Originally posted by Emperordmb
Be fair Fly, that’s not remotely everyone whose LGBTQ. I have a bisexual friend who thinks gay culture is cancer and that the pride parades are pointless, and there were numerous transgender people who emailed Jordan Peterson saying the trans activists didnt speak for them.
That is why I said the "LGBQT" Community. NOT the "Gay" Community. Big Diff between the 2.
Like the diff between Liberals and Leftists.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Or he was waving when the pic snapped(notice his fingers are open) lol. I'm pretty sure there are pics of Obama with his hand up too lol
Originally posted by darthgoober
Yup I was right......And he was in Germany when he did it! lol
Lol well that backfired.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Implicit in thinking you are entitled to an opinion about the lifestyle of another is that you think your lifestyle is superior.Why else share your disapproval of something that does not involve you, does not affect you, is none of your business; and whom, the object of your disapproval, not only did not ask for your opinion, but does not care what you think?
What makes [royal] you think you have a right to opine about how another person lives their life, or that anyone gives a flying **** what you think about anything?
A misplaced sense of superiority. As if you are in position to judge the lifestyles of others.
As someone with values who isn't a moral relativist, I can make value judgments about certain actions and behaviors.
I think casual sex is immoral for example. I've thought a lot about it, and I think it's immoral. I would be outraged however at any attempt by the government to enforce that with force of law because I would count it a violation of someone else's rights. I also would not be a dick to or look down on someone for having casual sex. My best friend has engaged in casual sex before, as have some of my other friends, but I don't berate them or think of them as lesser people or think that I'm on a ****ing pedestal or something. I know I'm not perfect. I think being lazy is immoral too, and I'm fully willing to admit I can be a lazy **** sometimes when I have responsibilities I need to take care of. I also know I can be too selfish sometimes when I should be more generous. I also believe holding resentment towards other people is immoral, and that's something I certainly slip up on.
I don't count someone's worth based on their sins so to speak, I view people with an inalienable worth and believe in loving everyone regardless of their actions (though again I slip up there, and again that's an example of a moral failing of mine).
I don't think of myself as perfect or spend time trying to contemplate superiority to other people, that doesn't mean that in my quest to be a better person I'm not entitled to trying to understand what is moral and what is not moral.
So I ask you Adam, what makes [royal] you think you have a right to opine about how another person lives their life having opinions on whatever they please thinking that they care about how you think about whatever lifestyle they practice by holding the moral views they hold?
Originally posted by EmperordmbGood lord.
Weird how you say I'm not entitled to an opinion about the actions of another person, when you clearly think you're entitled to an opinion about other people's thoughts... very strange indeed.As someone with values who isn't a moral relativist, I can make value judgments about certain actions and behaviors.
I think casual sex is immoral for example. I've thought a lot about it, and I think it's immoral. I would be outraged however at any attempt by the government to enforce that with force of law because I would count it a violation of someone else's rights. I also would not be a dick to or look down on someone for having casual sex. My best friend has engaged in casual sex before, as have some of my other friends, but I don't berate them or think of them as lesser people or think that I'm on a ****ing pedestal or something. I know I'm not perfect. I think being lazy is immoral too, and I'm fully willing to admit I can be a lazy **** sometimes when I have responsibilities I need to take care of. I also know I can be too selfish sometimes when I should be more generous. I also believe holding resentment towards other people is immoral, and that's something I certainly slip up on.
I don't count someone's worth based on their sins so to speak, I view people with an inalienable worth and believe in loving everyone regardless of their actions (though again I slip up there, and again that's an example of a moral failing of mine).
I don't think of myself as perfect or spend time trying to contemplate superiority to other people, that doesn't mean that in my quest to be a better person I'm not entitled to trying to understand what is moral and what is not moral.
So I ask you Adam, what makes [royal] you think you have a right to opine about how another person lives their life having opinions on whatever they please thinking that they care about how you think about whatever lifestyle they practice by holding the moral views they hold?
I think you [royally] missed the point there. facepalm
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No clue why you're making such a complex mess out of this.This:
"talks about coercing a business to do an action because of her political office."Doesn't necessarily equate to this:
"used her public office for private gain"You don't have to coerce for private gain.
You may well be right on the other fronts, but you don't need to privately benefit to coerce someone.
You've clearly gotten confused. I outlined it quite clearly and even cited the ethics rules. There's no this or that - I've outlined it extremely clearly.
You're hopeless. I don't know if you're really this stupid or if you're playing dumb to troll because you don't want it to be obvious that you're wrong so you pretend to be the contrarian to make your point seem as though it is any semblance of legitimacy?
Honestly, I do not think anybody takes your point seriously by this point.
Originally posted by Robtard
Someone can say I don't like black people and black cats and black shoes and black phone cases etc. Does that mean they're not bigoted because they're consistent? Exactly.
Honestly, Robtard is right. He's clearly homophobic and using his religion as his shield.
Sorry, this is not part of Christ's teachings.
If Jesus Christ owned that bakery, he'd make the gay men TWO cakes (a wedding cake and an amazing grooms cake), make them fabulous as hell, and give it to them for free. And then hug them both, tell them that he loves them, and will give them a small sermon about doing righteousness in all things.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If Jesus Christ owned that bakery, he'd make the gay men TWO cakes (a wedding cake and an amazing grooms cake), make them fabulous as hell, and give it to them for free. And then hug them both, tell them that he loves them, and will give them a small sermon about doing righteousness in all things.
I've said similar.
Originally posted by NemeBro
If you believe that gay sex and marriage are wrong in the eyes of God and that by practicing them that God holds these people in less esteem, then you believe those people are inferior, generally speaking.
I'd say your premises are wrong to begin with and here's why: everyone is sinless and all are "dirty" before God. And we are to forgive all their trespasses and NOT judge.
So even your premise is flawed enough to not make it a theologically sound vis-a-vis Christianity.
This is not a "No True Scotsman Fallacy." Christ was quite clear on this points. No amount of mental gymnastics will get a Christian out of the trouble of contradicting the "all are sinful, forgive all, do not judge one another" teachings.
If at any point a person declares themselves a follower of Christ's teachings and in the next breath, proclaims their superiority over homosexuals, they have fundamentally failed to follow Christ's teachings.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Honestly, Robtard is right. He's clearly homophobic and using his religion as his shield.Sorry, this is not part of Christ's teachings.
If Jesus Christ owned that bakery, he'd make the gay men TWO cakes (a wedding cake and an amazing grooms cake), make them fabulous as hell, and give it to them for free. And then hug them both, tell them that he loves them, and will give them a small sermon about doing righteousness in all things.
Yeah, but that's cuz Jesus is magic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Honestly, Robtard is right. He's clearly homophobic and using his religion as his shield.Sorry, this is not part of Christ's teachings.
If Jesus Christ owned that bakery, he'd make the gay men TWO cakes (a wedding cake and an amazing grooms cake), make them fabulous as hell, and give it to them for free. And then hug them both, tell them that he loves them, and will give them a small sermon about doing righteousness in all things.
Jesus also wouldn't be running around calling people Nazis', racists, homophobes etc.... he'd be reaching out and trying to change their hearts.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Jesus also wouldn't be running around calling people Nazis', racists, homophobes etc.... he'd be reaching out and trying to change their hearts.
Bingo. Jesus would conjure up dictionaries and encyclopedias so they can learn all about what words mean and what actual nazis and fascists did.