A forum, like this one, is supposed to be made up of intelligent discussion.
I make a long post with various points and you answer
Quote:
I'm sorry, but that's just total BS from start to finish.
Please explain to me how answering a long post with the above, without giving any reasoning how you came to that conclusion, can qualify as 'intelligent discussion'. Where is the 'discussion', never mind about 'intelligent'.
I make a long post with various points and you answer
Please explain to me how answering a long post with the above, without giving any reasoning how you came to that conclusion, can qualify as 'intelligent discussion'. Where is the 'discussion', never mind about 'intelligent'.
Because it was a simple explanation of what you said. You want to talk film? You want to talk literature? Fine. But what you said was simple BS. Sorry, but it was. I could take it apart fifty ways to Sunday. But do I really need to? It's bullshit. You want to be a NAZI, then go ahead. Be one.
Cook would tell Quakers that they need to pick up an M-16 and go and kill people, denying their historical rights around the world , their right to conscientious objection.
The idea of religion based conscientious objection has existed since the incorporation of forced military service but was not officially recognized until the twentieth century, when it was gradually recognized as a fundamental <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_right" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Human right">human right</a> as a part of the freedom of conscience.
?Sorry Tim, a lot of people love you but we don't sanction that you can every be 'married' since man on man, man on boy, men on dogs, one man and 10 women, are just something that a lot of us do not feel is normal human behavior, and as such, should not be encouraged, read your bible, and accept the wisdom therein. Tim, do you believe the idea that just because you 'love' ten people you could marry all of them?
When you are forced to do something against your <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">beliefs you will understand. Popular opinion, and laws do not make something morally correct, just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.</span>
I've been in the slammer for a year but this new apple insider website comment function is a little difficult to navigate. I'm glad my Apple stock did well while I was away.
Why do you refuse to believe that groups of humans who for MANY thousands of years lived apart (enough to physically evolve differently), can possibly have different intelligence?
You don't think it is possible? We can do it today. Take 1 group of low IQ people and put them on a deserted island. Take another group of high IQ and put them on a different island. In 1000 years give an IQ test to everybody. I'm positive the low IQ group would still be low IQ (if not starved to death), and the high IQ would still be high IQ (if still there; without having to deal with the dumbasses they may be on another planet).
Excellent point, although it is happening right now! The lower IQ individuals are in Indiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, and other "Red" states. You know, the states that are bleeding money and taking in more Federal tax revenue than they pay in. Meanwhile, the high IQ individuals live in NY, CA, MA, etc and have the high-functioning economies and end up paying much more in Federal taxes than they get back, providing welfare the the Red states with lower IQs.
The current generation has evidently forgotten an important component of freedom of speech and instead favors groupthink.
People used to say and understand the following: I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Totally agree. That pretty much makes the case against denying service to someone based on sexual orientation. Whether nature or choice, gay marriage is certainly free expression. To deny to bake someone a cake simply because you disagree with him/her is contrary to American principles.
Totally agree. That pretty much makes the case against denying service to someone based on sexual orientation. Whether nature or choice, gay marriage is certainly free expression. To deny to bake someone a cake simply because you disagree with him/her is contrary to American principles.
You've got it backwards. There's a big difference between recognizing someone's right to do or say something, and being forced to participate in it. Those who would force a baker to cater a gay wedding are the ones not respecting that baker's right to just be left to his/her own beliefs. He's not showing up to their weddings and telling them they can't do it, he's just asking to be excluded from having to be part of putting it together.
You've got it backwards. There's a big difference between recognizing someone's right to do or say something, and being forced to participate in it. Those who would force a baker to cater a gay wedding are the ones not respecting that baker's right to just be left to his/her own beliefs. He's not showing up to their weddings and telling them they can't do it, he's just asking to be excluded from having to be part of putting it together.
I'm afraid you're the one who has it backwards. If your business is baking cakes, you should provide the service to all law-abiding citizens who can pay for it. The baker is no more participating in gay marriage than he is participating in a straight marriage- is the baker somehow condoning divorce and remarriage (forbidden in the Christian bible) if he bakes a cake for a 2nd marriage? Is he condoning everything that takes place in a straight marriage? Will he only make cakes for born again Christians?
Don't give me the crap about Westboro baptist church asking for a cake saying "God hates f*gs" or something. If a baker would not print that on any cake, then he doesn't have to put it on their cake. Likewise for obscene words, etc. The only question is whether the baker is treating different groups of people differently. If so, that is dicrimination and, to the point, not defending the rights of folks with whom you disagree.
Does Apple CEO Tim Cook Know that Steve Jobs was Unwanted, and had the left had Abortion at will in place, at that time, there would be no Apple, Or had it been in place in 1961, No Obama Care? Destroying the family will have consaquences!
Comments
Wrong.
A forum, like this one, is supposed to be made up of intelligent discussion.
I make a long post with various points and you answer
Please explain to me how answering a long post with the above, without giving any reasoning how you came to that conclusion, can qualify as 'intelligent discussion'. Where is the 'discussion', never mind about 'intelligent'.
I make a long post with various points and you answer
Please explain to me how answering a long post with the above, without giving any reasoning how you came to that conclusion, can qualify as 'intelligent discussion'. Where is the 'discussion', never mind about 'intelligent'.
Because it was a simple explanation of what you said. You want to talk film? You want to talk literature? Fine. But what you said was simple BS. Sorry, but it was. I could take it apart fifty ways to Sunday. But do I really need to? It's bullshit. You want to be a NAZI, then go ahead. Be one.
Excellent point, although it is happening right now! The lower IQ individuals are in Indiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, and other "Red" states. You know, the states that are bleeding money and taking in more Federal tax revenue than they pay in. Meanwhile, the high IQ individuals live in NY, CA, MA, etc and have the high-functioning economies and end up paying much more in Federal taxes than they get back, providing welfare the the Red states with lower IQs.
People used to say and understand the following: I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
The current generation has evidently forgotten an important component of freedom of speech and instead favors groupthink.
People used to say and understand the following: I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
I still say it, FWIW.
Totally agree. That pretty much makes the case against denying service to someone based on sexual orientation. Whether nature or choice, gay marriage is certainly free expression. To deny to bake someone a cake simply because you disagree with him/her is contrary to American principles.
You've got it backwards. There's a big difference between recognizing someone's right to do or say something, and being forced to participate in it. Those who would force a baker to cater a gay wedding are the ones not respecting that baker's right to just be left to his/her own beliefs. He's not showing up to their weddings and telling them they can't do it, he's just asking to be excluded from having to be part of putting it together.
I'm afraid you're the one who has it backwards. If your business is baking cakes, you should provide the service to all law-abiding citizens who can pay for it. The baker is no more participating in gay marriage than he is participating in a straight marriage- is the baker somehow condoning divorce and remarriage (forbidden in the Christian bible) if he bakes a cake for a 2nd marriage? Is he condoning everything that takes place in a straight marriage? Will he only make cakes for born again Christians?
Don't give me the crap about Westboro baptist church asking for a cake saying "God hates f*gs" or something. If a baker would not print that on any cake, then he doesn't have to put it on their cake. Likewise for obscene words, etc. The only question is whether the baker is treating different groups of people differently. If so, that is dicrimination and, to the point, not defending the rights of folks with whom you disagree.
Does Apple CEO Tim Cook Know that Steve Jobs was Unwanted, and had the left had Abortion at will in place, at that time, there would be no Apple, Or had it been in place in 1961, No Obama Care? Destroying the family will have consaquences!