Thread: Scooter Libby's Sentence Commuted

Originally Posted by xman

My Moral Intollerance of Social Intollerance is not another form of Social Intollerance.



X

You are a valiant debater but your technique is flawed grasshopper.

Here we come to the point you can not dispute.

Morals.

What accounts for our societies wholesale deflection from the standards of personal conduct such as civility, humility and self restraint?

The gradual decay of religion at the hands of elitist Liberals whose attitudes towards religion range from indifference to active hostility.

The are two obvious positions that can be taken here.

One is that morality is founded in religion.

The other is that morality is relative to culture.

You can not make a good arguement for homosexuality based on either.

Lets see you try.

I would also point out to whoever finds this variance from the original topic bothersome that we are in the "Off Topic" section and therefore are right ON topic in whichever direction we may go.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

...
The are two obvious positions that can be taken here.

One is that morality is founded in religion.

The other is that morality is relative to culture.

You can not make a good arguement for homosexuality based on either.

Lets see you try.

....

I don't want to speak for X here (he's more than capable of doing that himself) but I didn't take X to be making a case for or against homosexuality. I felt he was merely pointing out that he believes in tolerance.

As for tolerance and it's relation to religion and culture - what would Jesus do? Hang out with the "lepers".

James.

[quote=Jimbo;121842
As for tolerance and it's relation to religion and culture - what would Jesus do? Hang out with the "lepers".
James.[/quote]

Or the Mexicans? Of course, that's a good way to get shot.

Norm

opps, double post

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I didn't take X to be making a case for or against homosexuality.

As for tolerance and it's relation to religion and culture - what would Jesus do? Hang out with the "lepers".

James.

By arguing against intolerance of homosexuality he is arguing that homosexuality is acceptable.
He is making a case in favor by default

Also, Jesus was "hanging out" (if our lord and savior did such a thing) with persons afflicted with a physical disease, not a social one (radical individualism).

The thinking that one sort of intolerance (moral vs social) is different from another and that one is justifiable while the other is not is so preposterous as to be laughable and I intend to prove it.

If there are any gay members reading this I would like to apologize if anything said during this debate that offends you.
X launched an unprovoked attack on me on your behalf and any hard feelings should be directed at him. He is the angry one.
I am just discussing ideas.

Again, I did not hijack this thread.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

By arguing against intolerance of homosexuality he is arguing that homosexuality is acceptable.
He is making a case in favor by default

Only if you assume "tolerance" and "acceptable" are synonymous. Maybe they are.

Also, Jesus was "hanging out" (if our lord and savior did such a thing) with persons afflicted with a physical disease, not a social one (radical individualism).

Sorry, "hanging out" was perhaps a poor turn of phrase. I'm not schooled in religion, but I always took that part of the new testament to be as much metaphorical as literal. As well as being physically diseased, Lepers were social outcasts too (I guess because they were physically diseased). I always felt that Jesus not only cured the disease, but made a point regarding the social stigma of the disease simply by touching the person.

But this is only my personal take on it...

The thinking that one sort of intolerance (moral vs social) is different from another and that one is justifiable while the other is not is so preposterous as to be laughable and I intend to prove it.

No disagreement from me there - intolerance is intolerance.

GW - I'm sorry if I've offended too.

James.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

You can not make a good arguement for homosexuality based on either.

Lets see you try.

I already have, and thank-you for this opportunity to quote myself;
ahem, "there have been healthy productive gay members of human civilisation throughout history and even prehistory"
To be clear, this is not an argument in favour of homosexuality, but merely in tolerance for them and all people who are different from myself.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

X launched an unprovoked attack on me on your behalf and any hard feelings should be directed at him. He is the angry one.
I am just discussing ideas.

Again, I did not hijack this thread.

I believe it started like this actually:
There is nothing wrong with gay people.
I still stand by that.

*serenades GW*,
You're so vain ...
I bet you think this post is about you,
don't you,
don't you?


X

I asked you all nicely to get this thread back on topic. This is my second request.

If you guys want to talk about the gay thing I suggest you take it to some other forum.

If I check this thread again and this is still going on it'll be three strikes and you're out... meaning I'll lock the thread.

Kapisch ?

I just hope that under appeal a judge says:

"hey no crime, so how can there be any penalties resulting from the investigation of a non-crime? Case dismissed"

That would restore my faith in the justice system. I don't expect that, but I hope.

God's I hate fearing my government. Also feeling as if it has gotten totally out of our (the peoples) control.

Originally Posted by azjoe

I asked you all nicely to get this thread back on topic. This is my second request.

If you guys want to talk about the gay thing I suggest you take it to some other forum.

If I check this thread again and this is still going on it'll be three strikes and you're out... meaning I'll lock the thread.

Kapisch ?

I'm confused. Is it against the forum rules to discuss sexual orientation?

*edit*
After further review I must protest the tone of this post. I am an adult and will make the bold assumption that most of the members of this forum are adults. The large font "kapisch" remark was uncalled for. I will not be yelled at in real life and I will not tolerate being yelled at here. In addition I do not tolerate well being threatened. If you want to close the thread close the thread. I have reviewed the terms of service agreement that we all agreed to when we signed up. I'm going to step out here and make the assumption that all the members, INCLUDING moderators, were required to agree to, and follow, that tos. In this case I believe azjoe's post is in violation of that tos, to wit:
You agree that you will not use the Forum to:

* post or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Please refrain from such posts in the future. Thank you.