The new face of hate

[jennie]

Try me!

I believe leprechauns are adorable flaming little homosexuals.

[jefferiah]

Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating.

Believing and stating publicly are two different things.

Some things are just in bad taste in public.

Believe me ... there are things that I believe that I do not state publicly ... here ... to offend.

I am sure you do to.

That's just the way it works.

And I am not responding to any more made up scenarios. Get some life experience.

And as for your parents ... as far as you are concerned as a minor, they are the law.

I am not a minor. And this was when I was twenty. I am 26 now and I no longer smoke pot. Believing and stating things publically are two different things, this is true. For instance, even though I believe homosexuality is wrong I may not always choose to say that. I don't feel the need to say "hey homosexuality is wrong" when I see a homosexual. But if he were to ask me I would give him my honest answer. So I understand completely that you do not say everything publically in order to prevent offense. Well, that is your choice, and I completely understand it. And yes we all do that to some degree. But just because you and I choose to do so or consider it indecent in some situations does not mean that it is a crime to do otherwise. People have a right to express their opinions. If their opinion is not one you like, you can ignore it, but it does not infringe upon your own rights, no one has to agree with you or silence their own opinions for someone else. It is not someone else's right to demand that another person not speak his mind.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. And therefore to you I am a criminal, because I have said it.

What do you mean not responding to "any more" made up scenarios? YOu haven't even responded to the single one that I gave you.

You don't believe that people make denigrating comments about white people perhaps? And this is what you mean by made up? I am not sure. But if so, then you need to get a little more life experience yourself, Jennie. And if you support a lawsuit one way, it would be racist to not support it when a white person is offended.

So which is it Jennie?

[jennie]

I am not a minor. And this was when I was twenty. I am 26 now and I no longer smoke pot. Believing and stating things publically are two different things, this is true. For instance, even though I believe homosexuality is wrong I may not always choose to say that. I don't feel the need to say "hey homosexuality is wrong" when I see a homosexual. But if he were to ask me I would give him my honest answer. So I understand completely that you do not say everything publically in order to prevent offense. Well, that is your choice, and I completely understand it. And yes we all do that to some degree. But just because you and I choose to do so or consider it indecent in some situations does not mean that it is a crime to do otherwise. People have a right to express their opinions. If their opinion is not one you like, you can ignore it, but it does not infringe upon your own rights, no one has to agree with you or silence their own opinions for someone else. It is not someone else's right to demand that another person not speak his mind.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. And therefore to you I am a criminal, because I have said it.

What do you mean not responding to "any more" made up scenarios? YOu haven't even responded to the single one that I gave you.

You don't believe that people make denigrating comments about white people perhaps? And this is what you mean by made up? I am not sure. But if so, then you need to get a little more life experience yourself, Jennie. And if you support a lawsuit one way, it would be racist to not support it when a white person is offended.

So which is it Jennie?

I would support anyone's right to a lawsuit. 'Due process' is a right.

In the real case under discussion, the man was running for public office and he said it to the media.

It was pretty obviously public and offensive to people. The majority seemed offended since voters deserted him.

The lawsuit tells the tale.

[jefferiah]

I would support anyone's right to a lawsuit. 'Due process' is a right.

In the real case under discussion, the man was running for public office and he said it to the media.

It was pretty obviously public and offensive to people. The majority seemed offended since voters deserted him.

The lawsuit tells the tale.

Ah, see you have just uncovered one of the great aspects of free speech Jennie. If he had said blacks are ugly and stupid, would you have voted for him? But lets say there were a law in place which said "Anyone who says the words "Blacks are ugly and stupid" shall be subjected to fines of 20,000 dollars, he might not have said it. And perhaps you would have elected a man who thinks blacks are ugly and stupid.

By support Jennie, I meant would you be in favour of the plaintive's case? Would you hope that a white person would collect cash in the end if indeed a person had made denigrating comments about white people? I am sure you were quite aware of what I meant though. You are still dancing around the question Jennie.

Lets put it this way then:

A white person is offended by comments that denigrate white people. The comments were made by a person in "public". They are pretty much equal to the ferocity of other comments you have said should require fines or payment. You are on the bench Jennie. Will you rule in the white man's favour?

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Ah, see you have just uncovered one of the great aspects of free speech Jennie. If he had said blacks are ugly and stupid, would you have voted for him? But lets say there were a law in place which said "Anyone who says the words "Blacks are ugly and stupid" shall be subjected to fines of 20,000 dollars, he might not have said it. And perhaps you would have elected a man who thinks blacks are ugly and stupid.

By support Jennie, I meant would you be in favour of the plaintive's case? Would you hope that a white person would collect cash in the end if indeed a person had made denigrating comments about white people? I am sure you were quite aware of what I meant though. You are still dancing around the question Jennie.

Lets put it this way then:

A white person is offended by comments that denigrate white people. The comments were made by a person in "public". They are pretty much equal to the ferocity of other comments you have said should require fines or payment. You are on the bench Jennie. Will you rule in the white man's favour?

jefferiah ... you are still very young.

I don't concern myself about things that haven't happened.

Find something real.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

If I'm not mistaken, eating pork is not considered a "sin" to Muslim, but it is a law with which they guide themselves.

It's a law with which to guide themselves to a couple thousand bucks, anyway.

[jefferiah]

jefferiah ... you are still very young.

I don't concern myself about things that haven't happened.

Find something real.

They have happened Jennie. You are a racist if you believe that only white people can be racist.

so come on Jennie, quit avoiding a simple question....

And your get some experience argument has no merit and does nothing to change the fact that for some reason you cannot answer this question:

You are a judge presiding over a case in which a white person is suing the defendant for pain and suffering caused by comments the defendant made which denigrate white people......will you rule in the white person's favour if he can show that indeed the comments were made?

You are cornered Jennie. One has to wonder why you keep pleading the fifth on this one.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[kengs333]

Perfect example huh?

Your response to my previous post is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

In reality there is no sin and there is no evil.

To you, yes, because you have accepted its normalization. To you some degenerate who violates and abuses a four year-old girl is simply a criminal who needs to be caught and punished. I see him as much more. He is a person who has sinned, he is evil. Had he from his earliest days been imbued with a desire not to sin, not to follow evil, he likely would not have turned out this way. We used to live in a society where the vast majority of people were strongly Christian; if you look at the rates of crime back then, the sense of community and neighbourliness that once existed, well, that has largely disappeared. I'm not saying that things used to be perfect, especially in crowded urban areas, but it certainly was a lot better than it is today. But that's what we get when evil and sin are normalized, when we get a majority of people to think along your lines.

[jefferiah]

If I'm not mistaken, eating pork is not considered a "sin" to Muslim, but it is a law with which they guide themselves.

Lol. No officer this is not an open liquor bottle, its a glass container with old grape juice inside.

[jefferiah]

jefferiah ... you are still very young.

I don't concern myself about things that haven't happened.

Find something real.

I dont buy this excuse, I dont think anyone else does, and I dont think you do either.

[Visionseeker]

Jefferiah,

You might have missed my question, but which passage in the bible (re: homosexuality) was condemned by the courts?

[jennie]

I dont buy this excuse, I dont think anyone else does, and I dont think you do either.

I am too old and wise to care.

[jennie]

They have happened Jennie.

link please

[jennie]

Lol. No officer this is not an open liquor bottle, its a glass container with old grape juice inside.

Excuse me?

Denigrating another's religion are we?

Now what's that Golden rule?

[jefferiah]

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

I Corinthians 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

and of course the much harsher

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I know this is harsh but nonetheless it is part of the Bible and no one adheres to it. Levitical law would have each of us put to death.

[jefferiah]

Excuse me?

Denigrating another's religion are we?

Now what's that Golden rule?

Once again you are off base with this accusation. I was not denigrating another's religion, I was making this as a comparison to Posit's own semantics about sin and a law with which to guide themselves. Use your noggin Jennie.

This was not directed at any Muslim or intended to put out the idea that believing pork is unclean is silly. Re-read the posts surrounding this one, and then think.

Posit said that pork eating is not sin, but it is a law with which to guide themselves.

So I was not making fun of Islam, I was poking fun at Posit's semantics.

I compared his statement to the statement:

"No officer, its not an open liquor bottle, its a glass container with old grape juice inside."

I was not using this statement to parallel anything in Islam.

Do you understand Jennie?

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Posit himself used the word law. And the definition of sin is a transgression of law. So therefore if this is a law, then to eat pork would by defintion be a sin.

[jefferiah]

Now back to you Jennie

Would you rule in favour of a white man who was offended by denigrating comments about white people made by the defendant in a case in your court, if he could prove that the offending comments were made and all that?

[Posit]

Your response to my previous post is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

To you, yes, because you have accepted its normalization. To you some degenerate who violates and abuses a four year-old girl is simply a criminal who needs to be caught and punished. I see him as much more. He is a person who has sinned, he is evil. Had he from his earliest days been imbued with a desire not to sin, not to follow evil, he likely would not have turned out this way. We used to live in a society where the vast majority of people were strongly Christian; if you look at the rates of crime back then, the sense of community and neighbourliness that once existed, well, that has largely disappeared. I'm not saying that things used to be perfect, especially in crowded urban areas, but it certainly was a lot better than it is today. But that's what we get when evil and sin are normalized, when we get a majority of people to think along your lines.

Ok, so lets put this into a modern context and the example you provided.

It is well known that many priests and ministers in our society have molested children, adulterated with people in the congregation, committed theft and some are alcoholics and drug addicts. Yet the Church (pick one denomination) having known about the problem cleric allowed the priests and ministers to continue to preach, and in some of the most heinous cases relocated them to other districts to continue. The Churhc hide the crimes and refused to involve the law to prosecute many of these people.

If in fact these people are evil and have sinned, then what about all of the millions of people they ministered to? If the men were evil and if the men (and women in some cases) were sinners then could they still minister in a way consistent with the Bible? Or would they not be passing on evil in their messages since according to the Bible Satan works through deception and in mysterious ways?

The wost of evil in our most recent memory has been Hitler and his creation of the Holocaust. Yet in the 60 million he slaughtered with no mercy, there was lots of good that came of it. We now have vaccines and medical knowledge that advanced us as society and in the end has probably saved hundreds of millions more people around the world. We have jets and nuclear technologies that came out of that war. We have distribution networks and have allies with nations we would not ever have had we remained out of the war. In no way am I suggesting that the end justifies the means but that what we perceive has evil, or perceive as sin is nothing more than a personal judgment being erroneously applied to others. It has no place in society and was dispelled by Jesus as coming from God.

I suggest that we are on a path were each one we meet makes a contribution to our lives, our memories and our life experiences. Some will stand out more than others but no one is less important. If you cloud your mind and consume your thoughts with self-victimization, and outward condemnations, then you will be bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, and instead of moving forward and evolving you will not only delay your evolution and personal growth but your will stunt others around you as well, since you are part of their growth and advancement and they cannot leave you behind.

[mikedavid00]

'Due process' is a right.

I don't believe in due process.

Let's deport right now!

[mikedavid00]

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Various interpretations of Leviticus 20:13:

Conservative Christians generally interpret the passage as condemning all male homosexual activity. Some would extend it to lesbians as well. A comment on the capital punishment aspect of this passage by an Evangelical authority is: T.Crater: stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel, which also set up a civil state and decreed its laws. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is an agreement "between God and a multinational body called the church. It is not a state, so it doesn't engage in state functions like capital punishment." 2 Thus, the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer binding for Christians.

[Argus]

Anti-hatred law does not merely act against the white or majority racists, it can also act against minority racism. Just suppose, those MilkDavid said was truth. There was a company, in a department the manager and most menbers are "minority" and coincidentally those guys all are anti-white racist. So they bond together to boycott MilkDavid. Why wouldn't he have the right to use law against these guys without resign for a new job?

I'm afraid that Xul evidences two types of behaviour common among immigrants. The first was discussed earlier in this thread - a low literacy level. The second is a distressing willingness to submit to laws which, to their minds, restrain improper behavior or speech. I have found that immigrants do not share the same respect for freedom of speech in particular, as Canadians do. Immigrants feel that THEIR speech should be free, but whenever they hear someone saying things which really goes against the grain they are outraged and want it stopped. Much like the Left, really.

[Argus]

Yes I can, and I do ... and I think we are close to something here ...

When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society.

I don't think they demand that "everyone must condone it". No, you don't have to do that. You can believe it is wrong for you ... and the vast majority of men are not gay. ... and for everyone else if you insist, in private, but you cannot disdain same-sex families publicly

\

I disdain almost everything publicly. Why should homosexuals be protected? Are they going to burst into tears if I mock them?

Our society, through our laws, demands that the few men and women who gay/lesbian must not be publicly disrespected.

It says nothing of the sort. Haven't you gotten far enough in school yet to take anything related to law?

[Argus]

I would support anyone's right to a lawsuit. 'Due process' is a right.

If it is a right it is a right which has been absent in Canada for decades now. The law is for the rich. For corporations and governments.

[Argus]

jefferiah ... you are still very young.

It's interesting you should say that. Reading your posts, my impression of you is someone still in their teens or early twenties with very little life experience, a wide-eyed naive person who, like the young often do, sees very simple and obvious solutions to everything because their minds are incapable of understanding the complexities involved. As such, the world is very black and white, and little real thought goes into their beliefs.

That is certainly my image of you.