The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Darth Sexy3,287 pages
Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
'History.' Not the Torah, HISTORY. Because you're demonstrating that you are not familiar with it.

prove it

There isn't a set age, but it's a general rule people can make informed decisions at 18 as opposed to 13. And 'show you' this fact? DS, it's common knowledge a 13 year old is less developed than those older, why do I need to present this?

Common knowledge? I'm playing your game LS. SHow me the common knowledge. Back up your stance. My stance is if you allow something like same sex marriages, you are opening the door for allowing other things, because as you say, we are "changing".

I'm sorry, should I have spoken differently? Because you know exactly what I meant. I think the 'of centuries past' should have made it clear
And 'declining in moral values?' Yes, we let those awful blacks marry our pure white women, we allowed women to have more freedom. What are these 'moral values' exactly here?

Vulgar language, more sex on TV, stuff like that. But you were totally on the ball (sarcasm).

Separate arguments entirely, thanks. You could make the same based on interracial marriage in that they don't correlate at all.
For one, let's look at the ages of puberty. Generally...12-15, when the body begins developing, that's a start.
http://www.apa.org/journals/pag/homepage.html
I'd recommend reading a bit that the APA has put out.

Substitute 13 for 15, or 16, or 17, and you'll still get the same argument.

I'm sorry, when we live in societies where such law is valid, then you can talk. Until then, unless you have a recording of God saying something of the sort-and if God does, he's rather sociopathic for including homosexuality in the development.

Rofl, nice logic. You need G-d saying something for something to be valid, or moral.

What ARE these 'values' now? Where do they come from?

I would venture to say religion.

No, DS, you said something about it, I corrected you. Separation of Church and State originated when the European governments mainly got sick and tired of the Church muscling in on their affairs. The First Amendment allowed for the religions to remain out of the government and for the government incapable of interfering.

Except you didn't correct me. You simply stated something different than what I stated. I told you why the separation was used in the American constitution. Religions ARE out of the government as far as the government's right to interfere. Still, the country was founded on christian principles.

And Reform Judaism. Recognizing that things can change over time.

No, reform Judaism is "we're going to pick and choose what we think is true and what is right or not so it benefits our lives".

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Where do you THINK they get the child pornography? Survey says, exploitation of children. YES, someone is being hurt I'd say and they would be financing it. Looking at child pornography is also a good indication you're dealing with someone who might branch out.

Seriously, why do you keep focusing on total misdirection? Why are you likening homosexual marriage to looking at child pornography exactly?

It's not misdirection. I'm giving you an example of something that could make someone happy without hurting anyone. As you say, children can't think rationally, so its unlikely they'll notice someone taking pictures of them. That doesn't hurt anybody because of their ignorance. Person A isn't hurting anyone by looking at these pictures. So why should we allow case A (your case), and not case B?

[quote]I see you missed my point entirely. The fact it was 'prominent' throughout and was traditional should hurt your argument.


How does this exactly hurt my argument?

[quoteWHAT are these moral values? WHERE are they found? I've asked this more than once and you continue to just say it as it's the most obvious thing in the world, it isn't. I've pointed out several times exactly what the flaw in this is, I can use more historic instances given you yourself have cited slavery as a problem with traditionalism. 'Changing' it benefits nobody? How many times do you think we've changed something? Blacks can marry whites now, women aren't property. Women can vote, blacks aren't property..[/quote]
Which you just described benefits everybody. Allowing same sex marriages benefits everybody now?

Every single time these were challenged, we had conservatives fighting it tooth and nail.

Good, thank G-d for conservatives because liberals would destroy this country.

I can't 'assume' you're neutral here because you're not. I know I'm not going to convince you for obvious reasons, but I can certainly argue it.
You can tell them that they're essentially second class citizens because even though they can both legally consent to marriage under the law, they can't be recognized for it. They can have no rights in adopting or raising children. Laws concerning inheritance, medical disclosure? They cannot share in any of it. There are well over 400 benefits for married couples, and common law marriages aren't recognized by all but...what, two states, if that?

I never argued concerning adopting children in this argument, LS

The reason for the separation of church and state was for both to protect people from government interference and keep the government free from religion
And what's the 'spirit' here, exactly? You keep saying things without elaboration.

Apparently, the government chooses to follow the christian principles of the sanctity or marriage LS. I wouldn't exactly call it religion interfering with government, but government using certain principles from religion to build its laws and constitution, and I fully agree with it.

Add 'of the same race' and you'd also be right. Again...why should we care about the tradition here when so many other traditions have been overwritten? We live in a rather more enlightened era as opposed to the forties.

Enlightened my ass. Every generation since the 40's has been getting dumber and dumber. We rely on television, sex, and technology to fuel our lives. If your ridiculous assertion is that we're more enlightened than the early 20th century, prove it.

Actually, it's the opponents who need a reason to ban it. That's how the law works: You need a reason to discriminate.

It's banned in most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Apparently the government has enough reasons.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
prove it

You're not reading my posts.. ignoring these traditions, making incorrect statements...

Common knowledge? I'm playing your game LS. SHow me the common knowledge. Back up your stance. My stance is if you allow something like same sex marriages, you are opening the door for allowing other things, because as you say, we are "changing".


This is getting tiresome. YES, that thirteen year olds are not as mentally developed 18 year olds is common knowledge, why don't you READ what I posted with the APA's own journals? If that's not sufficient, there's a ton of things on their site


Vulgar language, more sex on TV, stuff like that. But you were totally on the ball (sarcasm).

I'm sorry if I don't consider that an indication of crumbling society.
Particularly when I can open up a play from Marlowe or Shakespeare and see something just as bad.


Substitute 13 for 15, or 16, or 17, and you'll still get the same argument.

And why does it matter? I'll say it again: Slippery Slope isn't how we decide things, otherwise, let's head back and outlaw interracial marriage.


Rofl, nice logic. You need G-d saying something for something to be valid, or moral.

No, I want to hear Yahweh say it for it to be God's law.
Until then, I'll treat claims of absolute morality with hesitation


I would venture to say religion.

Based upon? Morality doesn't begin and end with religion.


Except you didn't correct me. You simply stated something different than what I stated.

Which is historically sound. Your statement, I'm afraid, was not

I told you why the separation was used in the American constitution. Religions ARE out of the government as far as the government's right to interfere. Still, the country was founded on christian principles.

You keep saying it was founded on Christian principles when no fewer than three founders, two being the second and third President, the third being the father of our Constitution refute that. Show some evidence.
Andsorry, but you're very wrong on why the separation was in the Constitution. It was both to protect government and the people.


No, reform Judaism is "we're going to pick and choose what we think is true and what is right or not so it benefits our lives".

I've stopped taken your viewpoints on this seriously at all, quite simply. Unless you're fulfilling Torah Law to a T, then you're picking at choosing.

I do hope you're not into shaving. Or vegetable gardens.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
[B]You're not reading my posts.. ignoring these traditions, making incorrect statements...

Prove up or shut up.

This is getting tiresome. YES, that thirteen year olds are not as mentally developed 18 year olds is common knowledge, why don't you READ what I posted with the APA's own journals? If that's not sufficient, there's a ton of things on their site

Ok you're clearly not getting it. What makes 18 the legal age? Why not 15? Why not 23? Why not 25?

I'm sorry if I don't consider that an indication of crumbling society.
Particularly when I can open up a play from Marlowe or Shakespeare and see something just as bad.

I'm looking from the 40s on.

And why does it matter? I'll say it again: Slippery Slope isn't how we decide things, otherwise, let's head back and outlaw interracial marriage.

YOURE calling it slipperly slope.

No, I want to hear Yahweh say it for it to be God's law.
Until then, I'll treat claims of absolute morality with hesitation

And that is why you're a reform Jew.

Based upon? Morality doesn't begin and end with religion.

Where did you learn your morality from?

You keep saying it was founded on Christian principles when no fewer than three founders, two being the second and third President, the third being the father of our Constitution refute that. Show some evidence.
Andsorry, but you're very wrong on why the separation was in the Constitution. It was both to protect government and the people.

I stated one of the purposes that help my argument. That doesn't make it wrong.

I've stopped taken your viewpoints on this seriously at all, quite simply. Unless you're fulfilling Torah Law to a T, then you're picking at choosing.

This is why I haven't taken your arguments seriously at all. Stick to your reform mentality. It's not about fulfilling the Torah with a T. I don't, but I know what I'm doing is wrong, so you basically have no argument here. You skew things to make your life more convenient.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It's not misdirection. I'm giving you an example of something that could make someone happy without hurting anyone. As you say, children can't think rationally, so its unlikely they'll notice someone taking pictures of them. That doesn't hurt anybody because of their ignorance. Person A isn't hurting anyone by looking at these pictures. So why should we allow case A (your case), and not case B?

Child pornography is not such an example! By viewing it, you are contributing to direct harm of children, how many times do I have to make this clear?!
A marriage license between two adults is between them and the government, those pictures of kids do not appear out of thin air.


How does this exactly hurt my argument?

"Tradition, values, BEDROCK OF SOCIETY!....slavery is bad."


[quoteWHAT are these moral values? WHERE are they found? I've asked this more than once and you continue to just say it as it's the most obvious thing in the world, it isn't. I've pointed out several times exactly what the flaw in this is, I can use more historic instances given you yourself have cited slavery as a problem with traditionalism. 'Changing' it benefits nobody? How many times do you think we've changed something? Blacks can marry whites now, women aren't property. Women can vote, blacks aren't property..

Which you just described benefits everybody. Allowing same sex marriages benefits everybody now? [/Quote]
How does allowing interracial marriage benefit 'everyone?' Or letting women vote? Or freeing blacks?


Good, thank G-d for conservatives because liberals would destroy this country.

Yeah, good. Thank God those damned liberals didn't:
A. Push for freedom of the slaves
B. Push for the suffrage of women and blacks
C. Push for desegregation.
D. Run this country into the ground these past eight years. The Conservatives could've used the used


I never argued concerning adopting children in this argument, LS

You asked what they're missing out on. I provided it. Over four hundred benefits, including the right to even know if their loved one is dead or alive in the hospital.


Apparently, the government chooses to follow the christian principles of the sanctity or marriage LS. I wouldn't exactly call it religion interfering with government, but government using certain principles from religion to build its laws and constitution, and I fully agree with it.

Why allow a religion you believe to be false-Christianity- to influence government then? Problem there.
And considering there's a slow but steady movement for gay marriage, support of it from our new President-who naturally says 'just don't use the WORD marriage, and support gaining amongst the younger voters..
And how is banning gay marriage a 'Christian principle?' You keep using those words and never really provide what it is they mean


Enlightened my ass. Every generation since the 40's has been getting dumber and dumber. We rely on television, sex, and technology to fuel our lives. If your ridiculous assertion is that we're more enlightened than the early 20th century, prove it.

I love this 'good old days' shit Conservatives spring out. It was better when those uppity blacks kept their heads down, when only Christian white folks got ahead, women stay in their home and people did what the government said.
Rely on TV? As opposed to radio? Rely on sex? when have we not? Technology? Like we haven't been relying on it since the plow was invented. What does this even mean?


It's banned in most states.

So? Banning something =/= it being right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Apparently the government has enough reasons.

Strange how that's what's under review and I could make a very good argument how that violates the constitution and legal precedent.

By the way, saying 'there's the law, that's all we need,' is just SO delightfully draconian. Ignoring all the parallels to banning interracial marriage now? When it was banned by law?

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Prove up or shut up.

Someone's getting upset.

Ok you're clearly not getting it. What makes 18 the legal age? Why not 15? Why not 23? Why not 25?


No, you're clearly not getting it and I'm refusing to argue this further until you read the article I posted.
Let alone how you explain how age of consent correlates to gay marriage. Apples and oranges


I'm looking from the 40s on.

So, we went from fascination with sex and violence to this mythic golden age and right back?
Not like the 40s were a time of intolerance and misogyny or anything.


YOURE calling it slipperly slope.

Yeah, it's kind of a textbook example


And that is why you're a reform Jew.

Proud of it.


Where did you learn your morality from?

I would have to say a mix of upbringing, logic, reason and the like
I never once learned something was wrong 'because God said so' or 'it's in the bible.'


I stated one of the purposes that help my argument. That doesn't make it wrong.

Unfortunately, you ignoring the other thing kind of hurts. It was to keep religion out of government and to stop the government enforcing it


This is why I haven't taken your arguments seriously at all. Stick to your reform mentality. It's not about fulfilling the Torah with a T. I don't, but I know what I'm doing is wrong, so you basically have no argument here. You skew things to make your life more convenient.

My views on the Torah and the like aren't remotely in question here or the crux of my argument. They don't change the validity of my argument, either. There's not a measure of 'convenience' here, but logically deciding that times can change and that people need change with them. you'll notice that quite a bit in Jewish history. Roman Judea, Jews in the Muslim territories, in the medieval age...all the way up to now, you'll notice a ton of necessary adaptation.

You don't follow a Torah to a T? Then you've really got no grounds to rail against homosexuality if you shave in the morning.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Someone's getting upset.

Nope, just laughing at your logic.

No, you're clearly not getting it and I'm refusing to argue this further until you read the article I posted.
Let alone how you explain how age of consent correlates to gay marriage. Apples and oranges

Wow, my points are way over your head. You don't understand analogies, nor comparisons.

Yeah, it's kind of a textbook example

It really isn't. See, when I give you another example of something that isn't allowed but could be due to, as you call it, the changing times, you call it apples and oranges, or try to explain it in a way that doesn't make sense.

Proud of it.[/quote
Ignorance is bliss. Most reform Jews share that.

[quote]I would have to say a mix of upbringing, logic, reason and the like
I never once learned something was wrong 'because God said so' or 'it's in the bible.'


Of course, because as a reform Jew, you assume that I think something is wrong because G-d says so or it's in the bible. Maybe if you open your eyes up and move past reform(joke) Judaism, you'll understand the WHY. Only then could you call yourself logical.

Unfortunately, you ignoring the other thing kind of hurts. It was to keep religion out of government and to stop the government enforcing it

If you are using this logic, then they should have allowed same sex marriages to begin with, or added ANYTHING about it in the constitution, or the laws. They didn't for a reason.

My views on the Torah and the like aren't remotely in question here or the crux of my argument. They don't change the validity of my argument, either. There's not a measure of 'convenience' here, but logically deciding that times can change and that people need change with them. you'll notice that quite a bit in Jewish history. Roman Judea, Jews in the Muslim territories, in the medieval age...all the way up to now, you'll notice a ton of necessary adaptation.

Of course they change the validity of your argument. I'm arguing from a religious and logical perspective, whereas you're arguing from a secular perspective. You assume that people need to change anytime the times are allegedly changing. This line of thought is ridiculous yet again. If society starts embracing nudists, then we should ALL conform to it because change is automatically good!

You don't follow a Torah to a T? Then you've really got no grounds to rail against homosexuality if you shave in the morning. [/B]

See, as a reform Jew, this point is completely over your head. Me not following torah to the T means absolutely nothing in regards to morals and ethics. I KNOW the lifestyle I should lead and when I don't follow the Torah to the T, I KNOW I am wrong. It's about bettering yourself and getting closer to the adherence of the Torah. Your logic that because I don't follow something, I shouldn't critisize, is absolutely hilarious.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nope, just laughing at your logic.

The typical DS methods here


Wow, my points are way over your head. You don't understand analogies, nor comparisons.

You don't understand how the two things are two different to be analogous and you're attempting to make a direct comparison...


It really isn't. See, when I give you another example of something that isn't allowed but could be due to, as you call it, the changing times, you call it apples and oranges, or try to explain it in a way that doesn't make sense.

I'll say it again:
The age of consent being higher than 13 is a sign of changing times, DS. This isn't a good way to argue for you


Of course, because as a reform Jew, you assume that I think something is wrong because G-d says so or it's in the bible. Maybe if you open your eyes up and move past reform(joke) Judaism, you'll understand the WHY. Only then could you call yourself logical.

Elitism scarce becomes someone to this degree and I'm hardly dignifying it.
One could argue basing pure morality on a 4000 year old scroll you yourself do not follow to the letter is what's illogical


If you are using this logic, then they should have allowed same sex marriages to begin with, or added ANYTHING about it in the constitution, or the laws. They didn't for a reason.

Because they didn't remotely consider it'd ever be an issue. They didn't cover a LOT in the Constitution, FYI.
There's nothing about marriage at all. Nada.


Of course they change the validity of your argument. I'm arguing from a religious and logical perspective, whereas you're arguing from a secular perspective. You assume that people need to change anytime the times are allegedly changing. This line of thought is ridiculous yet again. If society starts embracing nudists, then we should ALL conform to it because change is automatically good!

You're not arguing from a 'logical' perspective. You're refusing to believe society should change and ignoring how it has. This 'good old days' mentality is nonsense


See, as a reform Jew, this point is completely over your head. Me not following torah to the T means absolutely nothing in regards to morals and ethics. I KNOW the lifestyle I should lead and when I don't follow the Torah to the T, I KNOW I am wrong. It's about bettering yourself and getting closer to the adherence of the Torah. Your logic that because I don't follow something, I shouldn't critisize, is absolutely hilarious.

I'm saying if you don't follow the Torah, then don't complain about people who don't. What makes not shaving worse, precisely? Ever touched something made from the flesh of a pig? Done anything the Torah says deserves death? Would you like people who do such to be killed, DS?

Myopic, I must say. And hypocritical.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
The typical DS methods here

Typical LS denial.

You don't understand how the two things are two different to be analogous and you're attempting to make a direct comparison...

And you don't understand the argument of "dangerous precedent".

I'll say it again:
The age of consent being higher than 13 is a sign of changing times, DS. This isn't a good way to argue for you

Oh jesus, you're still not getting it.

Elitism scarce becomes someone to this degree and I'm hardly dignifying it.
One could argue basing pure morality on a 4000 year old scroll you yourself do not follow to the letter is what's illogical

One could but seeing as how you're mostly ignorant of Judaism, you can't. At least Faunus admits he doesn't know much about it so he doesn't go that route. Our generation is nowhere near as holy as the ones who received the Torah. This is explained in the sense that Judaism is divided into 3 ages. We are currently at our dark age and its evidenced by the fact that more Jews know almost nothing about Judaism (you), than the ones that know a great deal. Every religious Jew I know follows all 613 commandments, and every religious Jew I know is thrilled with his life. I do not follow all of them, but that's what spiritual and secular growth is all about. I'm not as happy as a religious Jew is because I don't follow all of the commandments and I have no real reason, other than unlearning secular habits.

Because they didn't remotely consider it'd ever be an issue. They didn't cover a LOT in the Constitution, FYI.
There's nothing about marriage at all. Nada.

Again, look at the link I sent you about why same sex marriages are banned by the government.

You're not arguing from a 'logical' perspective. You're refusing to believe society should change and ignoring how it has. This 'good old days' mentality is nonsense

If my mentality is nonsense, so is yours. You're saying that society SHOULD change and that if change is coming, then we should embrace it rather than question it. That's being very simple minded.

I'm saying if you don't follow the Torah, then don't complain about people who don't. What makes not shaving worse, precisely? Ever touched something made from the flesh of a pig? Done anything the Torah says deserves death? Would you like people who do such to be killed, DS?

Myopic, I must say. And hypocritical.


I follow the torah as closely as i can and more each day. I complain about reform Jews who are generally ignorant of Judaism, and who fit whatever they wish into their daily lives. The other stuff, they pass off as false because it doesn't suit them.
And as usual, the idea of the oral law, written law, and rabbinical laws, goes completely over your head. If you wish to make a legitimate argument LS, stop involving Judaism in your posts, because you know next to nothing about it.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Civs that lasted 4000+ years:
China
India (Hindu primarily)
Inuit/Native American (Kind of. The remnants are still alive... and getting blown away by guns/germs/steel shouldn't count)
[Russia/slavic] (confirmation pending)

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

I couldn't get through that book. The first part was good though.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I couldn't get through that book. The first part was good though.

I've only seen parts of the documentary.

Another chewy discussion about why our culture beat up all the other cultures is Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. It is where I base most of my (non-internet persona) opinions about how the world should be and why it is the way it is. The fact that no-one else has read it doesn't really bother me much.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Or heard of it in my case.

MadMel Heh

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Civs that lasted 4000+ years:
China
India (Hindu primarily)
Inuit/Native American (Kind of. The remnants are still alive... and getting blown away by guns/germs/steel shouldn't count)
[Russia/slavic] (confirmation pending)

- Australian aboriginals 😬

Lightsnake Senior Member
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Typical LS denial.

See what I meant?


And you don't understand the argument of "dangerous precedent".

1. These so-called 'dangerous precedents.' How do they matter? Our legal system doesn't work on what might happen as a result.
2. Why have the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage not gone through these issues?


Oh jesus, you're still not getting it.

All I'm getting is your aversion to logic


One could but seeing as how you're mostly ignorant of Judaism, you can't. At least Faunus admits he doesn't know much about it so he doesn't go that route. Our generation is nowhere near as holy as the ones who received the Torah. This is explained in the sense that Judaism is divided into 3 ages. We are currently at our dark age and its evidenced by the fact that more Jews know almost nothing about Judaism (you), than the ones that know a great deal. Every religious Jew I know follows all 613 commandments, and every religious Jew I know is thrilled with his life. I do not follow all of them, but that's what spiritual and secular growth is all about. I'm not as happy as a religious Jew is because I don't follow all of the commandments and I have no real reason, other than unlearning secular habits.

DS, I know quite a bit about Judaism, so kindly quit your whining on the subject. There's little here except an angry rant at how spiritually unfulfilled anyone who doesn't follow your standard of morality is and it's sad.

Again, look at the link I sent you about why same sex marriages are banned by the government.


The Defense of Marriage Act. Studied it. Can easily argue against it, point?


If my mentality is nonsense, so is yours. You're saying that society SHOULD change and that if change is coming, then we should embrace it rather than question it. That's being very simple minded.

Hardly. Society HAS changed. Societies continue to change. Going to challenge that assertion?


I follow the torah as closely as i can and more each day.

Do tell me, then. Which do you miss? Executing the people who don't obey it?
If not, then you're doing a poor job

I complain about reform Jews who are generally ignorant of Judaism, and who fit whatever they wish into their daily lives.

Having a liberal view of it =/= not understanding it

The other stuff, they pass off as false because it doesn't suit them.
And as usual, the idea of the oral law, written law, and rabbinical laws, goes completely over your head.

As 'usual?' Based on...what? No, DS, it's simply your preference of law contradicts and like a hypocrite, you whine and rant at people for not doing what you yourself do not do

If you wish to make a legitimate argument LS, stop involving Judaism in your posts, because you know next to nothing about it.

Typical DS: If you argue against him, you must be ignorant.

Captain REX Networking

I'm going to go with the society should and will always change part of the argument. It is impossible for it NOT to change.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
See what I meant?

I rest my case

1. These so-called 'dangerous precedents.' How do they matter? Our legal system doesn't work on what might happen as a result.

Are you shitting me? That's precisely what our legal system works on.
2. Why have the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage not gone through these issues?

No clue. We have issues they haven't gone through and they have issues we haven't gone through.

All I'm getting is your aversion to logic

Translation: I don't understand this point nor will I attempt to counter it.

DS, I know quite a bit about Judaism, so kindly quit your whining on the subject. There's little here except an angry rant at how spiritually unfulfilled anyone who doesn't follow your standard of morality is and it's sad.

Still in denial LS? Judging by your posts, you know nothing about it. You don't have much of an argument other than "Well Judaism says X, should say Y, and people still deserve to be happy". Not much of an argument LS.

The Defense of Marriage Act. Studied it. Can easily argue against it, point?

Waiting, sweetheart.

Hardly. Society HAS changed. Societies continue to change. Going to challenge that assertion?

Nope, but doesn't mean we should welcome all changes.

Do tell me, then. Which do you miss? Executing the people who don't obey it?
If not, then you're doing a poor job

So you've basically proven you know nothing about Judaism.

Having a liberal view of it =/= not understanding it

No LS, there's having a liberal (skewed) view of it, and not understanding it altogether. You fall in the latter category.

As 'usual?' Based on...what? No, DS, it's simply your preference of law contradicts and like a hypocrite, you whine and rant at people for not doing what you yourself do not do

Translation: I don't know anything about Judaism, so I'm going to claim DS has a preference of law, despite him trying to explain to me the difference between the various kinds of laws in Judaism.
Your assertion about me being a hypocrite would be correct if you knew what you were talking about. As usual, you debate on issues you know nothing about.

Typical DS: If you argue against him, you must be ignorant.

Typical LS: I don't have much of an argument but I will pretend I'm right to feel better about myself.

Gideon Restricted

I honestly can't tell if you truly prefer militant leanings, bigotry, and harsh reprisals or if you're just trying to seem badass.

Darth Sexy Restricted
Originally posted by Gideon
I honestly can't tell if you truly prefer militant leanings, bigotry, and harsh reprisals or if you're just trying to seem badass.

...Explain

Master Crimzon Baby Killer

DS, just give a straight answer to this question: how does homosexuality harm society? And I'm not referring to all of the claims of how homosexuality is against 'god's will', or 'unnatural', or 'abnormal', or 'disgusting'- I mean what negative effects does homosexuality actually have?