change something about woman that has not changed ( regarding our discussion). I don't see conservative groups advocating suing private ownership of a business to pay a woman equal to man especially when she might leave if she got pregnant...take time off for it or whatever. I don't see conservatives regulating this behavior here in order to change things under the label "progressive."

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 11:16 PM
Bull$#it.

I don't have to respect your opinion, just your right to have one and voice it.

Then I get to voice mine... :)
Sorry when it comes to other people's religion that imo is the road to contention. I can see it in certain venues though.

Rausch
06-20-2006, 11:22 PM
Sorry when it comes to other people's religion that imo is the road to contention. I can see it in certain venues though.

Well, I'm not going to hijack a baptism to scream "The Hamburgler is the one true God!"

You know what I mean...

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 11:28 PM
One church believes that the Bible is inerrant and holds all the answers any of us need, and one doesn't. One type of church preaches that you are not to question the Bible, and one allows questioning. Sounds like her description fits pretty fairly to me, as far as I can tell. Sure, the descriptions of both sides are broad generalizations and only based on one's personal experience, but I think it's fair to say that the inerrance of the Bible, and whether it holds all the "answers" is a good measuring stick for the difference.

And as far as questioning someone's username, Kotter(?), why don't you go watch "Anchorman," and get over yourself. For someone who claims that the majority of his posts are based in humor, that one sure flew over your head... :rolleyes: ROFL ROFL

:spock:

My post to her was, largely, TIC....at least the part about the username. Sorry that went over your head.

Has it ever struck you that you can't paint all conservative or evangelical churches with the same broad brush?


As for the over-simplified dichotomy you draw between liberal and conservative churches.....how convenient. Inerrancy of scripture means different things to different people. Many conservatives that I know are NOT the fundamentalists you are attempting to paint them as....

Conservatism and fundamentalism are not synonymous. No more than liberalism and radical moral relativism are synonymous.

Live a little, and look beyond the provincial and caricatured over-simplification you are trying to impose....

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:30 PM
It doesn't in all cases...but let's face it "conservative" means to preserve the status quo right? How are they trying to change something about woman that has not changed ( regarding our discussion). I don't see conservative groups advocating suing private ownership of a business to pay a woman equal to man especially when she might leave if she got pregnant...take time off for it or whatever. I don't see conservatives regulating this behavior here in order to change things under the label "progressive."

Then what exactly was that whole push to ban gay marriage through a Constitutional amendment thing??

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:32 PM
That explains it...I mean the age and some of your thinking.
Other than that you went from the Ivory Tower to the Ivory Tower eh?
How does that qualify you for making statements about the business world and life in it for a woman?

The fact that I've worked in the private sector, I was raised by a single mother, most of the classes I took in college were with women, I live with a woman, I've taken undergraduate and graduate courses in women's studies.

Other than that, nothing.

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:32 PM
What we're going to do is, we're going to go to the sandwich shop. We're going to have one gay person order a sub, and one straight person order a sandwich, and see how their experiences differ.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 11:34 PM
Then what exactly was that whole push to ban gay marriage through a Constitutional amendment thing??
Preserving man-and-woman as the standard for marriage, in the face of activism aimed at over-turning what many see as a common sense tradition.....that's why conservatives are sometimes referred to as "reactionaries."

They are "reacting" to the "activism" of liberals who are driving the change.

Duh.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:35 PM
Now I KNOW yer' communist... :mad:

How is this different than a "fried chicken and watermelon" conclusion??

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:38 PM
Preserving man-and-woman as the standard for marriage, in the face of activism aimed at over-turning what many see as a common sense tradition.....that's why conservatives are sometimes referred to as "reactionaries."

They are "reacting" to the "activism" of liberals who are driving the change.

Duh.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Feminazi means they want to use force of law to make people do as they think should be done.

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:39 PM
I don't know about you folks, but I don't see any reason to distrust this guy:

|Zach|
06-20-2006, 11:40 PM
Kotter still thinks it is his family that things are being imposed on.

noa
06-20-2006, 11:40 PM
You know, I'm not even gonna go here....cause it just ain't worth it. The idea, that only "liberals" are enlightened and the only ones who use their brain though....wow.

The incredible arrogance and sheer delusional aspect of that type of thinking, is dumbfounding....but, no, I'm gonna just let it go. And liberals wonder why many "average" folks despise them....ROFL

I mean, how can I rail against a woman who puts "Tits" in her username. I'm willing to bet you are a natural fuggin' blonde though, in every sense of the word.....heh. :)


Are you an Ann Coulter devotee?

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:44 PM
Kotter still things it is his family that things are being imposed on.GEEZE, Zach. If other people confirming their love for one another and garnering legal protection for their relationship isn't an infringement of your personal space, what is?

noa
06-20-2006, 11:46 PM
Preserving man-and-woman as the standard for marriage, in the face of activism aimed at over-turning what many see as a common sense tradition.....that's why conservatives are sometimes referred to as "reactionaries."

They are "reacting" to the "activism" of liberals who are driving the change.

Duh.


If you are labeling gay people who are trying to obtain equal rights "activists" then I can see where you would have stood during the Civil Rights Era. Gay people want to get married so they can have the same rights as you, and these are important rights such as health care for partners, hospital visitation rights, and other basic things. They are not trying to get married to ruin your marriage or make your children gay, yet the conservative side seems to assume that is an inevitability.
You use "activism" in a pejorative sense (we always hear conservative whining about "activist judges") and it completely disrepects the PROGRESS our country made during the "activism" of the Civil Rights Era, where progress was made thanks to the "liberals" who had the gaul to believe in equal rights for all people.
I am not saying you are prejudiced, I just think we should avoid portraying people who support gay marriage as radical activists.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 11:49 PM
If you are labeling gay people who are trying to obtain equal rights "activism" than I can see where you would have stood during the Civil Rights Era. Gay people want to get married so they can have the same rights as you, and these are important rights such as health care for partners, hospital visitation rights, and other basic things. They are not trying to get married to ruin your marriage or make your children gay, yet the conservative side seems to assume that is an inevitability.
You use "activism" in a pejorative sense (we always hear conservative whining about "activist judges") and it completely disrepects the PROGRESS our country made during the "activism" of the Civil Rights Era, where progress was made thanks to the "liberals" who had the gaul to believe in equal rights for all people.
I am not saying you are prejudiced, I just think we should avoid portraying people who support gay marriage as radical activists.

It's easy to do so when you are the one who might have to give up some of your white/straight/male privilege like a 4 year old hordeing all the Lincoln Logs.

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:50 PM
CUE ROCKIN' THE SUBURBS... NOW

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 11:52 PM
If you are labeling gay people who are trying to obtain equal rights "activism" than I can see where you would have stood during the Civil Rights Era. Gay people want to get married so they can have the same rights as you, and these are important rights such as health care for partners, hospital visitation rights, and other basic things. They are not trying to get married to ruin your marriage or make your children gay, yet the conservative side seems to assume that is an inevitability.
You use "activism" in a pejorative sense (we always hear conservative whining about "activist judges") and it completely disrepects the PROGRESS our country made during the "activism" of the Civil Rights Era, where progress was made thanks to the "liberals" who had the gaul to believe in equal rights for all people.
I am not saying you are prejudiced, I just think we should avoid portraying people who support gay marriage as radical activists.Not all activism is bad.....the Civil Rights movement was activism. Duh. FWIW, I would have supported that.

However, the difference you are refusing to see is the one many reasonable people make between skin color/race/genetics and, whether or not YOU personally agree, a distinction based on sexual preference/behavorial/lifestyle choice.

You may disagree, but many educated, conscientious, and intelligent people consider being black as being akin to gender, whereas being gay is akin to being an alcoholic or drug addict.

And therein, lies the difference in your thinking and theirs.


***

(....oh well, here we go with the ad hominem/homophobic/bigot charges that inevitable follow any attempt to disagree in a reasonable fashion with those on your side. :banghead: )

|Zach|
06-20-2006, 11:55 PM
I just don't see how you can go around in these circles...you must be the most obtuse thinker. Your activist judge comments went full circle when you said you didn't mind in a case...you know...a case you agreed with.

Who didn't see thatm coming?

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:55 PM
Yeah... everyone in the scientific community totally agrees with your conclusion. Your proof is indisputible.

Discussion OVER.

I just don't see how you can go around in these circles...you must be the most obtuse thinker. Your activist judge comments went full circle when you said you didn't mind in a case...you know...a case you agreed with.

Who didn't see thatm coming?CUE SPIN SPIN SUGAR... NOW

|Zach|
06-20-2006, 11:57 PM
***

(....oh well, here we go with the ad hominem/homophobic/bigot charges that inevitable follow any attempt to disagree in a reasonable fashion with those on your side. :banghead: )
Heh...

Being gay = drug addiction and alcohal abuse.

Hey hey...im just reasonable guy here.

noa
06-20-2006, 11:58 PM
Not all activism is bad.....the Civil Rights movement was activism. Duh. FWIW, I would have supported that.

However, the difference you are refusing to see is the one many reasonable people make between skin color/race/genetics and, whether or not YOU personally agree, a distinction based on sexual preference/behavorial/lifestyle choice.

You may disagree, but many educated, conscientious, and intelligent people consider being black as being akin to gender, whereas being gay is akin to being an alcoholic or drug addict.

And therein, lies the difference in your thinking and theirs.


***

(....oh well, here we go with the ad hominem/homophobic/bigot charges that inevitable follow any attempt to disagree in a reasonable fashion with those on your side. :banghead: )


Well, we disagree on the nature of homosexuality, so we'll just have to leave it at that. Obviously, I can't convince you, and you can't convince me. I'll let the disagreement stand where it is.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 11:58 PM
Are you an Ann Coulter devotee?

Nah.

She's a shill.....like Michael Moore. Both can be amusing, but both grow old pretty quickly.

Ultra Peanut
06-20-2006, 11:59 PM
Well, we disagree on the nature of homosexuality, so we'll just have to leave it at that. Obviously, I can't convince you, and you can't convince me.WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU HE SAID GAYS ARE LIKE ALCOHOLICS NOT BLACK PEOPLE YOU STUPID **** WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN

Rausch
06-20-2006, 11:59 PM
How is this different than a "fried chicken and watermelon" conclusion??

At it's core it's not.

The majority of college profs are liberals.

noa
06-21-2006, 12:01 AM
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU HE SAID GAYS ARE LIKE ALCOHOLICS NOT BLACK PEOPLE YOU STUPID **** WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN

I don't understand. Why won't I listen to what?

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:01 AM
Heh...

Being gay = drug addiction and alcohal abuse.

Hey hey...im just reasonable guy here.

Good, we're keeping the gays then. Us alcoholics need all the positive PR we can get.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 12:02 AM
Heh...

Being gay = drug addiction and alcohal abuse.

Hey hey...im just reasonable guy here.Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it.....? It is late, though....

I'm suggesting those opposed to gay marriage consider it as such--it's an analogy. If you wish to be offended by their beliefs (I called no one a name--I explained the thinking)....go for it, I guess. If you choose to cast it as a pejorative, I understand....but it's hardly ad hominem, on a personal level anyway.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 12:03 AM
I don't understand. Why won't I listen to what?His reason and logic and the rock-hard scientific support for his rationalizations, dumbass.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 12:03 AM
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU HE SAID GAYS ARE LIKE ALCOHOLICS NOT BLACK PEOPLE YOU STUPID **** WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN
Unlike you, he seems to at least be open to the idea of reasonable people choosing to disagree. Good for him. :shrug:

Too bad more of us can't seem to do that very often....

noa
06-21-2006, 12:03 AM
His reason and logic and the rock-hard scientific support for his rationalizations, dumbass.

Of course, that's why I already conceded.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 12:05 AM
Black people have bad breath and they're genetically predisposed to stealing stuff.





Hey, don't be mad at me, black folks. I'm just suggesting that a certain segment of the population may believe that. If you want to be offended by that, it's your problem. It's hardly an attack directed at you, at least not on a personal level.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 12:06 AM
Unlike you, he seems to at least be open to the idea of reasonable people choosing to disagree. Good for him. :shrug:

Too bad more of us can't seem to do that very often....WHY DON'T YOU LET ME HELP YOU

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 12:06 AM
His reason and logic and the rock-hard scientific support for his rationalizations, dumbass.

Like EITHER side has anything REMOTELY approaching that.....

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 12:08 AM
Black people have bad breath and they're genetically predisposed to stealing stuff.





Hey, don't be mad at me, black folks. I'm just suggesting that a certain segment of the population may believe that. If you want to be offended by that, it's your problem. It's hardly an attack directed at you, at least not on a personal level.
Let me guess, you have either:

a. never taken a "logic" course in your life.
b. or, you didn't do very well in the logic course you did take....

I'm guessing "b"....

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 12:10 AM
Let me guess, you have either:

a. never taken a "logic" course in your life.
b. didn't do very well in the logic course you did take....

I'm guessing "b"....ICE BURN

KCChiefsMan
06-21-2006, 12:12 AM
I thought it was scientific.....homosexuality is genetic...I'm not homo, but I do know that it is a genetic disorder.....you may think...what? it's a disorder, well ya, they have one extra Y chromosome...being a genetic disorder and it also means that they can't help it and are born that way. People should really get educated on such subjects, I learned that in BIO 101 for Christ's sakes...and if the word of God makes you hate certain people....than.....well I just don't know

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:12 AM
Black people have bad breath and they're genetically predisposed to stealing stuff.





Hey, don't be mad at me, black folks. I'm just suggesting that a certain segment of the population may believe that. If you want to be offended by that, it's your problem. It's hardly an attack directed at you, at least not on a personal level.

Hey, I'm all for Gay people getting married but to compare being black to who you decided to **** is insanity.

I'll only know who you bang if you decide to tell me. I've never been black but I suspect the rules are a little different...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:12 AM
At it's core it's not.

The majority of college profs are liberals.

So then you are saying that the majority of black people like fried chicken and watermelon??

|Zach|
06-21-2006, 12:15 AM
I thought it was scientific.....homosexuality is genetic...I'm not homo, but I do know that it is a genetic disorder.....you may think...what? it's a disorder, well ya, they have one extra Y chromosome...being a genetic disorder and it also means that they can't help it and are born that way. People should really get educated on such subjects, I learned that in BIO 101 for Christ's sakes...and if the word of God makes you hate certain people....than.....well I just don't know
ROFL

noa
06-21-2006, 12:18 AM
Hey, I'm all for Gay people getting married but to compare being black to who you decided to **** is insanity.

I'll only know who you bang if you decide to tell me. I've never been black but I suspect the rules are a little different...

It all hinges on whether or not you think homosexuality is a choice. If you do, then his analogy makes sense, and if you don't, his analogy doesn't make sense to you.

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:23 AM
So then you are saying that the majority of black people like fried chicken and watermelon??

Yeah. The majority of AMERICANS like fried chicken. Why?

Is chicken bad? Is there some new slang I don't know about? Should I stop drinking beer and eating 'taters because I'm of German ancestry?

Those racist bastards at BET! ASSUMING most black people like hip-hop and R&B!

Title: Dietary Fat Related Attitudes and Behaviors of Adult Males of Different Ethnicity/race.
Author
Bowman, Shanthy
Submitted to: American Dietetic Association Annual Meeting
Publication Type: Abstract
Publication Acceptance Date: April 23, 2002
Publication Date: July 27, 2002
Citation: Bowman, S.A. Dietary Fat Related Attitudes and Behaviors of Adult Males of Different Ethnicity/race. American Dietetic Association Annual Meeting. 2002.
Technical Abstract: The objective of the study was to examine dietary-fat related attitudes and practices of adult males, ages 20 years and over, in the USDA's, nationally representative, 1994-1996 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey (DHKS). There were 2,304 non-Hispanic, White Americans, 275 African Americans, and 241 Hispanics in the study. Survey weights were used in the data analysis to represent the population studied. A higher proportion of African American (57%) and Hispanic (64%) males than White males (49%) said that it was very important to them to have a diet low in fat. A high percent of Hispanic males met the Dietary Guidelines recommendations for total fat (36%) and saturated fat (44%), while a low percent of African American males met total fat (28%) and saturated fat (32%) recommendations. The dietary practices varied among the three groups: African Americans were more likely to eat chicken as fried chicken, eat potato or corn chips 4 to 5 times a week, always add fat to cooked vegetables (28%), always eat large portions of meat (27%), and less likely to remove skin off chicken, choose lean meats, or drink skim milk; Hispanic males were more likely not to drink skim milk or choose low-fat luncheon meats, but less likely to add fat on cooked vegetables including baked or boiled potatoes; and White males were more likely to always use fat on baked potatoes (61%) and eat large portions of meat, but were more likely to always drink skim milk, choose lean meat, and remove skin off chicken. This study showed differences in fat-related, dietary practices among ethnic groups and races.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=133295

RACISTS AT THE USDA!

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:26 AM
It all hinges on whether or not you think homosexuality is a choice. If you do, then his analogy makes sense, and if you don't, his analogy doesn't make sense to you.

Well, being BI sure as hell is a choice. "Experimenting" is a choice. I'm sure for some it is and some it isn't.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:29 AM
Well, being BI sure as hell is a choice.

Not everyone would agree with you here, either.

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:32 AM
Not everyone would agree with you here, either.

For instance: I've been begging the g/f for a 3some forever (what man doesn't?) She hasn't gone for it for 9 years, but if she finally caves that means she was born BI?

Nein...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:32 AM
Yeah. The majority of AMERICANS like fried chicken. Why?

Is chicken bad? Is there some new slang I don't know about? Should I stop drinking beer and eating 'taters because I'm of German ancestry?

Those racist bastards at BET! ASSUMING most black people like hip-hop and R&B!



http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=133295

RACISTS AT THE USDA!

Are those percentages 100??? Because most people aren't handicapped, should we then get rid of all the 'crippled spaces'??

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:33 AM
For instance: I've been begging the g/f for a 3some forever (what man doesn't?) She hasn't gone for it for 9 years, but if she finally caves that means she was born BI?

Nein...

But someone who is a practicing bisexual empirically must choose to do so, and is not merely following an innate desire??

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:43 AM
Are those percentages 100??? Because most people aren't handicapped, should we then get rid of all the 'crippled spaces'??

No, but most people in wheelchairs need a ramp to climb stairs.

You're throwing a fit over a aspect of culture, Prof. People with less money buy and eat $#it that costs less money. It's why BBQ became popular, it's why fried chicken is a southern staple. IT'S CHEAPER THAN STEAK.

Just because everyone who goes into Wal-Mart isn't white trash doesn't mean more than 1/2 the fuggers you run into there aren't white trash. If you don't like aspects of the American culture that's fine, but don't start acting like objects and foods are bad because you don't like to be associated with it. There's a huge difference between being a DJ and assuming black college students likes rap and owning a Mammy cookie jar...

Rausch
06-21-2006, 12:46 AM
But someone who is a practicing bisexual empirically must choose to do so, and is not merely following an innate desire??

Is it a desire to be with someone you feel a natural attraction to, or a desire to try something new, or a desire to get your boyfriend to shut up?

Are you saying a straight person can't try gay sex out of curiosity?

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 06:33 AM
What we're going to do is, we're going to go to the sandwich shop. We're going to have one gay person order a sub, and one straight person order a sandwich, and see how their experiences differ.
ROFL ROFL

1, 2, 3, 4. . . 4 slices!!

King_Chief_Fan
06-21-2006, 07:17 AM
She is obviously wrong. Lumping this abomination as a "not proper in the old days but o.k. now" does not change what is. The Bible is very clear about this.

King_Chief_Fan
06-21-2006, 07:18 AM
Is it a desire to be with someone you feel a natural attraction to, or a desire to try something new, or a desire to get your boyfriend to shut up?

Are you saying a straight person can't try gay sex out of curiosity?

I am saying it isn't natural and therefore wrong.

Sully
06-21-2006, 07:50 AM
:spock:

My post to her was, largely, TIC....at least the part about the username. Sorry that went over your head.

Has it ever struck you that you can't paint all conservative or evangelical churches with the same broad brush?


As for the over-simplified dichotomy you draw between liberal and conservative churches.....how convenient. Inerrancy of scripture means different things to different people. Many conservatives that I know are NOT the fundamentalists you are attempting to paint them as....

Conservatism and fundamentalism are not synonymous. No more than liberalism and radical moral relativism are synonymous.

Live a little, and look beyond the provincial and caricatured over-simplification you are trying to impose....


I admitted I was painting with a broad brush. We ALL are on this thread for the purpose of the conversation. It would be impossible not to... let me show you an example...


(....oh well, here we go with the ad hominem/homophobic/bigot charges that inevitable follow any attempt to disagree in a reasonable fashion with those on your side. :banghead: )

Inspector
06-21-2006, 08:28 AM
You are referring to the statement "those who can't do, teach". I'm 23 years old and teaching college. That statement is full of shit.

23.

Ah ha, now I see.........

Jilly
06-21-2006, 08:58 AM
You know, I'm not even gonna go here....cause it just ain't worth it. The idea, that only "liberals" are enlightened and the only ones who use their brain though....wow.

The incredible arrogance and sheer delusional aspect of that type of thinking, is dumbfounding....but, no, I'm gonna just let it go. And liberals wonder why many "average" folks despise them....ROFL

I mean, how can I rail against a woman who puts "Tits" in her username. I'm willing to bet you are a natural fuggin' blonde though, in every sense of the word.....heh. :)

Mr Kotter,

It is that "conservatives" (and I realize I am painting with broad strokes) tend to base a belief system on the inerrancy of the Bible. The reason that I believe they are not using their brain or thinking through their belief systems is that all one needs to do to realize that the Bible is not inerrant is to read from the four differing Gospels and see the discrepancies even within those. The reason I do believe that "conservatives" are less likely to use their brain is that they justify their beliefs on one Scripture, but ignore others. By what standard can they do this? Say, for instance, a conservative believes that the death penalty is ok and they justify it by quoting Exodus - "An eye for an eye....", what happens to Jesus' teaching of, "Turn the other cheek"? by what standard or rule do we justify our morals, our beliefs? Why is ok for the Exodus passage to be used, but Jesus' teaching to be ignored? But according to many "conservative" churches, the Bible is inerrant.... where does one's logic come in? Where does one's ability to think? How does one say - you know what...I'm not sure this is God's teachings? I don't believe, the conservative church, addresses this issue. In watching Jerry Johnston preach or even Billy Graham (to a lesser extent); I see preachers taking a particular Scripture to back up a point - manipulating it to mean what they want it to mean, while ignoring other Scripture..... In my eyes, it's being taken for face value, instead of the entirety of Scripture being read with logic and a heart filled with the Spirit.

As for my username....well, you're an idiot. Anchorman is a hilarious movie, but I guess in being a Christian, I'm not allowed to have any fun... And....and...I have red hair - so take that, smarty pants!!!!

Jilly
06-21-2006, 09:02 AM
Jason Seaver, bitches!!!

ROFL f-ing hilarious!!!! I missed that earlier...

rad
06-21-2006, 10:41 AM
I am saying it isn't natural and therefore wrong.

Holy Crap!


You think homosexuality is a disease? That it's not a natural born instinct for those that are gay? Faggots look at a beautiful woman and then look at a hairy ass and say,"Nah, I'll have the man's hairy mudcutter"?

|Zach|
06-21-2006, 10:57 AM
She is obviously wrong. Lumping this abomination as a "not proper in the old days but o.k. now" does not change what is. The Bible is very clear about this.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/smilies/rofl.gif

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 11:09 AM
Yeah. The majority of AMERICANS like fried chicken. Why?

Is chicken bad? Is there some new slang I don't know about? Should I stop drinking beer and eating 'taters because I'm of German ancestry?

Those racist bastards at BET! ASSUMING most black people like hip-hop and R&B!



http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=133295

RACISTS AT THE USDA!

Hamas is quickly becoming the biggest party line PC dumbass we have here at the planet.

noa
06-21-2006, 12:31 PM
She is obviously wrong. Lumping this abomination as a "not proper in the old days but o.k. now" does not change what is. The Bible is very clear about this.

The Bible is also very clear about not wearing wool and linen at the same time.

The Bible is also very clear about not working on the Sabbath.

The Bible is also very clear about having multiple wives.

Jesus is very clear about the corruption of wealth.

The Bible is also very clear about many things we don't obey any more. I'm willing to bet that you partake in actions every day of your life that "were not proper in the old days" but you see them as o.k. now.

Sully
06-21-2006, 01:07 PM
...An oft used, but still hilarious speech from "The West Wing."


President Bartlet (Martin Sheen): I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.
Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? "Think about that, will you? Oh, and one last thing. You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club but in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 01:13 PM
Did this thread go downhill or what?

vailpass
06-21-2006, 01:16 PM
Hamas is quickly becoming the biggest party line PC dumbass we have here at the planet.

He's just a 21 year old kid whose line of thinking happens to be whatever he picked up last semester.
PC liberal group-speak was made for people like Hamas and Zach; it's the sytem that lets them all be individuals together.

They are in an academic Utopia where the facts of the real world don't yet invade and contradict the PC liberal dogma.

BTW I think Zach and Hamas are both good kids and respect the fact that they act on their beliefs though their experience samples are exceedingly small.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 01:17 PM
Don't forget shaving of the beard/head and tattoos.

YOUR TRAMP STAMP IS AN ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF THE LORD.

vailpass
06-21-2006, 01:19 PM
Did this thread go downhill or what?

What do you expect when the main posters now are some dude who spends more time in therapy than he does in the gym trying to figure out why he wants to cut his own junk off and a couple of kids presenting the latest in PC phagication?

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 01:23 PM
They are in an academic Utopia where the facts of the real world don't yet invade and contradict the PC liberal dogma.Yeah, good point. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't get it because they're too young and stupid. That's a mature point of view for someone claiming to be such an adult to take.

What do you expect when the main posters now are some dude who spends more time in therapy than he does in the gym trying to figure out why he wants to cut his own junk off and a couple of kids presenting the latest in PC phagication?Why can't we all just get along and agree with vailpass?!

Also, your continued personal attacks are totally fresh and well done. :thumb:

vailpass
06-21-2006, 01:29 PM
Yeah, good point. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't get it because they're too young and stupid. That's a mature point of view for someone claiming to be such an adult to take.

You conveniently left out the part where I said I respect Zach and Hamas and NEVER impugned their intelligence. If you equate young with stupid that is your bias, not mine.
Why can't we all just get along and agree with vailpass?!

Also, your continued personal attacks are totally fresh and well done. :thumb:
If you don't like it you might consider not pouring out your personal weirdness on a public intraweb BB. Forgive me if ever since reading that you want to slice off your own crank I take your mental situation into account when evaluating your statements.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 01:34 PM
Forgive me for holding your opinion in extremely low esteem after reading your paleolithic views on countless issues.

But yeah, I'M DIFFERENT! OH NOES! That means I'm warped and twisted and a serial killer and completely unfit to hold an opinion about anything!

Watch out, vail! Them gays is gonna git ya!

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:35 PM
Hamas is quickly becoming the biggest party line PC dumbass we have here at the planet.

Do greens even have a party line :shrug:. They are what I most closely identify with when one looks at my political leanings, but I vote democrat because I see it as the lesser of two evils. A Machiavellian bastard I no doubt am.

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 01:37 PM
What do you expect when the main posters now are some dude who spends more time in therapy than he does in the gym trying to figure out why he wants to cut his own junk off and a couple of kids presenting the latest in PC phagication?

What's funny is Hamas always bitching about the right wanting to legislate morality and being intolerant and then he goes and does the same thing. He would like to see legislation passed to force young kids to be exposed to homosexuality before they should even be thinking about that shit even when the majority of parents would be opposed. On top of that he has the audacity to call other hypocrites.

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 01:39 PM
Do greens even have a party line :shrug:. They are what I most closely identify with when one looks at my political leanings, but I vote democrat because I see it as the lesser of two evils. A Machiavellian bastard I no doubt am.

What conservative values do you have?

vailpass
06-21-2006, 01:39 PM
Forgive me for holding your opinion in extremely low esteem after reading your paleolithic views on countless issues.

But yeah, I'M DIFFERENT! OH NOES! That means I'm warped and twisted and a serial killer and completely unfit to hold an opinion about anything!

Watch out, vail! Them gays is gonna git ya!

Questioning the mental stability of someone who wants a house-call from Lorena Bobbit does not make me afraid of gay people.
It would, however, make me extremely nervous to drink out of the same cup as you.

You remind me of a dude I went to grad school with. One morning we walked out front to find out he had jumped off the top of the dorm to splatter himself on the walk-way we took to class.
Hopefully you are getting help and don't have this sort of issue; however your behavior is similar to his and I admit it weirds me out.

noa
06-21-2006, 01:42 PM
What conservative values do you have?


Are you suggesting that Republicans are actually conservative? Maybe on a few issues, but the whole, political conservatives who stand by their ideals are hard to find.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:43 PM
What's funny is Hamas always bitching about the right wanting to legislate morality and being intolerant and then he goes and does the same thing. He would like to see legislation passed to force young kids to be exposed to homosexuality before they should even be thinking about that shit even when the majority of parents would be opposed. On top of that he has the audacity to call other hypocrites.

Yeah...no. I defended the right of a teacher to tell a story that had openly gay characters in it because it is a natural occurrence in our society as well as nature. I never said I wanted legislation, I wanted to curb the attempts of religious zealots and other bigots from imposing their narrowminded superstitions on all of us. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it's just as natural as are blue eyes or black skin. The fact that it has been stigmatized by our society to the extent it has makes people *think* that children can't be exposed to it. I think you would know that children can be the most tolerant of all people, it is only when the stulted viewpoints of their elders are imposed on them that they become the next generation of bigots.

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 01:44 PM
Are you suggesting that Republicans are actually conservative? Maybe on a few issues, but the whole, political conservatives who stand by their ideals are hard to find.

No I am just trying to show just how far left of Stalin Hamas actually is wasn't that obvious? :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 01:47 PM
Questioning the mental stability of someone who wants a house-call from Lorena Bobbit does not make me afraid of gay people.
It would, however, make me extremely nervous to drink out of the same cup as you.

You remind me of a dude I went to grad school with. One morning we walked out front to find out he had jumped off the top of the dorm to splatter himself on the walk-way we took to class.
Hopefully you are getting help and don't have this sort of issue; however your behavior is similar to his and I admit it weirds me out.I can't imagine why someone who's spent their entire life seeing irrational hatred, ridicule, and fear of people like themselves would ever be the slightest bit suicidal.

The funny thing is, that guy you mentioned may very well have been a monumental freak like me. Suicide rates for monsters such as myself are estimated to be in the region of 60% -- but I'm sure people like you who consider us to be psychos and prefer to insult rather than understand have nothing to do with that, or anything. It's not like anyone would fare better if they thought people wouldn't hate them for no reason, right?

God forbid anyone expect a basic level of human decency from you when they're a little bit different. Constant potshots and insults are definitely the way to prove you're a swell person. :thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:49 PM
What conservative values do you have?

I'm obviously not a libertarian green :shake: I said 'most closely identify', not a mirror reflection of.

The four pillars or four principles of the Green Parties are:

Ecology - ecological sustainability
Justice - social responsibility
Democracy - appropriate decision-making
Peace - non-violence

Let the hair-splitting commence.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 01:49 PM
Do greens even have a party line :shrug:. They are what I most closely identify with when one looks at my political leanings, but I vote democrat because I see it as the lesser of two evils. A Machiavellian bastard I no doubt am.

This does not surprise me. Yes, they do have a party line.
If you saw their platform and read it for the 2000 election it is pure communism: equal pay for all, no borders, collective ownership of corporations, free health care for all etc. etc. etc. It's all about abolition of private property and protecting the "commons" as collective ownership so we can all return to living in nature like one big tribe.That's why they're the extreme environmentalists and get labelled watermelons...green on the outside and red on the inside.

You're clearly a communist Hamas. You might as well admit it. I can spot them. So far I've met two on the net...who admitted it at one point. I actually became friends with them both eventually. I even dated one years ago. I am very familiar with their stands. So long as your not the kind that wants it through violent revolution I can live with it...so long as I can refute it and identify it. Not really trying to pick on you.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:51 PM
No I am just trying to show just how far left of Stalin Hamas actually is wasn't that obvious? :shrug:

Your and idiot. Stalin was an authoritarian and a socialist, which makes him very far to the right on the libertarian orientation of a political compass and far to the left on the other. To insinuate that he is just left is plainly ridiculous. I also don't like that you are lumping me in with a guy who made Hitler look bush-league in genocidal comparisons.

BIG_DADDY
06-21-2006, 01:51 PM
Yeah...no. I defended the right of a teacher to tell a story that had openly gay characters in it because it is a natural occurrence in our society as well as nature. I never said I wanted legislation, I wanted to curb the attempts of religious zealots and other bigots from imposing their narrowminded superstitions on all of us. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it's just as natural as are blue eyes or black skin. The fact that it has been stigmatized by our society to the extent it has makes people *think* that children can't be exposed to it. I think you would know that children can be the most tolerant of all people, it is only when the stulted viewpoints of their elders are imposed on them that they become the next generation of bigots.

It's not anybody's right as a teacher to expose young children to anything controversial. It is the parents right to NOT have their young children exposed to that especially at a young age. You say it's natural that is your opinion and I respect that. You need to respect others opinion that it's not natural and may be a sin. This is a two way street Hamas. BTW you had no problem with California passing legislation to put gay history in our school books remember?

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 01:53 PM
I can't imagine why someone who's spent their entire life seeing irrational hatred, ridicule, and fear of people like themselves would ever be the slightest bit suicidal.

The funny thing is, that guy you mentioned may very well have been a monumental freak like me. Suicide rates for monsters such as myself are estimated to be in the region of 60% -- but I'm sure people like you who consider us to be psychos and prefer to insult rather than understand have nothing to do with that, or anything. It's not like anyone would fare better if they thought people wouldn't hate them for no reason, right?

God forbid anyone expect a basic level of human decency from you when they're a little bit different. Constant potshots and insults are definitely the way to prove you're a swell person. :thumb:
C'mon UP, there's World Cup coverage going on. Don't waste that wanking with a Donko shit-stirrer.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:53 PM
This does not surprise me. Yes, they do have a party line.
If you saw their platform and read it for the 2000 election it is pure communism: equal pay for all, no borders, collective ownership of corporations, free health care for all etc. etc. etc. It's all about abolition of private property and protecting the "commons" as collective ownership so we can all return to living in nature like one big tribe.That's why they're the extreme environmentalists and get labelled watermelons...green on the outside and red on the inside.

You're clearly a communist Hamas. You might as well admit it. I can spot them. So far I've met two on the net...who admitted it at one point. I actually became friends with them both eventually. I even dated one years ago. I am very familiar with their stands. So long as your not the kind that wants it through violent revolution I can live with it...so long as I can refute it and identify it. Not really trying to pick on you.

Thank you JoAnna McCarthy...I was joking about the Greens...it's pretty hard to have a party line when it doesn't really have any national influence :shake:. While we're at it, let's tie me to a stake and burn me as a heretic.

JBucc
06-21-2006, 01:54 PM
While we're at it, let's tie me to a stake and burn me as a heretic.ok

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:54 PM
It's not anybody's right as a teacher to expose young children to anything controversial. It is the parents right to NOT have their young children exposed to that especially at a young age. You say it's natural that is your opinion and I respect that. You need to respect others opinion that it's not natural and may be a sin. This is a two way street Hamas. BTW you had no problem with California passing legislation to put gay history in our school books remember?

Because god knows, I remember taking HISTORY CLASSES in kindergarten.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 01:55 PM
C'mon UP, there's World Cup coverage going on. Don't waste that wanking with a Donko shit-stirrer.I was bored, and dealing with vail's ignorant shit is preferable to cleaning out the litter box that I've been avoiding.

But yeah, it is a pointless task, in the end. He adds about as much to this site as a 404 error.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm obviously not a libertarian green :shake: I said 'most closely identify', not a mirror reflection of.

The four pillars or four principles of the Green Parties are:

Ecology - ecological sustainability
Justice - social responsibility
Democracy - appropriate decision-making
Peace - non-violence

Let the hair-splitting commence.


Ecology - ecological sustainability
Yes but what does this really mean?
Shall we begin by reading the environmental policy of the UN to see it means protecting the "commons" and abolition of private property as "unsustainable."

( I have to leave but if I can find it I will scan the document and post it)

Justice - social responsibility
Averaging everybody out to the lowest common denominator.
Justice is like the words "fair" and "quality", they mean different things to different things to different people.

Democracy - appropriate decision-making
"Democracy is the road to socialism."-- Karl Marx
Why? Because most democracies vote themselves largesse and into bankruptcy when no rights are protected against the majority.
Hence the tyranny of the majority...they can take from each as they see fit for their brand of justice which really means economic justice.
Hense the undefined word "appropriate."

Peace - non-violence
Pacifism is also part of communism but is newspeak for "absence of resistance to communism"

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 01:58 PM
While we're at it, let's tie me to a stake and burn me as a heretic.
Wow, Hamas references burning at the stake. I just felt a ripple in the CP quantum fold.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:58 PM
You're clearly a communist Hamas. You might as well admit it. I can spot them. So far I've met two on the net...who admitted it at one point. I actually became friends with them both eventually. I even dated one years ago. I am very familiar with their stands. So long as your not the kind that wants it through violent revolution I can live with it...so long as I can refute it and identify it. Not really trying to pick on you.

I could care less whether or not you are trying to pick on me. What I find funny is that you think your merits are increased by whether or not you can pick out communists. News flash: the Cold War is over!! You don't have to be afraid of communism anymore. You never had to be afraid of it in the first place. The fact that you are trying to label someone who identifies as an anarcho-socialist as a communist makes me think that you are still buying in to the Red-Scare mentality. Here's a shocker for you: people that want public goods for the public aren't evil. What I find evil is a corporation trying to control a natural resource, like a water supply. Of course, since you work in the world of advertising I'm sure that you long ago came to a reconciliation for your the selling out of your own morals in order to shuck lies to the public.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:59 PM
Wow, Hamas references burning at the stake. I just felt a ripple in the CP quantum fold.

In the words of Giles Quarry: more weight.

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2006, 02:00 PM
This thread is such a hilarious cluster****.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 02:03 PM
Ecology - ecological sustainability
Yes but what does this really mean?
Shall we begin by reading the environmental policy of the UN to see it means protecting the "commons" and abolition of private property as "unsustainable."

( I have to leave but if I can find it I will scan the document and post it)

Justice - social responsibility
Averaging everybody out to the lowest common denominator.
Justice is like the words "fair" and "quality", they mean different things to different things to different people.

Democracy - appropriate decision-making
"Democracy is the road to socialism."-- Karl Marx
Why? Because most democracies vote themselves largesse and into bankruptcy when no rights are protected against the majority.
Hence the tyranny of the majority...they can take from each as they see fit for their brand of justice which really means economic justice.
Hense the undefined word "appropriate."

Peace - non-violence
Pacifism is also part of communism but is newspeak for "absence of resistance to communism"

Ecological Sustainability: Umm not raping the environment and causing wild climatological fluctuations :drool:

Justice: As opposed to survival of the richest??

Did you ever think that democracy might be the road to socialism because it is a dialectical process and the end synthesis of such a political dialectic would invariably be a system of equality for all :rolleyes:

Peace means peace, ace. You can spout your domino theory bullshit all you want, but don't think that I can't see through to who butters your bread.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 02:03 PM
I could care less whether or not you are trying to pick on me. What I find funny is that you think your merits are increased by whether or not you can pick out communists. News flash: the Cold War is over!! You don't have to be afraid of communism anymore. You never had to be afraid of it in the first place. The fact that you are trying to label someone who identifies as an anarcho-socialist as a communist makes me think that you are still buying in to the Red-Scare mentality. Here's a shocker for you: people that want public goods for the public aren't evil. What I find evil is a corporation trying to control a natural resource, like a water supply. Of course, since you work in the world of advertising I'm sure that you long ago came to a reconciliation for your the selling out of your own morals in order to shuck lies to the public.

Yep! Sounds like a communist.

Synomynms:

anarcho-socialist
communitarians
collectivists
socialists ( social democrats who vote it in as in Fabianism or Marxist-Leninists who use violent revolution to bring it in...just different methods)


PS Being an art director/graphic designer/illustrator in advertising does not sell out my morals. I believe in helping business be successful....I can and do turn down some accounts if it violates my morals. I have also illustrated academic books for children.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Yep! Sounds like a communist.

Synomynms:

anarcho-socialist
communitarians
collectivists
socialists ( social democrats who vote it in as in Fabianism or Marxist-Leninists who use violent revolution to bring it in...just different methods)


PS Being an art director/graphic designer/illustrator in advertising does not sell out my morals. I believe in helping business be successful....I can and do turn down some accounts if it violates my morals. I have also illustrated academic books for children.

We had this discussion last week. I pointed out the vast differences then--I'm not going to do it again. While you're gone, please draw a picture of me as a Red Monkey Jap while you're at it, since I so clearly hate freedom.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 02:05 PM
Did you ever think that democracy might be the road to socialism because it is a dialectical process and the end synthesis of such a political dialectic would invariably be a system of equality for all :rolleyes:


yep! Follower of Hegal...dialetical materialism....doesn't surprise me. Your credentials are at least pure.

vailpass
06-21-2006, 02:05 PM
I can't imagine why someone who's spent their entire life seeing irrational hatred, ridicule, and fear of people like themselves would ever be the slightest bit suicidal.

The funny thing is, that guy you mentioned may very well have been a monumental freak like me. Suicide rates for monsters such as myself are estimated to be in the region of 60% -- but I'm sure people like you who consider us to be psychos and prefer to insult rather than understand have nothing to do with that, or anything. It's not like anyone would fare better if they thought people wouldn't hate them for no reason, right?

God forbid anyone expect a basic level of human decency from you when they're a little bit different. Constant potshots and insults are definitely the way to prove you're a swell person. :thumb:

Boo hoo. Psicosis is off limits; he can sling his shit but you can't sling any back because he is special. If you do you are a meany and probably hate puppies and your sister.

Everyone has problems dude, deal with it.