Republican terrorists vote to censure Schiff for speaking his truth.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 78
#61
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Our rental properties are in Florida 
We probably won't go to Florida too.  

 claiming the song's tongue-in-cheek humor is being lost on folks and instead used to 
"We'll convert your children" is tongue-in-cheek?  You will swallow everything you hear don't you?  

It's like saying I am going to kill you and then when you call me out I say "just kidding".  
#62
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@DavidAZ
It's like saying I am going to kill you and then when you call me out I say "just kidding".  
Right, no one ever says “I could kill you” or “I could kill him” in jest 

#63
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,923
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
If this keeps up, yes, figure on violence and civil war.  We can only "tolerate" so much before you start stepping on my toes.
Your tin foil hat will not save you from our Jewish Space Lasers.
#64
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,923
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
Why push it to our children?  If we are idiots, do we not have the right to be fools?
If you were really worried about your children, you wouldn't have married your cousin.
#65
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
If you were really worried about your children, you wouldn't have married your cousin.
she was also his aunt

Topic's author
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,339
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
grats on being a successful gay.
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,377
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
"Since 1962, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that school-mandated prayers in public schools are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also ruled that voluntary school prayers are also unconstitutional, because they force some students to be outsiders to the main group, and because they subject dissenters to intense peer group pressure.

Now you want to push away my "narrative" with semantics. 
And what would you say if this prayer your kids school was mandating came from the Quran?

Why is my prerogative to deny what you believe considered intolerance?  Why must I be driven to believe like you?  Evolution is still a lie, being sexually immoral (LGBTQ+++++etc) is still wrong.  But since you can't get me to kneel, you'll circumvent me and damage the minds of my children.
If teaching your children scientific facts and that it's ok to love who you want to love qualifies as "damaging their minds" you really need to think about what that says about you.
#68
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,223
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
"Agree, half the country is way too extreme." Which half? I cant tell the difference. Both halves agenda are the same. To control and regulate. I guess the controls and regulations you agree with make that half not extreme.
Topic's author
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,339
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
well said.
#70
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Double_R
And what would you say if this prayer your kids school was mandating came from the Quran?
Good question, and I would say it would be damaging to the country also.  Nothing beats the bibliical standard of living.

If teaching your children scientific facts and that it's ok to love who you want to love qualifies as "damaging their minds" you really need to think about what that says about you.
You are so brain washed about this.  Evolution has no scientific fact.  It cannot be proven.  There are no facts when it comes to evolution.  This is why they call it a theory.

Loving whoever someone wants is fine, just keep it out of the schools and out of the minds of the children.  If you want to corrupt them after they turn 18, be my guest.  They should be mature enough to make a decision on their own. 
#71
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Sidewalker
If you were really worried about your children, you wouldn't have married your cousin.
LOL.  Good one, but she was only my half cousin.

#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,377
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
And what would you say if this prayer your kids school was mandating came from the Quran?
Good question, and I would say it would be damaging to the country also.  Nothing beats the bibliical standard of living.
Do you not find it hypocritical to assert that the left is imposing their moral views onto the rest of us by removing the bible from schools while you advocate for mandatory prayer supporting your views and opposing the same for another religion?

There are no facts when it comes to evolution.  This is why they call it a theory.
This is what's called a self own. Please educate yourself on what the term "theory" means in science:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results...

The meaning of the term scientific theory as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]"

Loving whoever someone wants is fine, just keep it out of the schools and out of the minds of the children.
So you are opposed to straight couples talking about traditional marriage and relationships as well, correct?
#73
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Double_R
Do you not find it hypocritical to assert that the left is imposing their moral views onto the rest of us by removing the bible from schools while you advocate for mandatory prayer supporting your views and opposing the same for another religion?
I would except what is moral is determined by the bible, not by a bunch of guys and gals in a room deciding on what is moral depending on how the social climate is that day.  The Bible should be the foundation to build upon, not discarded.

This is what's called a self own. Please educate yourself on what the term "theory" means in science.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results...

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[5][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]"
Semantics. It is just an idea of something and it cannot be proven. This is assumed the evolution is correct, but since most evolutionists enjoy circular reasoning, then this would make perfect sense to you.

So you are opposed to straight couples talking about traditional marriage and relationships as well, correct?
Absolutely not.  Again, it is the foundation, not a prerogative.  If someone doesn't want to get married or decides to be gay or promiscuous, then it is against the standard.  The standard shouldn't change because someone cries about it.

#74
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,081
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZ
I would except what is moral is determined by the bible, not by a bunch of guys and gals in a room deciding on what is moral depending on how the social climate is that day.  The Bible should be the foundation to build upon, not discarded.
Hey David, sorry, jumping in late here. Do you make any allowance for non-Christians and their moral standards? If they view the bible the way you view literally every other purportedly holy text, what's the remedy? You'd say "Hey, don't do X, it says so in the bible," and they say "Well my holy text doesn't say anything like that, so, no." Or what if the shoe was on the other foot? 

Let's say you and your family for whatever reason move to a different town, for any number of reasons. The school your child now goes to is great! Top notch educators, latest equipment and tech, etc. Only catch: they're not allowed to bring meat to school. In fact, they're not allowed to have animal products at all, because you are in a majority Hindu community, and they've decided that THEIR moral code applies to all. You say "The bible doesn't prohibit eating meat though!" and they say "Tough shit, this is Hindu country. You don't like it, move away." 

I find it difficult to imagine you shrugging your shoulders and saying "Guess you're a part time vegetarian now, son / daughter." 

 If someone doesn't want to get married or decides to be gay or promiscuous, then it is against the standard.  The standard shouldn't change because someone cries about it.
WHat's the remedy here, it being against the standard and all? Like what's to be done about it, I'm curious. And when SHOULD the standard change? 
#75
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I find it difficult to imagine you shrugging your shoulders and saying "Guess you're a part time vegetarian now, son / daughter." 
First off, let me state that when I talk about a standard, I'm referring to a starting point.  Everything in America was based off a Biblical standard.  So when we progress as a society, it should be with the idea that we are not changing the foundation.

So in this case with the Hindu private school, a person would have to decide if they would not eat meat at the school in order to gain it's education.  But if you decide to send your children there, don't get mad when they start wanting to become vegan.  In my case, I wouldn't send them there.

WHat's the remedy here, it being against the standard and all? Like what's to be done about it, I'm curious. And when SHOULD the standard change? 
Like above, the standard doesn't change.  It is the foundation.  Every choice we make should be built upon that foundation, not changing it.  By this foundation, I am not referring to whose religion to choose, but rather the morals in which we abide by.  We still think it's wrong to murder and steal, but now adultery, homo-sexuality and drug use is okay with society.  When a country that is built on a specific set of morals, decides to become immoral and go against those tenants, expect chaos.

#76
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,081
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZ
 Everything in America was based off a Biblical standard.  So when we progress as a society, it should be with the idea that we are not changing the foundation.
Hm. This is debatable at the very least, considering no mention of any specific religion or god in our foundational documents. I'd say it was built from a humanistic standard. Can you help me understand what you're seeing as "everything" here (can you be more specific, in other words, as to what was based off a biblical standard)? I would point out that in the bible, women are subservient to men and do not have the same legal protections. That's a biblical standard, to me. Doesn't changing it, in other words giving women equal rights, elevating the above their parents' property to be traded, go against that foundation? I presume you don't advocate for the rollback of women's suffrage or something akin to what women have to put up with in modern Muslim countries, but I could be wrong. 

Does this also imply that when you immigrate to what's billed as "The Land of the Free," where we have no state religion, no official language, you tacitly agree to abide by all customs in that land?

So in this case with the Hindu private school, a person would have to decide if they would not eat meat at the school in order to gain it's education.  But if you decide to send your children there, don't get mad when they start wanting to become vegan.  In my case, I wouldn't send them there.
It's not a private school, though. It's a public school. Same answer?

 By this foundation, I am not referring to whose religion to choose, but rather the morals in which we abide by.  We still think it's wrong to murder and steal, but now adultery, homo-sexuality and drug use is okay with society.  
But you specifically advocate for a biblical standard as having been the one we "departed" from in this post. I'm going to wait until you respond to my first question before I make further conclusions here. I would just point out that prohibitions on murder and stealing well pre-date the bible. Stealing was illegal in literally every European and Middle Eastern society that dealt with any sort of currency or ownership. Even communal societies, like Native Americans, had rules along these lines, and they didn't know thing one about Jesus or the 10 COmmandments. I don't know if we think adultery is "okay," but we acknowledge that it happens, I guess.  Why do you think we've changed how we view homosexuality, and now believe it's more acceptable? Maybe a better way to ask this is WHY is it unacceptable?

Drug use, do you mean people smoking weed? Because we still seem to think most drugs are pretty bad. 
#77
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you help me understand what you're seeing as "everything" here (can you be more specific, in other words, as to what was based off a biblical standard)?
I am using the word "everything" too vague here.  When it comes to Biblical standard, I am referring to the morals of it, not necessarily the worship of a particular God.  For example, if we were to all follow, say the 10 commandments, society would benefit as a whole.  We were created and that creator gave us a book to abide by.  I would like to think that since He created us, He would know how we would best work as a society. The spirit of the law in the old testament is a good foundation to start with.  The idea of love thy neighbor as thyself is a great way to limit chaos.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a very useful way of thinking when trying to create harmony within a society of people that have all their own dreams and desires.

So I'm saying a deviation from those concepts is what will destroy us.  Women's suffrage and abolition are two aspects that our society can improve and never destroy the spirit of the law.  Women became judges and slaves we set free at times in the Bible.  We can make small steps forward without contradicting morals.  

The old testament laws were made to protect people from themselves and others. 

It's not a private school, though. It's a public school. Same answer?
I hate "what if" questions.  They usually never happen or are always the exception and not the rule and it's typically used to prove such an extreme point (not saying this is the case here), BUT I would say that if it were public school, then I still wouldn't send my kids there. 

Stealing was illegal in literally every European and Middle Eastern society that dealt with any sort of currency or ownership. Even communal societies, like Native Americans, had rules along these lines, and they didn't know thing one about Jesus or the 10 Commandments.
Any society, whether it's native American or Japanese, will benefit from biblical principles.  If a society is flourishing, it's not because they chose the correct God or became Christian, but rather they are using techniques that make people around them safe, happy and prosperous, the same that are found in the Bible.  Any good moral can be found in the Bible.  I am not saying the Bible invented it.  I'm saying that nobody likes murder or theft and the Bible clearly defines it too.

Why did the European nations become so strong?  It's because of available resources and biblical principles from the Christian spread.

Maybe a better way to ask this is WHY is it unacceptable?
Good question.  It prohibited in the Bible but there were never the reason why.  So I just looked up this article:


Looks like there are health issues related to it.

Drug use, do you mean people smoking weed?
Yes.  It's just the start in my opinion.
#78
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,081
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZ
When it comes to Biblical standard, I am referring to the morals of it, not necessarily the worship of a particular God.  For example, if we were to all follow, say the 10 commandments, society would benefit as a whole. [then later]   If a society is flourishing, it's not because they chose the correct God or became Christian, but rather they are using techniques that make people around them safe, happy and prosperous, the same that are found in the Bible.  Any good moral can be found in the Bible.  I am not saying the Bible invented it.  I'm saying that nobody likes murder or theft and the Bible clearly defines it too.
Thank you for the response. So we can agree based on this that the religion part of it is entirely superfluous? Your ten commandments example I can take issue with, but how did you decide not to apply the levitican laws, or simply scrap the whole thing for the only commandment Jesus seemed to care about? I'm encouraged to see that you don't think the bible either invented or has a monopoly on morality, but if that's so, then why bring it into the equation at all? Why not just say "let's decide, together, what does the most good for the most people, regardless of faith, and instead base it on demonstrable facts and data?" It doesn't sound like adding 'biblical' to anything helps much at all. 

The idea of love thy neighbor as thyself is a great way to limit chaos.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a very useful way of thinking when trying to create harmony within a society of people that have all their own dreams and desires.
These predate the bible by a very long time, so we can't say they are exclusively "biblical" in principle, but that they're much closer to a humanistic view. 

So I'm saying a deviation from those concepts is what will destroy us.  
Aren't you saying that a deviation from SOME of those concepts will destroy us (taking your example that women are judges and slavery is no longer accepted)? How can we decide which ones will or won't? 

I would say that if it were public school, then I still wouldn't send my kids there. 
Excellent! This option is absolutely available to Christians today: if you don't like the public schools that have to service the entire American public population, you are free to send your child to some other school, sometimes yes at your expense, but that's just how it is in some places. You certainly don't support preferential treatment for faithful people in public places and publicly funded shared resources, as demonstrated here, and neither do I. I don't care how many hindi people are in my district, I am not going to let them tell me how to feed my kid.  I will pack their lunch and tell them why they eat differently. I will organize against it, I'll make civil protest if I feel it necessary. It's exactly what I'd do if there were mandatory prayer in school. Again I think we agree, am I wrong? WHat I won't do, though, is think that my personal opinion or preference means more than anyone else's. If I'm outvoted on the matter, then I have two choices: run for office or find a school alternative. 

Looks like there are health issues related to it.
That seems a bit of a fig leaf. No one is carrying a "God Hates Fags" sign because they are just concerned about the health of the homosexual community, right? :) So if it's just a health thing, isn't it their own health to worry about? I mean what they're doing in private is what they're doing in private, and there's no health issues that arise from, say, holding hands with your same sex gender while walking on a public street, right? I'm just not clear on what the solution you would propose to the problem with homosexuality is. In fact I'm not quite clear on what the problem with homosexuality really is, considering your post did say a couple of different ways that the bible isn't the absolute source of morality, that it changes over time, but you cited the bible as the reason homosexuality is wrong. Why are you so sure that's not something that, like women's suffrage, is one of those things we can change without it destroying civilization?

I know these discussions get heated up pretty quick, tempers run pretty high, so I will close by assuring you I'm not trying to condescend, I'm not trying to get any 'gotchas', I respect your right to have any opinion you want. I really do want to understand the way the world looks to you, it's difficult here to actually have these discussions because too many people seem to be concerned about winning something. I continue to engage with you because at least with me you've been honest and cogent and civil, I'm glad to disagree in this way. That's America!