Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

[ LONG ] Make America Great Again, just like it was in 1957.

Page 6 of 10 [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Sep 2020, 1:30 pm

Yes, I have seen right wing people call people racist who point out racial issues and systematic racism. They are either in denial or are racist themselves so they do the reverse thing. It's like when I have called creepy men out on their inappropriate behavior and they go "No you are the one that is being the pig" after I had told them they were being one.

This happens in everything. Tell an a**hole they are being an a**hole, they will throw it right back at ya saying you are the one who is the a**hole, not them.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

25 Sep 2020, 1:36 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Preaching the gospel offends people but it's God's will and can save their souls so I won't stop loving my neighbors. That includes ALL of them including those in the liberal categories, real or imagined, that you mentioned above.


Preaching bigotry will earn you the contempt of decent people and seems like a very creative reinterpretation of 'loving your neighbours'.


Calling someone a bigot is like calling a black person the N-word. It's a slur liberals use to attack people who don't embrace their radical ideology. For example, Obama said in 2008 while running for president, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." Most Democrats agreed. Now, just 12 years later they reversed their position and claim Trump and his supporters are bigots for believing what Obama and most Democrats believed 12 years ago.

Being a "bigot" has never earned me contempt from any decent people. I'm a deplorable bigot, racist, and misogynist (according to radical liberals) and proud of it because it means I'm not a follower who goes along with their ever changing ideology. It means I think for myself and don't arrogantly believe I'm better than everyone else throughout history because I blindly adopted the latest fad. It means I don't look down on the rest of the world and ignore their arguments because they disagree with my ideology.


So you are afraid to change with the times...? I mean you literally think woman's place is marriage and children or work for the church. Of course liberals are going to disagree with that. I am not interested in having kids and I certainly don't want to work in a church. We have freedom of religion, in this country so I should not have to follow your religious rules under any circumstance plus that would be against my religion the way I see it so there.


I love change and always welcome new ideas. The reason people's beliefs on certain issues remained unchanged for thousands of years is because people used their brains and concluded that's what was best. For example, President Obama declared in 2008 that marriage should be between a man and a woman, not because he was opposed to change, but because he examined the evidence and concluded that's what was best. That didn't make Obama a bigot or someone who was afraid to change (especially since he's since caved to political pressure).

Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion. Many religious laws are based on natural law (what people should know based on their conscience) such as the prohibition against murder and theft. Why should I and other people who aren't liberals be forced to follow your religious rules? 21st century radical liberalism has basically become a religion that attacks, looks down, boycotts, protests, and cancels people who commit a "sin" according to radical liberal ideology.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 1:45 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
... Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion...
Wrong.

No one should have to put up with unwanted proselytization.  Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Sep 2020, 1:49 pm

About capitals punishment, it has also become split in our country. Many people are against it and many people are for it. So lot of US states have it but they don't use it. Washington state finally abolished theirs in 2018 and it made worldwide news because even my friend in Sweden heard about it and BBC news had it too in their news coverage.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 1:51 pm

League_Girl wrote:
About capitals punishment, it has also become split in our country. Many people are against it and many people are for it. So lot of US states have it but they don't use it. Washington state finally abolished theirs in 2018 and it made worldwide news because even my friend in Sweden heard about it and BBC news had it too in their news coverage.
Our justice system should be about rehabilitation, not revenge.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Steve1963
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: western MA, USA

25 Sep 2020, 1:52 pm

Fnord wrote:
Our justice system should be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
I agree with this statement for the most part, but there are extreme cases where revenge is necessary.



emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

25 Sep 2020, 1:53 pm

Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
... Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion...
Wrong.

No one should have to put up with unwanted proselytization.


I can't turn on my TV without hearing liberals proselytizing. I've been forced to stop watching sports because I'm not willing to listen to it.

Quote:
Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.


What you call progress, I call regression. I'd love to undo all that "progress" by people who weren't religious.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 1:56 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
... Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion...
Wrong.  No one should have to put up with unwanted proselytization.
I can't turn on my TV without hearing liberals proselytizing. I've been forced to stop watching sports because I'm not willing to listen to it.
No, you have chosen to stop watching sports because you find opposing viewpoints unpleasant.

It's all about personal choice.
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
What you call progress, I call regression. I'd love to undo all that "progress" by people who weren't religious.
And just what methods would you employ to go about doing that?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 2:01 pm

Steve1963 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Our justice system should be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
I agree with this statement for the most part, but there are extreme cases where revenge is necessary.
Under 1950s mentality, yes.

Today, however, the only necessary 'revenge' is to deny freedom to heinous criminals for life, even if it means solitary confinement with little or not contact with other humans.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Sep 2020, 2:06 pm

Fnord wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
About capitals punishment, it has also become split in our country. Many people are against it and many people are for it. So lot of US states have it but they don't use it. Washington state finally abolished theirs in 2018 and it made worldwide news because even my friend in Sweden heard about it and BBC news had it too in their news coverage.
Our justice system should be about rehabilitation, not revenge.



My mom once gave me a amusing idea when I was 14 that instead of killing people and locking them away for life, we give them amnesia instead so they become different people and they live different lives. Instead of being given a life sentence or death, they are sentence to having amnesia. That means their memories get wiped out and they have to start over and form their own personality again.

I wonder how many people would be opposed to this. I wouldn't be surprised because even people with dementia are still on the naughty list and still get executed, it doesn't matter if they no longer remember their crimes or are not capable of committing a crime again or if that part of them has already died from the disease. I remember when California executed that man in 2006 and it struck controversary and he made it in the media in all news sources because of his state of mind and his health was declined and he couldn't walk or see so there was no way he could commit another murder. California has not done another execution since.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

25 Sep 2020, 2:09 pm

Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
... Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion...
Wrong.  No one should have to put up with unwanted proselytization.
I can't turn on my TV without hearing liberals proselytizing. I've been forced to stop watching sports because I'm not willing to listen to it.
No, you have chosen to stop watching sports because you find opposing viewpoints unpleasant.


Would you watch TV if they bombarded you with opposing views on those topics (ones you'd consider racist, homophobic, and misogynist)?


Fnord wrote:
It's all about personal choice.


Does that mean you support freedom of speech even if you don't agree with it or just the "choice" to agree with you?


Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
What you call progress, I call regression. I'd love to undo all that "progress" by people who weren't religious.
And just what methods would you employ to go about doing that?


Since I live in a somewhat democratic country, I'd vote for politicians who agree with traditional values.



envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,226
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

25 Sep 2020, 2:14 pm

How traditional? Denying women the vote? Denying certain Americans the same rights as others enjoy, so that some are more equal than others?


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 2:19 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
... Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion...
Wrong.  No one should have to put up with unwanted proselytization.
I can't turn on my TV without hearing liberals proselytizing. I've been forced to stop watching sports because I'm not willing to listen to it.
No, you have chosen to stop watching sports because you find opposing viewpoints unpleasant.
Would you watch TV if they bombarded you with opposing views on those topics (ones you'd consider racist, homophobic, and misogynist)?
Yes, and I often do, if only to find out what the 'opposition' is saying and why they are saying it.  I might even end up agreeing with them (although I doubt that).
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It's all about personal choice.
Does that mean you support freedom of speech even if you don't agree with it or just the "choice" to agree with you?
While I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
What you call progress, I call regression. I'd love to undo all that "progress" by people who weren't religious.
And just what methods would you employ to go about doing that?
Since I live in a somewhat democratic country, I'd vote for politicians who agree with traditional values.
While I will vote for those politicians and propositions that support freedom from tyrants and their primitive ideologies.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 2:23 pm

envirozentinel wrote:
How traditional? Denying women the vote? Denying certain Americans the same rights as others enjoy, so that some are more equal than others?
It sure seems that way...
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Besides, the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.  In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been the non-religious, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.[/color]
What you call progress, I call regression. I'd love to undo all that "progress" by people who weren't religious.
What he call "regression" include prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, the abolition of capital punishment, women's right to vote, death with dignity for the terminally ill, and the right to choose contraception, sterilization, and abortion.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

25 Sep 2020, 2:25 pm

envirozentinel wrote:
How traditional? Denying women the vote? Denying certain Americans the same rights as others enjoy, so that some are more equal than others?


I feel like some people here are trying to get me banned because I don't agree with their opinions. Why ask me if I disagree with women being given the privilege to vote if the rules don't allow anyone to disagree with the forum owner's opinion on this topic? I'll just say I believe God created both genders and I don't think God only giving women the ability to have children means He considers women "more equal" than men. That's not proselytizing. I'm just answering a question.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

25 Sep 2020, 2:30 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
envirozentinel wrote:
How traditional? Denying women the vote? Denying certain Americans the same rights as others enjoy, so that some are more equal than others?
I feel like some people here are trying to get me banned because I don't agree with their opinions. Why ask me if I disagree with women being given the privilege to vote if the rules don't allow anyone to disagree with the forum owner's opinion on this topic? I'll just say I believe God created both genders and I don't think God only giving women the ability to have children means He considers women "more equal" than men. That's not proselytizing. I'm just answering a question.
You are only repeating what you have been taught to believe.

Unfortunately, what you have been taught are largely racist, sexist, and homophobic ideologies, much as what dominated Western thought in the 1950s.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.