Originally posted by googlefudgeI disagree with you completely. I don't see how banning what googlefudge finds over the bounds of what is acceptable is to anyone's benefit here. I don't want you to get to decide what I cannot read and what views I am not allowed to be exposed to. Dasa got a ban for his genocide thread from the site's owners but then allowed full and frank discussion of Dasa's views. I think his views being aired and confronted - and held up to ridicule - is far more instructive than having them proscribed. He hasn't written an OP that warranted a ban since the 19th December one, in my opinion. I don't want the likes of you taking it upon yourself to 'protect' me in any way from someone else's expression of their "bigotry".
I tolerate a diversity of opinion's and beliefs [note tolerate, not agree with],
but not intolerance or bigotry.
Advocating genocide is soo way far over the bounds of what is acceptable
that I can't accept anything short of a total life ban (from a chess site forum ffs)
is acceptable.
Now on present form I don't see the mods on this site do sa crosses those boundaries and does so repeatedly.
And that I can't and wont tolerate.
12 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by deennyWho said anything about need?
Explain to me again why a true religion would need man law to support it. Well done on yet another great tread
Governments make laws and they will definitely make some kind of law regarding religion which they have done and is now in their constitution.......but I am saying what they have come up with fails as a law and a new law must be presented, and for their benefit (not mine)
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt sounds similar to the Muslim idea of worldwide Shira Law, doesn't it?
" The Commonwealth will not allow any religion to operate that does not have its roots in the eternal truths of the one true eternal religion, and shall not impose any restrictions to the expression of these truths accept that they shall only be interpreted for the benefit of the community by qualified pure and enlightened men, and in which case these chara ...[text shortened]... ractice their dishonest ways once this little law gets approved in his fictitious state.
12 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe difference is that I am right. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
and this post of yours is wrong.
i don't seem to dislike his persona and disagree with what he says.
i obviously don't like his persona and i obviously disagree with some of the things he says. i don't mind his vedic religion or something, i admit i am ignorant when it comes to it. it has some good ideas, many of which are found in christianity.
g hate here (well that was until rj spoke so fondly of muslims, but lets not dwell on that).
P.S. I know, someone is thinking he proved himself a liar again. But I'm not worried, I'm happy.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357I agree there are already far too many here using the Bible as a surrogate for God.
I'm thinking theistic solipsism is at play here -- with the Bible as surrogate for God.
These are the literalists, those who think any discussion is meaningless unless you can produce scripture to back it up. They are the logjams to intelligent discourse when they say (as they always do) "where's the scripture that says that"?
Yes, there are too many here who worship the Bible as their Lord. Not only are they missing this point entirely, but many of them also say "follow the Christ" and yet have trouble following the more obvious commandments such as to show love for our Christian brothers, because they're way too busy beating others over the head with their "follow the Christ" orders they can't see their own failing in this regard.
No, I'm not naming names. They know who they are. After all, if they can see the splinter in their brother's eye, how can they not see the beam in their own eye?
/soapbox off
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe post I thought sounded eerily like Sharia Law was this quote from googlefudge:
It sounds similar to the Muslim idea of worldwide Shira Law, doesn't it?
I tolerate a diversity of opinion's and beliefs [note tolerate, not agree with],And yet, he thinks religion is the only source of evil in the world. Take this quote another step and mayhem ensues.
but not intolerance or bigotry.
Advocating genocide is soo way far over the bounds of what is acceptable
that I can't accept anything short of a total life ban (from a chess site forum ffs)
is acceptable.
There are as many forms of what is "soo way far over the bounds of what is acceptable" as there are people. That is why is it more important than ever just who comes to power, not only in the USA, but in the world. Strangely, the answer is also in this quote: tolerance. We just need a bit more of it sometimes.
12 Apr 12
well my two pence worth is that though I have no time to waste on the likes of dasa...there is another poster on these boards who is far more worthy of a ban; and from the looks of things this cretin isn't going anywhere. the one thing going for dasa is that his stupid posts might encourage more enlightened hindus to correct our tainted picture of hinduism, or enlightened muslims to step up and defend their religion (both to the detriment of the christian monopoly here)
No such positive side to rjhinds bile though.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by DasaYou are the one saying a new law must be presented. Why is there a need for a new law to be presented.
Who said anything about need?
Governments make laws and they will definitely make some kind of law regarding religion which they have done and is now in their constitution.......but I am saying what they have come up with fails as a law and a new law must be presented, and for their benefit (not mine)
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat was my point about the religion of the Dreamtime. Once the provision that Dasa promotes is in place, the fun begins on which religion will be enforced. And "enforced" is not too strong a word, as history shows.
It sounds similar to the Muslim idea of worldwide Shira Law, doesn't it?
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat you refuse to accept a piece of scientific information is not, in and of itself, an 'argument', nor does it actually affect the validity of the scientific information in question.
That is only speculation and opinion [that Aborigines reached the Australian land mass about 45,000 years ago]. You do understand that opinion is not
proof of scientific facts don't you?
You seem to view your own refusal to accept certain items of knowledge as "proof" of something. In actual fact, this internal struggle that you appear to experience (a.k.a. cognitive dissonance) is, for all intents and purposes, simply you opting out of any informed discussion of the topic at hand.
Your rejection of the scientific facts surrounding the migration of the Aborigines to Australia is - in reality - about your own intellectual and emotional needs, about your self-worth, the way you perceive, define and assert yourself, and not about the Aborigines at all.
13 Apr 12
Originally posted by SuzianneYeah but when a non-theist brings up a scripture like the one that says a woman is worth 35 sheckels but a man is worth 50, that kind of scripture is poo poo'd:
I agree there are already far too many here using the Bible as a surrogate for God.
These are the literalists, those who think any discussion is meaningless unless you can produce scripture to back it up. They are the logjams to intelligent discourse when they say (as they always do) "where's the scripture that says that"?
Yes, there are too many her ...[text shortened]... their brother's eye, how can they not see the beam in their own eye?
/soapbox off
Mosaic law was given up 2000 years ago was one reply. So it is more than just using scripture, it has to be the NT only. So they get to cherry pick what scripture to base their delusions on.
13 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFneither will it convince you to actually debate with me apparently.
A tortured analogy with "serial rape" is not going to convince me that Dasa merits a ban for this OP.
you keep going on and on about this post. he shouldn't be banned for this post, he should be banned because after all his other posts, instead of calming himself down and stop spewing hate towards anyone not like him, he keeps going and posts this thread.
unless he is absolutely retarded, he learned his lesson and will never post "kill muslims" threads. so you would be content to let him spam us with minor hate, just because taken individually, they are not quite "hitler evil".