Good Samaritan Knifed Trying To Stop Gay Attack

[Kagom]

Only that it makes you complicit in his idiocy.

Maybe I just misread everything, Gunny, but what I interpreted was that he believes, on a whole, the existance of God is debateable. Not the fact that a majority of the world believes in some interpreation of incarnation of God, but his existance. If I'm wrong, point it out. I'm not afraid of being wrong.

 

[Gunny]

I see nothing wrong with defending his belief on this matter, no matter if I disagree with it or not. Can you give me proof of God's existance?

I see you're learning from him. The question is not whether or not God exists. That's a deflection from what he said, and the facts that were posted in response to his statement.

You are defending a statement with no basis in fact, against provided facts. That would make YOU just as wrong as he is since you want to play buddy-buddy with him.

 

[Annie]

I see you're learning from him. The question is not whether or not God exists. That's a deflection from what he said, and the facts that were posted in response to his statement.

You are defending a statement with no basis in fact, against provided facts. That would make YOU just as wrong as he is since you want to play buddy-buddy with him.

Yup, would rep if I could.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe I just misread everything, Gunny, but what I interpreted was that he believes, on a whole, the existance of God is debateable. Not the fact that a majority of the world believes in some interpreation of incarnation of God, but his existance. If I'm wrong, point it out. I'm not afraid of being wrong.

Try reading his post. He's saying that because he finds the existance of God debatable, that it is in fact debatable. Presumption on his part that his views are the right ones. The facts provided by Abbey show that the existance of God is NOT debatable to an overwhelming majority.

Which goes back to his thinking he is intellectually superior to everyone, and that his relativism -- the stance of not taking a stance on anything whatsoever -- is the only correct answer.

What you're doing is defending someone who defends your lifestyle without looking at the morally bankrupt and dishonest means he uses to do so. This is the same guy that has no problem with incest because it's ALL relative (no pun intended) to him.

 

[Gunny]

Further, gay or not, people are going to be held accountable for their actions, and not always by the law or society. Sometimes, such as in this specific case, they are held accountable by those willing to act on their own biases.

Argue against it all day, but the fact is that's reality. I don't cruising down the street on the westside of San Antonio on Firday night because it increases the odds greatly of my being perforated by lots of of lead. Take a stand if you want, and by all means throw common sense out the window while doing so. Just don't come crying to me when you pay the price.

The man was treated unjustly. I agree with that. That doesn't in any way remove nor justify his role in the play.

 

[Kagom]

Try reading his post. He's saying that because he finds the existance of God debatable, that it is in fact debatable. Presumption on his part that his views are the right ones. The facts provided by Abbey show that the existance of God is NOT debatable to an overwhelming majority.

Which goes back to his thinking he is intellectually superior to everyone, and that his relativism -- the stance of not taking a stance on anything whatsoever -- is the only correct answer.

What you're doing is defending someone who defends your lifestyle without looking at the morally bankrupt and dishonest means he uses to do so. This is the same guy that has no problem with incest because it's ALL relative (no pun intended) to him.

I defended one thing he's said. I've paid enough attention to what he's said and what others have said about him.

And I have reread his post and I retract my defense of his statement. I misread it and I admit to it.

 

[Annie]

I defended one thing he's said. I've paid enough attention to what he's said and what others have said about him.

And I have reread his post and I retract my defense of his statement. I misread it and I admit to it.

Well waddya know: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kagom again.

In this case, I'm so sorry, since you seem to actually get the separation between those that support while being grossed and someone like Matts, that would support the rape of his own daughters/sisters/mothers, by his friends, perhaps lovers.

 

[glockmail]

The existence of God isn't relevant to the relevance of the Bible? You're off your rocker lady!

**(points to my signature and asks the same question)**

 

[glockmail]

....Personally, it took a Catholic benediction to prove to me any god existed.

Interesting. I've often looked at Catholic canonizations as proof of Christ as God.

 

[glockmail]

...

And I have reread his post and I retract my defense of his statement. I misread it and I admit to it.

You are gaining points in the manly department....

 

[mattskramer]

1. I don’t think violence is called for if someone lies, unless the lie causes severe consequences, like “Sure, you’ve got plenty of room. Just back on in…”. That person should get an ass kickin’. One could argue that the consequences of telling someone the lie that homosexuality is not a sin can set up far more severe consequences, like an eternity in hell. In such case, best to let Satan do the ass kickin’.

That is where we disagree. Each individual is responsible for his own actions no matter what he hears. Don’t hold the speaker responsible for the actions of those who hear his speech. As for the “Satan” comment: Assuming that God exists, he, she, it, or they will be the ultimate judge – not you – but thanks for your concern.

Not much of a debate, as behavior around the 1 percentile is certainly abnormal by any competent statistician.

I was thinking that there might be a negative connotation to the word “abnormal”. Then I thought of the many abnormal things that people do: wearing plaid pants with a striped shirt, wearing thick clothing in winter, smoking cigarettes, being left-handed.

I’m not going to debate the existence of God with a closed minded atheist. That being said, do you also deny the existence of The Bible? Because that document clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Whether or not you believe in God has no effect on that simple fact. The fact that homosexuality is a sin is completely relevant, as I’ve pointed out in item 1 above.

LOL. I am not a close-minded atheist. The Bible is a book. As a book, it physically exists. I’ve read the Bible several times. I’ve read books by atheists. I’ve read books by apologists. I’m agnostic but leaning toward atheism. The Bible is full of inconsistency and absurdity. People who even believe in the bible have applied a liberal interpretation and managed to see for themselves that it does not call homosexuality a sin. There are other pieces of instruction and advice in the Bible that even the self-professed self-righteous “Christian” does not take seriously. Anyway, one does not have to agree with the Bible or be a Christian to be an American and, as I said, if God exists, he will judge at the appropriate time – not you – but thanks for your concern to gays.

You can debate that all you want, but the facts are quite clear on that one as well. Even if they are not, why take the chance with children’s safety? After all, the debate is still out on Global Warming, and therefore I prefer to err on the side of caution and promote clean energy, like nuclear power. Isn’t the safety of children important enough to err in their favor?

Why do smokers who think that we should end anti-smoking laws, take chance with children’s safety? Why do people who want to keep alcohol legal take chance with children’s safety? It is all relative and works on a matter of degrees. Let us err on the side of safety on all things. Let’s establish internment camps for all Muslims. Let’s bring back prohibition. Let’s outlaw all forms of smoking.

If you are so concerned about children, monitor what your children do and see. Regulate your own television. Determine who your children can have as friends and what toys your kids can have. Your raise your children and I’ll raise mine.

 

[glockmail]

…..[1] Each individual is responsible for his own actions no matter what he hears. …


….[2] I am not a close-minded atheist. The Bible is a book. As a book, it physically exists. I’ve read the Bible several times. …...

[3]Why do smokers who think that we should end anti-smoking laws, take chance with children’s safety? Why do people who want to keep alcohol legal take chance with children’s safety? It is all relative and works on a matter of degrees. Let us err on the side of safety on all things. Let’s establish internment camps for all Muslims. Let’s bring back prohibition. Let’s outlaw all forms of smoking.
…. .

1. Yell FIRE in a crowded bar and then tell that to the Judge. Assert “OK to be gay” to anyone and then tell that to God.
2. So you recognize that the Bible exists. Sins are codified in the Bible, and homosexuality is a big one.
3. Why not instead, have reasonable laws and public policy that reduce the obvious risks?

 

[mattskramer]

1. Yell FIRE in a crowded bar and then tell that to the Judge. Assert “OK to be gay” to anyone and then tell that to God.

Does a citizen assault the person who lies by shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater? If so, I still claim that the one who shouts “Fire” is not to blame for being physically attacked. Just as you said in your post, the issue will go before a judge. If God exists, he will judge me.

2. So you recognize that the Bible exists. Sins are codified in the Bible, and homosexuality is a big one.

Yes. There is a popular book called “The Bible”. It exists. That does not mean that God exists or that God agrees with what it says or that I agree with what it says. Even for people that believe it to be the word of God, people have different interpretations and application of the Bible. Many things are in the Bible. “Christians” ignore many of those things. What do you mean by “big” sins. I did not know that sins had rankings. Is adultery a level 3 and sodomy a level 4? Anyway, if God exists, it will be the ultimate judge, not you.

3. Why not instead, have reasonable laws and public policy that reduce the obvious risks?

There are laws that reduce risks. There are minimum age laws. Adults are allowed to smoke cigarettes but not marijuana. The question is what laws are considered to be reasonable and what constitutes unacceptable risk.

 

[glockmail]

Does a citizen assault the person who lies by shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater? ......



Yes. There is a popular book called “The Bible”. It exists. .... I did not know that sins had rankings. .......



There are laws that reduce risks. There are minimum age laws. Adults are allowed to smoke cigarettes but not marijuana. The question is what laws are considered to be reasonable and what constitutes unacceptable risk.

1. Anyone would be justified in kicking that guys ass, as he presents an immeadiate danger to those around him.
2. Sins are codified in the Bible. The fact that you question the existance of God is irrelevant. Sins have rankings as codified in the Catholic Catechism.
3. Most Americans have determined that the risks to children are too great to expose them to gays as parents.

 

[MissileMan]

**(points to my signature and asks the same question)**

You're hopeless. Do you ever acknowledge anything that you write that someone disagrees with?

 

[glockmail]

You're hopeless. Do you ever acknowledge anything that you write that someone disagrees with?

Only when I actually wrote it.

 

[mattskramer]

1. Anyone would be justified in kicking that guy’s ass, as he presents an immediate danger to those around him.

We disagree. It would be up to a court to decide his fate, as it is for anyone whose antics produce an immediate danger. Still, so much of this topic is relative. Telling someone that you are gay and that it is okay to be gay is certainly different than shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. In the “gay” example, people have time to think about what he said, compare it with other information, get second opinions, and make up their own minds. If I see a smoker and that smoker tells me that smoking is wrong, is the smoker at least partially to blame if I kick his ass?

2. Sins are codified in the Bible. The fact that you question the existance of God is irrelevant. Sins have rankings as codified in the Catholic Catechism.

So a book says that homosexuality is a sin. I have a book. It is calls “The Church of Mattskramer”. It says that it is okay to be gay.

3. Most Americans have determined that the risks to children are too great to expose them to gays as parents.

Okay, then in my opinion, most Americans are wrong. Anyway, if enough people are strongly opposed to gay marriage and related issues, they are certainly free to speak and vote – but violence should not be tolerated. In most cases, the assailant should be 100 percent to blame for the physical violence that he commits.

 

[glockmail]

[1]We disagree. It would be up to a court to decide his fate, as it is for anyone whose antics produce an immediate danger. Still, so much of this topic is relative. Telling someone that you are gay and that it is okay to be gay is certainly different than shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. In the “gay” example, people have time to think about what he said, compare it with other information, get second opinions, and make up their own minds. If I see a smoker and that smoker tells me that smoking is wrong, is the smoker at least partially to blame if I kick his ass?



[2]So a book says that homosexuality is a sin. I have a book. It is calls “The Church of Mattskramer”. It says that it is okay to be gay.



[3]Okay, then in my opinion, most Americans are wrong. Anyway, if enough people are strongly opposed to gay marriage and related issues, they are certainly free to speak and vote – but violence should not be tolerated. In most cases, the assailant should be 100 percent to blame for the physical violence that he commits.

1. I agree that actions of the “instigator” (for lack of a better term), in this case, the gay guy with the hose, the guy yelling fire, or someone with a knife at your throat, are all relative. I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot the guy with the knife, or kick the yeller in the ass, as these two present an immediate danger to those around them. In such cases the actions of a judge is not going to help you.
2. The ‘book’ in your first sentence is The Bible, revered by millions for millennia. Get your book the same level of popularity and then we’ll talk.
3. Then you have a dissenting opinion, but majority rules. Every time the gay marriage issue has come before voters they have resoundingly rejected it, which is why Liberals have resorted to the neo-fascist tactic of judicial fiat.

 

[mattskramer]

1. I agree that actions of the “instigator” (for lack of a better term), in this case, the gay guy with the hose, the guy yelling fire, or someone with a knife at your throat, are all relative. I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot the guy with the knife, or kick the yeller in the ass, as these two present an immediate danger to those around them. In such cases the actions of a judge is not going to help you.

Okay. You admit that issues are relative. That is more than some people are willing to admit. We just disagree with whether or not a judge would help one who was attacked.

2. The ‘book’ in your first sentence is The Bible, revered by millions for millennia. Get your book the same level of popularity and then we’ll talk.

Please. I can knock this down in so many ways. Let’s get specific. What point are you trying to make? Are you suggesting that gay marriage should be kept illegal because the Bible calls it a sin – or are you merely saying that you think that gay marriage would be wrong because the Bible calls it a sin? Based on your answer, I can knock down the issue very thoroughly and easily.

3. Then you have a dissenting opinion, but majority rules. Every time the gay marriage issue has come before voters they have resoundingly rejected it, which is why Liberals have resorted to the neo-fascist tactic of judicial fiat.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[glockmail]

Okay. You admit that issues are relative. That is more than some people are willing to admit. We just disagree with whether or not a judge would help one who was attacked.



Please. I can knock this down in so many ways. Let’s get specific. What point are you trying to make? Are you suggesting that gay marriage should be kept illegal because the Bible calls it a sin – or are you merely saying that you think that gay marriage would be wrong because the Bible calls it a sin? Based on your answer, I can knock down the issue very thoroughly and easily.




An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

1. Please with yet another straw man.
2. Ditto. The Bible codifies sins.
3. Please with the pure logic: this is politics, and perception is the reality.