
jefferiah
Member-
Posts
2,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by jefferiah
-
Cop , punches child in face and peppersprays her
jefferiah replied to kuzadd's topic in Federal Politics in the United States
The cop told her to pull her pants down? I can tell you one thing, this poor scared 15 year old child could not have been so scared if she were resisting an arrest. Doesn't make sense to me. I think most brave, courageous adults would respect authority rather than try to wrangle with a lawman. So it's my sense that this girl was not so scared, she was pretty brass and bold. -
Cop , punches child in face and peppersprays her
jefferiah replied to kuzadd's topic in Federal Politics in the United States
My brother is a cop. If a juvenile bites him do you want him to say "Thank You, Ma'am". -
Cop , punches child in face and peppersprays her
jefferiah replied to kuzadd's topic in Federal Politics in the United States
I did not watch the video, but if she bit the cop when he was arresting her he has to do something. That's not abuse. She attacked first. By that logic cops would have to remain statue-like if a girl came up and spit on him and smeared bird shit in his face. -
1491, or, Was Pre-European "White Man" America Really
jefferiah replied to jbg's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Great job promoting the book, JBG. Mann and his publisher can thank you. You are responsible for the sale of one copy. And I had to drive a "distance" of 2 hours and 15 minutes to get it. -
"If the colonists keep up their cruelty, we could end up hating them. We can’t wait to see them all on those sailing ships leaving New York harbor going back to where they came from. We’ll stand on the shore and wave good-bye to them." Kahentinetha Horn. Is this one of those intolerances you would allow, Jennie?
-
It's not that we think insults are the best way of communicating Xul, it's that we do not trust any goverment power to have power over our speech. Once you call make exception with insulting and abusive speech you open the door for interpretation. What it insulting and offensive speech, how insulting or offensive must it be within reason in order to make a court case, etc. This gets into relativity. And some people in positions of authority have differing views on the relative abusiveness of certain quotes. Also when you give government the power over speech you grant them the power to abuse hate laws and stretch the boundaries of how insulting something is, in order to silence individuals who make a great case against them. How do you silence reasonable opposition? Dig up something the dissenter has said. An insult, anything bad he has said in his past. (The same way I dug up a statement of Posit's that is undesirable. This was not to destroy his credibility, but to point out that he himself is guilty of the sort of speech he would outlaw, and meanwhile talks about "not punishing others". Even though I never suggested punishing anyone, FYI) And then once the logical dissenter is convicted of hate and labelled a bigot, people will not even pay attention to his logical arguments anymore.....credibility is lost. The government has silenced a person who makes a great case against them. Pass hate laws and you have opened the door for greater totalitarianism. The funny thing about this, is this is the sort of nonsense the old science fiction writers predicted in their tales of a dark future. They looked toward such censorship and they were horrified by its implications. Not that I am saying science fiction is true to life. But at one time when people read such things they would have thought it a terrible future, but not likely to ever happen. Now when some of these things are actually happening, people are convinced it is terrible to oppose it. I know your intentions are the best Xul. I understand what you believe, and how you think it would be great if people were less insulting. But I will leave being nice as an option to be chosen freely by the individual, not to be enforced. Even though you mean well by it, I fully believe this is a dangerous road to go down.
-
What exactly is wonderful about being "Blonde"
jefferiah replied to RB's topic in Moral & Ethical Issues
Blondes are supposed to have more fun. -
Whatever your assessment, his monicker was Posit.
-
Wise man once said: I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her..... IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives. Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk...... The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place..... I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.
-
Well, considering your own argument on the matter Posit. Although I firmly disagree with them You have just nulified your own arguments in favour of making people pay fines or lawsuits for personal insult. With what measure ye mete..........
-
This comedy minute brought to you by Mohawk Nation News
jefferiah replied to noahbody's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Did anyone read the articles on the site about this Red-X fellow who was tortured at Guantanamo (some sage figure) and Miss Kahentinetha Horn apparently got telepathic messages from him all the while this "brave soul" was imprisoned. Apparently the Americans who were torturing this fellow kept squishing his testicles and they would bounce back like silly putty. And they tried to put a chip in his brain. Oh yes and apparently this mysterious Red-X was beheaded when he was 8 years old, at the rez schools no less. But the "third dimension" conveniently sewed his head back on for him. It's all there on the Mohawk Nation News. The Weekly World News may have left us, but we can still get the truth from Miss Horn. And this woman is a University Professor. -
I am replying to my own post so that I can explain it to you. The point I was trying to make is that when you are told not to pass judgement on others, it does not mean you cannot hold a concept of morality. It does not mean you cannot believe that something is a sin. When Jesus referred to judgement in this instance, he was referring to punishment and retribution, or else he would not have used the words "with what measure ye mete". Think about what I am saying Posit. Believing that something is a sin, is not the same as doling out punishment for it. You must have misunderstood what I was saying or else you would not have said this in your last post: "You have absolutely no right to punish "anyone" since you, yourself have fallen short of morality, remember?" I said the very same thing. More than once. But believing that something is sin is not punishing someone for it. Do you understand. And what I am saying is that when Jesus said do not judge others, this does not mean you cannot say something is a sin or is not. It means you have no right to pass judgement on them for sinning, because we are all sinners.
-
re read my posts...I said quite clearly that I am not punishing anyone.
-
You are twisting it, Posit. The fact that I believe that homosexuality is a sin (not just for me but for all) is not the same as imposing it on others. They do not have to agree with me. I am not seeking to making homosexuality subject to criminal punishment. I am just saying I believe it is wrong. If a homosexual hears these words he can either agree or disagree. My having an opinion does not impose anything upon him. Don't you understand that judgement in your quote pertains not to the idea of something being a sin, but to retribution vs mercy. That is why it says "with what measure ye mete". When you mete out judgement on someone it means you punish them. Also with respect to the brother's eyes this would refer to me saying to a sinner "I can cure you of sin" while I am a sinner myself. Physician heal thyself right. It does not mean that there is no such thing as sin. Jesus used the word "sin" many times, and never once did he ever say that he was only using it because he understood that people were entrenched in the philosophy of it. This is your twist Posit.
-
No, but I gave you the Bible quotes you asked for somewhere in this thread. It may have been concerning Bill Whatcott quoting them in a newspaper article, or something. I know very little about Mr. Whatcott, except that he is a Catholic he claims to be an ex-gay prostitute, who now advocates ex-gay philosophy. Whatever he does (if he was gay himself, which he readily admits) I am sure he is not advocating violence. Whether you agree with him or not, I dont think he should have been forced to pay money to people who were offended by his writings. That is frivolous. And any how concerning these biblical passages a Saskatchewan court ruled that they are hate literature. As for Boissoin, the case against him was not pursued by an offended homosexual but by a Uni professor. Homosexuals who made it a point to meet with Boissoin and speak with him have actually spoken in defense of his free speech rights.
-
You got it!
-
If as you suggest there are no morals, then there is no moral high ground.
-
A man has two sons. The father makes the rule in his house that stealing is wrong. On Friday night the elder son steals a few dollars from his father's wallet. On Saturday night younger son does the same. Now both of them know stealing is wrong. If you asked either of them if stealing is wrong would you expect them to say "No!" You claim that if they said "Yes, stealing is a sin." That then they would both be passing judgement on each other. I contend that judgement means in reference to each other, and in reference to retribution as opposed to mercy. On Saturday night after the younger son steals money, the elder says to himself "My brother is stealing. This is wrong. I am going to tell my father that he should punish my brother." He does so and the father calls both sons into his study and speaks to the younger first..."Your brother tells me that you stole from me. You know this is not right. He wants me to make a judgement against you, but what he does not know is that I watched him steal money from me last night." He turns to the older brother and says, "So therefore if I take action against your younger brother I must also take it agains you. Do you still want me to take action against your brother? Or how about I forgive you both?" Then the younger brother perks up a little and says, "So this means as long as the two of us steal that it is ok for us to take your money from your wallet without your permission?." What do you think the father will say? Do you expect he will say "No it is not wrong to steal from my wallet." Balderdash!!! And even if he forgives his sons everytime they do it and foregoes enacting a judgement upon them, it still does not mean that he is saying stealing is not wrong. It means he is merciful. Later the Father asks his sons "Do you understand now that is wrong to steal from me?" If they say "yes" Posit does that mean they are judgemental?
-
I did not make the law that homosexuality is sin. I am just echoing it. I am not calling other people sinners. I am a sinner. Look, if someone were to say adultery is a sin they would not be passing judgement on me, they would be echoing a law they did not create. Perhaps they also committed adultery. If they were to say so and so is a sinner, but I am not a sinner, that is self-righteousness. But having a moral law is not self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is not a belief in the existence of sin and morality. Self-righteousness is a belief that you yourself are righteous while everyone else is a sinner. The laws God made are not my judgements. How can you not understand this?
-
When he told the Adulteress to sin no more, he did not ask her first if she considered adultery to be a sin. And he firmly stated that he never came to change the law. Recognizing or believing that something is wrong does not mean that you believe that you are better than a person who does, or that you are in any way morally superior.
-
Citation please? Forgiveness of sin would have been blasphemy because of the fact that it equated him with God.
-
What is wrong with this, Tbud? There is no such thing as an attractive blonde?
-
I am a Catholic? That's news to me.
-
He said no such thing. He spoke of sin often. He gave a warning about teaching little ones to sin. He told the adulteress to sin no more. You are confusing this with his call not to pass judgement on others. Calling something a sin is not passing judgement on someone. When they asked Jesus about stoning the adulteress for her sin he never said "Sin does not exist." What he said was "Let him without sin cast the first stone." The Pharisees were right they she was a sinner. Being judgemental is not having a moral standard, it is when you say that you are better than someone else. Remember the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like all the horrible people out there. But the tax collector asked God for mercy because he was a sinner. And it was the tax collector who was commended in the story. And he had to believe in sin in order to believe he was a sinner. Now believing that homosexuality is a sin is not judgemental. I believe that adultery is a sin as well. I have committed it. So if a person who is also a sinner but not an adulterer were to say "adultery is a sin" he is not passing judgement on me. He is merely echoing the law, which he did not create. If he were to say that I am a horrible person while he is not, then he would be making a judgement about me in reference to himself. I said I believed homosexuality was a sin, but I never said that I thought of myself as morally better than any homosexual.
-
What exactly is wonderful about being "Blonde"
jefferiah replied to RB's topic in Moral & Ethical Issues
Ive tried tooth whitening with those strips. The oral B ones though, not Crest. I don't know which is better. I think dark skin is very attractive. Despite all the so-called skin whitening there seems to be a lot of dark skinned people in the world. And there a lot of white people who suntan too.