Is Society Better With Pornography Adultery Abortion Divorce Homosexuality Accepted?

[Eeset]

The actual message was that you can't say you care about someone without acting on it. And simply judging and walking away isn't that.

Well why didn't you just say so. I like that. It is succinct, easy to remember and understandable. Oh, and not hip deep.

 

[gcthomas]

i'll put it up there again:



there's nothing there for you to refute - all of them a re factual statements



:think: perhaps i should have been more clear on the last


you're a retard

Skyrocketing divorce rates? :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Well why didn't you just say so.

I did, but I had a lot more to say to Brandon, who I think is a kid with a good heart for all the nonsense, but one who struggles with a few things and excuses himself with a few easy outs and practices. So I thought the best way I could help him in the moment was by giving him exactly what I've never once received from him, which is something you really should do before you stand on a fairly serious charge/judgment and start shaking your feet or tearing at your topcoat.

 

[Lighthouse]

What other way is there to take it? And your Asperger's doesn't really buy you much wiggle room with me. I try to tone down the inferential, pull back a bit on layering and things resting on nuance, but you're rational so I don't treat you any differently otherwise. We aren't having an impromptu, extemporaneous conversation, even if that's how I treat it. You don't have to. You can stop and consider and craft and revisit if you like. So you're not at any appreciable disadvantage in controlling the content of your posts.

I am at no disadvantage in controlling the content of my posts. I was cracking a bit of a joke. I have Asperger's and more extreme cases have a real problem differentiating between figurative and literal, and pretty much take everything literally.

I was saying that between the two of us I am the one with Asperger's so why are you the one taking everything literally.

Understand now?

I've addressed that frequently and did in this thread. But your focus is too narrow. I think there's another, fundamental question in this that our compact answered.

The question is whether you're comfortable with the purely religious views of any segment of our society being enacted as law.

I'm guessing that when your views aren't in the majority your opinion would shift. When your daughter (hypothetical though she might be) has to cover her head and face or when you can't wear buttons or colored shirts or dance or worship as you feel you should then the problem with that sort of thinking might occur to you... Better that the law should respect our right to differ and protect us from the mob makes right approach to it, even if every mob is certain it has God in its hip pocket and even if that protection means people will make choices we don't always approve of or respect.

And the next guy will give us the same elbow room.

And herein lies the problem. You think these are purely religious views. You do not even conceive the possibility that they might not be religious at all.

Take that silly, self satisfied pile of horsefeathers and make a soft bed of smug superiority out of them if it suits you. Don't let me stop you. I'm weary of entertaining people who mostly appear to want to be seen being their brand of Holy, not to move anyone else to anything or, God forbid, offer assistance when they feel another is mistaken or confused on a thing.

There is only one holiness and apart from Him I am nothing of the sort.

I love Christ. I follow him as closely as I know how to and I try to give the next guy the benefit of the doubt, that it's what he's doing, whatever I think about how he's doing it.... Even if he's a hard headed kid determined to shake apparel at me. But I don't have to entertain that and if this is the best you can muster I wont' be offended if you just leave off and stop talking to and about me until you can do better.

Exactly.

Brandon, you haven't treated me with any discernible difference since I first arrived and opposed the to my mind wrong headed notion of a religious state sans a literal Christ at its head. And even so if you scanned that memory of yours you'd recall more than a singular example of my crediting you with a word of counsel I found helpful. Or maybe you can't and maybe that's part of your problem.

OK, so I saw the conceit in you from day one.

In any event, this isn't an evolution in your thinking. It's just more of the same with a slightly more dramatic flourish.

There's reason for that.

Rhetorically, I assumed you might have an argument, that it wasn't as simple as your smiley and latter words amounting to an emotional response to difference. It's an easy mistake. I tend to think most people are rational on some level (and in fairness you've declared that being the case for you more than once) and that the flaw is found in the quality of their cognition or tool set.

Nothing emotional about it at all.

What I know with certainty is that when two people who share the same end game differ fundamentally on approach and point there could be a fruitful conversation to be had and it should be one that interests both. But that's life for you.

What's the point when you believe you're right with no room for the possibility you might be wrong?

But Brandon, you don't speak for "the populace". You may speak for a group of people within it, though as a rule I find it better to just speak for yourself and see how that goes. And unless you advance argument, your feeling amounts to nothing but an oddly wrapped self congratulation that can't teach me or anyone anything, won't illustrate the superiority of your position as you believe it stands and can't then be reasonably viewed as much beyond someone speaking to be seen speaking.

I didn't imply I was speaking for the populace. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I'm sure there are a few people who will be happy to see it. I can think of a handful who will happily high five you. Likely more. But I'm equally sure it amounts to little more than a vanity.

High five me for what?

You think failing to engage a rationalist, instead declaring only your willingness to judge and walk away is an act of caring?

When neither of us would be better off the other way...

If you cared you'd reason with me, attempt to move me. For better or worse that's what I do here. Sometimes I have to pry myself away from a thread. It isn't because I want to demonstrate how right I am on a point. It's because I tend to credit most people with wanting a fuller understanding of a thing and want that myself. Even if it doesn't change your point it will frequently sharpen it and at least give you insight into why what seems obvious or at least true to you might seem like something else to the next guy.

I don't see the point in trying, because you won't listen anyway.

Doing that means being met with contrary contexts and answers and wrestling with their notion of better angels. That's always been one draw for me about this place...I'm not going to let an intellectual lamb perish in ignorance or perish in my own for lack of effort.

Ignorance seems to come easy for you, as it is a byproduct of self conviction.

Life is heavy lifting.

Don't throw your back out.

I recall you once noting that you began your religious life staunchly in another camp and now you find yourself changed. That should inform you in a way it doesn't appear to...At the very least you should strive to avoid being the guy forgiven much who doesn't echo the treatment. And we've had very, very few if any sustained discussions of why you believe you're right and where you believe I'm wrong. Declaring? That you've done. Judging and finding a want? You've got that in spades. Doesn't help anyone else, Brandon. Doesn't even leave open the door to help you if you've got it wrong.

I am where I am because I listened, even though the one I was listening to was viewed as a jerk and a pest.

Because the alternative would be you're missing something. And we both know that could never happen. Even if you've already admitted it did once.

In this particular instance I'm not. That doesn't mean it never happens. but have fun with your straw man, Mr. Arrogant.

All you can say about my statement is that one of us has something wrong. The rest is in the hashing out you simply don't do in your rush to let the dogs out, so to speak...okay, on the Asperger's note, people often refer to their feet as dogs and that joke tied into your shoes statement.

You've been told. You don't listen. What's the point in going over it again when it never amounts to anything? You can't even ignore the one guy that everyone tells you to, no matter how many times you say you will.

When do you do that? When do you hold open the possibility? I'm not suggesting you have to enter any argument/difference wondering if you have it right and declaring that aloud, but you should engage. That, well how you go about engaging and framing and listening will make that plain enough to someone paying attention.

Recognizing your folly works better when you enter in with the stance that you are right and the other is wrong. And then when they rationalize out the issue it hits you then that you might be wrong, and that is when you open to that possibility. And eventually you may come to admit being wrong before. Or you may just strengthen your point of view when the logic is laid out.

Humility isn't always a downcast eye and demure appearance. It can be found in the underlying, even unstated proposition that I think enough of you as a human being with God's intended potential that I'll engage you on the question, sit and reason with you for our mutual edification and with the understanding that doing that opens me to the chance of instruction or even correction.

And when you substitute this for engagement you make a statement of another sort.

To what does all this verbosity amount? Can you find the issue where I posted it within my response to all your essentially useless words. Have you forgotten that brevity is the soul of wit?

The tragedy of you to my thinking is that you don't understand there are all sorts of Christians who love God as much as you and still manage to differ soundly with you on any number of things. And it doesn't follow that their difference is error simply because you're really, really sure you have it right this time.

I am not unaware.

And it does follow that in the event I am right then they are in error. And in this instance I am right. The Bible tells me so.

I only just did. That was engagement on my part, giving you as critical an understanding of what appears to me to be your error as I can. It invites reasoned response. A response that shows consideration, which is what I gave your short shrift.

Actually I was speaking more of the part about what people granted an unmerited grace fall into.

 

[Town Heretic]

Understand now?

Now and then.

And herein lies the problem. You think these are purely religious views. You do not even conceive the possibility that they might not be religious at all.

I suppose it's hard to understand what they're rooted in without an argument or explanation. Else, given that the only specifics you reached went directly to bits like giving me over to Satan, a religious root is the only reasonable way to see the shadow of your objection (I say shadow because of the lack of particular flesh on it).

OK, so I saw the conceit in you from day one.

I think you got your nose out of joint from day one and have breathed funny since, whatever you wrap it in. And I saw you were one of those fellows who only appears to believe they'll make a fundamental mistake once in their lives, but I didn't completely give up on you and I've never had the hubris or conceit to judge and dismiss your faith.

What's the point when you believe you're right with no room for the possibility you might be wrong?

The tragedy of that statement is the irony you aren't seeing. Read yourself again and see if you can find it.

I don't see the point in trying, because you won't listen anyway.

That's a neat circle. Did you make it free hand?

Ignorance seems to come easy for you, as it is a byproduct of self conviction.

Supra and supra...or, put the last two answers together and call me in the morning.

Don't throw your back out.

Not even with the bath water.

I am where I am because I listened, even though the one I was listening to was viewed as a jerk and a pest.

Where I believe you are where you remain because you stopped listening, invested in the first thing to topple you from the horse you rode in on and that was that. I don't offer it as speculation given your interaction with me is a fairly potent exhibit "A" on the point.

You're spending energy without moving any of it on argument of the underlying points. And I already knew how you felt. I knew that a long time ago.

In this particular instance I'm not. That doesn't mean it never happens. but have fun with your straw man, Mr. Arrogant.

Like being called silly by Jerry Lewis. Otherwise, people who are right on a point have a thing called reasons. And those are rooted in a line of thought that can be expressed.

You've been told. You don't listen.

If you told me like this it's no wonder. Else, if anyone reasoned then I reasoned with them. Link to that or it's just more self justification on your part sans lifting.

What's the point in going over it again when it never amounts to anything?

Really think about that and see if any implication might occur to you. But generalizations are easy. Links and particulars or, God forbid, real argument on a particular point, that takes an elbow you still aren't putting into all of this.

You can't even ignore the one guy that everyone tells you to,

Everyone doesn't.

no matter how many times you say you will.

I've done it for months at a time, but now and then my argumentative and/or optimistic nature gets the best of me. If that's a flaw (and it may very well be) then who said I was perfect? And most people who quit a thing that's unhealthy but habitual do so any number of times before it sticks. He went on ignore again, along with zip, the other day when it became apparent that nothing had changed and that any approach would still find me bringing out the worst in them.

For how long? Who knows. A week, a month, a year, the judgment?

Recognizing your folly works better when you enter in with the stance that you are right and the other is wrong.

Everyone who argues a point believes they're right unless they're playing devil's advocate. The rest is the struggle everyone of conscience and character goes through on a daily basis.

To what does all this verbosity amount?

At best, at this point in your maturation, it's a seed and an invitation to consider things you appear to have long since stopped considering.

Have you forgotten that brevity is the soul of wit?

Then a haiku would dwarf the Bible, but it doesn't.

Re: there are all sorts of Christians who love God as much as you and still manage to differ soundly with you on any number of things. And it doesn't follow that their difference is error simply because you're really, really sure you have it right this time.

I am not unaware. And it does follow that in the event I am right then they are in error. And in this instance I am right. The Bible tells me so.

I think you just inadvertently offered the best possible rebuttal to your own answer, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[resurrected]

I had to put on waders to get through that last flood of verbiage.

like the retaining wall on the manure holding pond at a dairy farm

Skyrocketing divorce rates? :think:

divorce laws changed in the late sixties/early seventies as a result of "progressive" retards like town

 

[resurrected]

I'm so ashamed of you mostly because I don't see the point in making a case. You're too blind and deaf to pay attention.

it all comes down to pride with this one lighthouse

he's too prideful to accept that he is dead wrong

God will let him know when he's just dead :idunno:

 

[Balerion the Black]

like the retaining wall on the manure holding pond at a dairy farm



divorce laws changed in the late sixties/early seventies as a result of "progressive" retards like town

And before the 1970's there were lots of people stuck in marriages in which they were absolutely miserable, yet they had no way out of it.

The almost non-existent divorce rates prior to the 1970's were not a natural state of affairs - they were entirely due to oppressive laws and social mores designed to force people to remain in marriages even when they did not want to. They changed, because enough people decided that they had had enough of that and forced things to change.

 

[Town Heretic]

And before the 1970's there were lots of people stuck in marriages in which they were absolutely miserable, yet they had no way out of it.

True enough.

As to divorce rates, they've been in a mostly steady decline for a while.

Here's a rate by ten years beginning in 1900 (understanding your bit about full recording before the 70s)

1900: .7
1910: .9
1920: 1.6
1930: 1.6
1940: 2.0
1950: 2.6
1960: 2.2
1970: 3.5
1980: 5.2
1990: 4.7
2000: 4.2
2010: 3.5

 

[Lighthouse]

I suppose it's hard to understand what they're rooted in without an argument or explanation. Else, given that the only specifics you reached went directly to bits like giving me over to Satan, a religious root is the only reasonable way to see the shadow of your objection (I say shadow because of the lack of particular flesh on it).

:doh:

The discussion entails religious tones because you claim Christianity, as do I. If either one or both of us did not then they would serve no purpose. But I'm beginning to think they serve no purpose to you anyway.

I think you got your nose out of joint from day one and have breathed funny since, whatever you wrap it in. And I saw you were one of those fellows who only appears to believe they'll make a fundamental mistake once in their lives, but I didn't completely give up on you and I've never had the hubris or conceit to judge and dismiss your faith.

I ran into a table at the age of three. My right nostril almost completely closed.

As for the mistakes I've made, you have no idea how many.

The tragedy of that statement is the irony you aren't seeing. Read yourself again and see if you can find it.

I know exactly what you're saying, and the real irony is that i used to think exactly like you on these issues.

That's a neat circle. Did you make it free hand?

Perfect free hand circles are a physical impossibility. But that's irrelevant as I am making a statement based on what I've learned through your past behavior.

Supra and supra...or, put the last two answers together and call me in the morning.

:yawn:

Not even with the bath water.

:doh:

Where I believe you are where you remain because you stopped listening, invested in the first thing to topple you from the horse you rode in on and that was that. I don't offer it as speculation given your interaction with me is a fairly potent exhibit "A" on the point.

Except that I fought against my current views for quite some time before I accepted the fact that I couldn't support my previous views with anything.

You're spending energy without moving any of it on argument of the underlying points. And I already knew how you felt. I knew that a long time ago.

No duh, Dick Tracy.

Like being called silly by Jerry Lewis. Otherwise, people who are right on a point have a thing called reasons. And those are rooted in a line of thought that can be expressed.

Do you seriously still not understand that there is a reason I'm not making my case?

If you told me like this it's no wonder. Else, if anyone reasoned then I reasoned with them. Link to that or it's just more self justification on your part sans lifting.

I didn't specify who told you. Beyond that it doesn't matter.

Really think about that and see if any implication might occur to you. But generalizations are easy. Links and particulars or, God forbid, real argument on a particular point, that takes an elbow you still aren't putting into all of this.

And I'm not going to put any elbow into it.

Everyone doesn't.

Hyperbole.

I'm beginning to think you're on the spectrum, and further along than I.

I've done it for months at a time, but now and then my argumentative and/or optimistic nature gets the best of me. If that's a flaw (and it may very well be) then who said I was perfect? And most people who quit a thing that's unhealthy but habitual do so any number of times before it sticks. He went on ignore again, along with zip, the other day when it became apparent that nothing had changed and that any approach would still find me bringing out the worst in them.

For how long? Who knows. A week, a month, a year, the judgment?

Exactly.

At best, at this point in your maturation, it's a seed and an invitation to consider things you appear to have long since stopped considering.

No, it's just more "lawyer."

Then a haiku would dwarf the Bible, but it doesn't.

:doh:

The message of the Bible can be summed up three words. But people like you want to argue over what those three words mean.

I think you just inadvertently offered the best possible rebuttal to your own answer, so I'll leave it at that.

If the Bible told you you were right then you'd be able to make a case from it; but you haven't yet.

And you apparently missed the argument as a result of your selfish pride.

 

[Town Heretic]

:The discussion entails religious tones because you claim Christianity, as do I. If either one or both of us did not then they would serve no purpose. But I'm beginning to think they serve no purpose to you anyway.

And as with every such declaration on your part it's entirely that, without any particulars that I or anyone else could examine and either confirm or reject on its merit.

As for the mistakes I've made, you have no idea how many.

I doubt anyone does, given they appear to exist in the general past and always appear to be missing in the certain now.

I know exactly what you're saying, and the real irony is that i used to think exactly like you on these issues.

No, I think the irony is in the nature of your general complaints and assertions, but I'll let that stand in my last...

As for the thought as you do bit...Take a shot. Tell me what particular argument or principle underlying it you think you understand about me and once held yourself and then share the particular argument, facts that moved you into a different understanding. That interests me. It will also let both of us know if you've misjudged what you think you know on the point.

Do you seriously still not understand that there is a reason I'm not making my case?

I'm sure you have a justification. But all I see is a willingness to make bold, general declarations that aren't backed by anything more than the next. And it's all I see because it's all you provide.

And I'm not going to put any elbow into it.

Of course you aren't. But I felt obligated to give you the opportunity.

Hyperbole.

That's one word for it. But it's misleading. Most of the people I like and know didn't have that approach. The answer was on par with the charge you set out. Not crediting it doesn't put me on that spectrum. It's just indicative of the fact that you give your part consideration and mine assumption.

Exactly.

I'm not blind to either. Coming back after this break I was in a mood to see how I'd handle a few people. Tried a gentler approach with zip and responded to reason sprinkled with mild insult with Sod until the former responded with increasing hostility that I could see lead into the old pattern and the latter started to get into an area that last sent him to the bench. So, faced with the same old I shrugged and put them on ignore again.

No, it's just more "lawyer."

No, but that's an easy way to side step and a lazy one.

:doh:

Sorry, but that's on the silly point you tried with the brevity remark. As with any bumper sticker adage it's hardly universal.

The message of the Bible can be summed up three words. But people like you want to argue over what those three words mean.

The moment you say the Bible can be summed in three words you've begun to make an argument. People like me realize that. People like you mostly don't seem to. But there's no excuse for it when you have enough example to understand the point.

If the Bible told you you were right then you'd be able to make a case from it; but you haven't yet.

Same to you...or, that's another empty sleeve filled only with a willing assumption. All you've said is that your understanding of the Bible and your actions are consistent and aligned. Well, I hate to break this to you this late in the game again, but everyone with a serious opinion, from the Baptist to the Calvinist will say and believe the same thing.

All of us, everyone who loves God does the best by that they can and the only way to move a point is to make one.

And you apparently missed the argument as a result of your selfish pride.

Another judgment that's really out of your wheelhouse but indicative of a lack I suspect, again, will embarrass you one of these...at least that's my hope. People who think pride is my problem aren't paying attention. I have my share of struggles, but they're along different lines...and selfish? I'd tell you why that's funny but you don't really listen to me, only to the echoes of the fellow you want to hear to sustain your judgment.

 

[Lighthouse]

And as with every such declaration on your part it's entirely that, without any particulars that I or anyone else could examine and either confirm or reject on its merit.


I doubt anyone does, given they appear to exist in the general past and always appear to be missing in the certain now.


No, I think the irony is in the nature of your general complaints and assertions, but I'll let that stand in my last...

As for the thought as you do bit...Take a shot. Tell me what particular argument or principle underlying it you think you understand about me and once held yourself and then share the particular argument, facts that moved you into a different understanding. That interests me. It will also let both of us know if you've misjudged what you think you know on the point.


I'm sure you have a justification. But all I see is a willingness to make bold, general declarations that aren't backed by anything more than the next. And it's all I see because it's all you provide.


Of course you aren't. But I felt obligated to give you the opportunity.


That's one word for it. But it's misleading. Most of the people I like and know didn't have that approach. The answer was on par with the charge you set out. Not crediting it doesn't put me on that spectrum. It's just indicative of the fact that you give your part consideration and mine assumption.


I'm not blind to either. Coming back after this break I was in a mood to see how I'd handle a few people. Tried a gentler approach with zip and responded to reason sprinkled with mild insult with Sod until the former responded with increasing hostility that I could see lead into the old pattern and the latter started to get into an area that last sent him to the bench. So, faced with the same old I shrugged and put them on ignore again.


No, but that's an easy way to side step and a lazy one.


Sorry, but that's on the silly point you tried with the brevity remark. As with any bumper sticker adage it's hardly universal.


The moment you say the Bible can be summed in three words you've begun to make an argument. People like me realize that. People like you mostly don't seem to. But there's no excuse for it when you have enough example to understand the point.


Same to you...or, that's another empty sleeve filled only with a willing assumption. All you've said is that your understanding of the Bible and your actions are consistent and aligned. Well, I hate to break this to you this late in the game again, but everyone with a serious opinion, from the Baptist to the Calvinist will say and believe the same thing.

All of us, everyone who loves God does the best by that they can and the only way to move a point is to make one.


Another judgment that's really out of your wheelhouse but indicative of a lack I suspect, again, will embarrass you one of these...at least that's my hope. People who think pride is my problem aren't paying attention. I have my share of struggles, but they're along different lines...and selfish? I'd tell you why that's funny but you don't really listen to me, only to the echoes of the fellow you want to hear to sustain your judgment.

:yawn:

 

[Town Heretic]

:yawn:

I wish I could say I'm surprised by it. lain:

 

[resurrected]

I wish I could say I'm surprised by it. lain:

i wish you could take a hint and take your perverted ideas to another site


or, put aside the prideful ego-driven part of your persona (yeah, yeah, i know, there wouldn't be much left) and take the opportunity to learn from your betters

 

[serpentdove]

Feminist Aborts Son because he was a Boy; “I Couldn’t Bring Another Monster into the World” Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Pr 8:36

 

[resodko]

I saw the thread title and thought "wow! what a great thread title! I wish I had written that!"

 

[resodko]

Feminist Aborts Son because he was a Boy; “I Couldn’t Bring Another Monster into the World” Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Pr 8:36

feminists are scum

 

[serpentdove]

feminists are scum

She's the monster (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Pr 8:36).

 

[serpentdove]

I saw the thread title and thought "wow! what a great thread title! I wish I had written that!"

:doh: What happened to your face?

 

[shagster01]

As for the OP. . .

Nearly all middle east countries have outlawed those things. Is their society better?