So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

@BillRM,

Instead of claiming to have read something somewhere post your sources.

The link you posted was not about computer security, it was, at the very least, a link to the Darknet.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

If you mean my comment on the time it would take to deal with all the known CP traders by the UK legal system I did not take note of the source other then thinking at the time that is interesting.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

That's very convenient. It's something you do a lot.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

That's very convenient. It's something you do a lot.

Wrong my love...............

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You made similar unsubstantiated claims about non Moslem extremists as opposed to Moslem extremists. You do do it a lot.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Izzy:You admit that there's a likelihood, however tiny, a likelihood remains.

Izzy: And you know, Bill, how I love to take these tiny insignificant things and twist them out of all proportion. It is such an integral part of my being which explains my utter disregard for honesty and the truth. From here on you, everyone actually, can just disregard anything I say as you never know whether I might be telling the truth.

But don't expect any apology from me for lying my ass off, it's just my manner. Same goes for Firefly. One might be led to think that we are amoral scum but we like to think of ourselves as selective thinkers, selective liars. You have to admire our tenacity in sticking to our lies. Have you ever seen such a proficient pair of liars as us?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You have no shame at all, do you, IzzytheLiar. And you seem to lack the necessary common sense to quit. Instead you just keep digging into your pile of verdant bullshit, rolling around in it and digging some more.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What gall you have, IzzytheLiar!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

there should be no public shamming of the speaker.

Is this a guideline you are going to follow here?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

What you are suggesting, Hawk, is the exclusion of a large portion of available speech. If Phil is an ignorant asshole then his ignorance should be noted.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Have you ever seen such a proficient pair of liars as us?

I have JT. You two are amateurs. I've seen 'em swearin' on the 'oly Bible, crossin' their 'earts and 'oping to die, with their long finger firmly over the finger they pick their nose with, behind their backs, whilst telling the most brazen lies imaginable such as that I had been peeping through a crack in the netball changing shed's tounge and groove sides, which had warped in the warm sunshine, when I had actually been studying in the library all afternoon so as to get good grades.

I think they were trying to get me to pay more attention to them. They should be so lucky. Dumb as clucks and with skint Dads.

2 Replies

@spendius,

There are few things more comforting to a man than to know that his wife will inherit a reasonable fortune as soon as her doting mother and father have popped their clogs.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

"teachable moment" is elitist and condescending...not to mention the one who is sure that they know best is often wrong.

Humans have teachable moments all the time. The idea that no one ever makes a mistake that they can learn from is silly. Sacco clearly made a mistake. If she chooses to learn nothing from it, that is her option. Where I her ex-employer and she was willing to learn from her mistake, I'd be ok with maintaining her employment. If she felt there was nothing to learn, she'd be gone.

hawkeye10 wrote:

there should be no demand the the speaker of offensive ideas recant or reform, there should be no public shamming of the speaker.

Actions have consequences. If you say something silly in public, someone will laugh at you. If you insult someone in public, they will likely get mad at you in public. If you insult millions people in public, you can expect to reap the whirlwind. What we are discussing here is not a debate over public policy or the merits of New Orleans vs Carolina in the NFC South (really, really torn on that one). I can't see how to debate Phil's comments that homosexuality leads to bestiality or that gays are inherently evil. It would be silly to even try (plus I think the burden of proof on that argument would be on Robertson since extreme claims require extreme proof.) All statements are not equally worthy of public debate. Someone can claim that aliens from outer space took control of Oswald's brain to kill Kennedy to slow the space program but don't really expect me to show up the inferior idea by way of arguing a better idea.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I can't see how to debate Phil's comments that homosexuality leads to bestiality or that gays are inherently evil.

He placed the bestiality in the same class as gay sex that does not mean that one lead to the other.

Next as far as gay sex being inherently evil as far as the bible is concern all he would need to do is hand out the King James bible with the proper sections book mark.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You forgot to mention Firefly and her copious lies, Spendi. How come?

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Humans have teachable moments all the time.

humans can always learn, which is not the same. "teach" assumes that one knows and another does not, if someone has a "teachable moment" then someone(s) else has assigned themselves as teacher. it is arrogance, nothing more.

Quote:

Actions have consequences

What, this is a law, like gravity?
NO. choosing to concentrate on the bad idea rather than the speaker is easy, and worthwhile. The problem is that humans are naturally pretty sadistic, we like having an excuse to hurt other people, but that does not mean that punishment is a good idea. Just about every thread here would be better if we could lay off trying to hurt others, if we concentrated on the thread topic, but it does not happen.

Quote:

All statements are not equally worthy of public debate. Someone can claim that aliens from outer space took control of Oswald's brain to kill Kennedy to slow the space program but don't really expect me to show up the inferior idea by way of arguing a better idea.

sure, demand the showing of some evidence or at least logic before debating, and if you dont get it walk away. what we are talking about here though is ideas that are feared enough, that we worry might get agreement, that the speaker must be silenced and all others warned of the punishment that comes from daring to speak the idea.....Phil had an idea that requires opposition as proven by the drive to oppose it. But this could have been done by voicing better ideas rather then trying to silence him and all like him. What we did was the sadistic lazy "solution", not the smart one.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You forgot to mention Firefly and her copious lies, Spendi. How come?

I did not. I said "you two".

Have you seen the fantastic word formulations she resorts to to avoid being caught chomping her way through the nutrient bed with her masticating molars and mincing mandible?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I retract.

Yes, I most certainly have. And did you see her grasp and clutch that out ehBeth delivered her?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

humans can always learn, which is not the same. "teach" assumes that one knows and another does not, if someone has a "teachable moment" then someone(s) else has assigned themselves as teacher. it is arrogance, nothing more.

That's one way to consider it, but in the majority of cases the teacher is not self elected but the world. If you poke a beehive and get badly stung, that is a teachable moment, but the lesson will not be delivered by a self appointed person. Consider the mass of humanity like a beehive - prone to swift action when prodded.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Actions have consequences
What, this is a law, like gravity?

More like Newton's third law of motion. Smile

hawkeye10 wrote:

NO. choosing to concentrate on the bad idea rather than the speaker is easy, and worthwhile. The problem is that humans are naturally pretty sadistic, we like having an excuse to hurt other people, but that does not mean that punishment is a good idea.

But that hateful speech is exactly what you are supporting. Neither Robertson nor Sacco is promoting any sort of discussion. Robertson was just taking a sadistic swipe at a group his religion says is fair game. It seems like you either support his hate speech and that aimed at him or disavow both, but I can't see supporting Robertson but denouncing his adversaries.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Just about every thread here would be better if we could lay off trying to hurt others, if we concentrated on the thread topic, but it does not happen.

Here we completely agree. This started as a pretty good thread but has been for the most part completely hijacked by an off topic flame war. Kudos to you for trying to keep it on topic.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
All statements are not equally worthy of public debate. Someone can claim that aliens from outer space took control of Oswald's brain to kill Kennedy to slow the space program but don't really expect me to show up the inferior idea by way of arguing a better idea.

sure, demand the showing of some evidence or at least logic before debating, and if you dont get it walk away. what we are talking about here though is ideas that are feared enough, that we worry might get agreement, that the speaker must be silenced and all others warned of the punishment that comes from daring to speak the idea.....Phil had an idea that requires opposition as proven by the drive to oppose it. But this could have been done by voicing better ideas rather then trying to silence him and all like him. What we did was the sadistic lazy "solution", not the smart one.

Exactly what was Robertson's idea? Gays are evil? Their hearts are filled with hate? They're going to hell? Exactly how to you debate that and why would you want to? What's the counter argument you think should be debated? The problem with Robertson's ideas is that their adherents go out and beat up people, fire them from their jobs, disown them from their families and kick them into the street and their entire "evidence" to support their position is "the Bible told me so". Someone has to say you're entitled to say that but I'm entitled to call you out on it. Phil wasn't very civil, I don't feel his detractors need be either.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Next as far as gay sex being inherently evil as far as the bible is concern all he would need to do is hand out the King James bible with the proper sections book mark.

So there can be no debate. "The Bible told me so" trumps all logic and counter argument. The idea that we should have a logical debate seems pretty silly in that case.

2 Replies

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know