Video Clip of a kid with two fathers (yes, that kind)

[wiggles]

Based on what? Because you say so? You ever stop to think that maybe a tradition was set up for a good reason. I am amazed at how some people thing their ancestors were a bunch of morons who made up rules and regulations and traditions for society just for the heck of it.

Why is it peopel dont bother to ask why the tradition exists to begin with? What problem were they trying to solve. And I can guarentee you, marriage traditions did not exclude homosexual relationships because they were homophobic.

So, what's your position then? Everyone should be forced to live the way you say so? Women can't go to work or run for office, gay people have to pretend to be straight, everyone has to get married and have kids - because the 50s were just so damn peachy keen for everybody?
Why don't you actually look into how some of these "traditions" came about instead of blindly accepting them just because they're old.

 

[glockmail]

Some traditions are bullshit.

Yeah, like marraige.

 

[wiggles]

Yeah, like marraige.

Good example.

 

[mattskramer]

OK- your two examples have conviced me taht you liberals are right. 5000 years of tradition must be wrong.

Oh. You should know better. “Appealing to tradition” like “appealing to popularity” is another simple fallacy. Just because something has a long history does not make it right or wrong. Slavery has a history. For a long time, women were not allowed to vote. There are probably many more examples.

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/TraditionalWisdom.html

1. It's all right for President Reagan to impound funds voted by the Congress. Every recent president - Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson - did so. In fact, Nixon did so on a grand scale.

2. Cannibal father to cannibal son: "Go ahead and eat your dinner! You know we've always eaten people."

http://www.christianlogic.com/loop/logic_loop_16.htm

One good example – usually given in refutation of Appeal to Tradition and also many other fallacies – concerns the belief in a flat Earth. Some people in the late fifteenth century thought Columbus would simply fall over the edge when he sailed the ocean blue because, "everybody has always known that the Earth is flat." "Always," is the key word. There are many historical examples of an Appeal to Tradition turning out false.

Another curious example is of the woman who would always, when cooking a turkey, cut off a certain part and place it next to the rest in the pan before cooking. When asked why she did this she claimed that she had seen her mother do it. When the mother was questioned about this she also cited a maternal example (I may be getting some of these details wrong – at least from the version I heard). It was eventually discovered that some grandmother down the line had initiated this practice because her pan was too small.

http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html

The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

 

[glockmail]

Good example.

So my grandparents, their 3 kids, my parents, and their five kids, and all us offspring are wrong?

 

[glockmail]

Oh. You should know better. “Appealing to tradition” like “appealing to popularity” is another simple fallacy. Just because something has a long history does not make it right or wrong. Slavery has a history. For a long time, women were not allowed to vote. There are probably many more examples.

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/TraditionalWisdom.html

1. It's all right for President Reagan to impound funds voted by the Congress. Every recent president - Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson - did so. In fact, Nixon did so on a grand scale.

2. Cannibal father to cannibal son: "Go ahead and eat your dinner! You know we've always eaten people."

http://www.christianlogic.com/loop/logic_loop_16.htm

One good example – usually given in refutation of Appeal to Tradition and also many other fallacies – concerns the belief in a flat Earth. Some people in the late fifteenth century thought Columbus would simply fall over the edge when he sailed the ocean blue because, "everybody has always known that the Earth is flat." "Always," is the key word. There are many historical examples of an Appeal to Tradition turning out false.

Another curious example is of the woman who would always, when cooking a turkey, cut off a certain part and place it next to the rest in the pan before cooking. When asked why she did this she claimed that she had seen her mother do it. When the mother was questioned about this she also cited a maternal example (I may be getting some of these details wrong – at least from the version I heard). It was eventually discovered that some grandmother down the line had initiated this practice because her pan was too small.

http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html

The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

Welcome back, Matts. I knew you couldn’t live a full life without me.

Perhaps you could show me where in the Bible:
1. Slavery is encouraged.
2. Women’s opinions in matters of State are discouraged.
3. Cannibalism is accepted.
4. Turkeys are cooked without one leg.

Regards to your witches and demons, you don’t have a valid train of logic.

 

[mattskramer]

Welcome back, Matts. I knew you couldn’t live a full life without me.

Perhaps you could show me where in the Bible:
1. Slavery is encouraged.
2. Women’s opinions in matters of State are discouraged.
3. Cannibalism is accepted.
4. Turkeys are cooked without one leg.

Regards to your witches and demons, you don’t have a valid train of logic.

I am not talking about the Bible. You implied that 5000 years of tradition couldn’t be wrong. I thought that you meant that since marriage, for 5000 years, has been limited to couples of the opposite sex, it should continue to be limited to couples of the opposite sex. If such is the case, my logic holds. Just because something has a tradition does not mean that the thing is good or bad.

If you mean that because a very old book (the Bible) says that marriage is to be limited to couples of the opposite sex, and that marriage is based on the Bible, it still does not follow that marriage should remain limited to couples of the opposite sex even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true.

We do not live in a theocracy. People do not have to believe the Bible in order to be Americans. Just because the Bible gives a specific piece of advice, it does not mean that the advice must be followed, even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true.

 

[glockmail]

I am not talking about the Bible. You implied that 5000 years of tradition couldn’t be wrong. I thought that you meant that since marriage, for 5000 years, has been limited to couples of the opposite sex, it should continue to be limited to couples of the opposite sex. If such is the case, my logic holds. Just because something has a tradition does not mean that the thing is good or bad.

If you mean that because a very old book (the Bible) says that marriage is to be limited to couples of the opposite sex, and that marriage is based on the Bible, it still does not follow that marriage should remain limited to couples of the opposite sex even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true.

We do not live in a theocracy. People do not have to believe the Bible in order to be Americans. Just because the Bible gives a specific piece of advice, it does not mean that the advice must be followed, even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true.

[bold mine to highlight conflicting statements] Your logic continues to evade me. I did notice that you tactfully avoided my questions though.

 

[mattskramer]

[bold mine to highlight conflicting statements] Your logic continues to evade me. I did notice that you tactfully avoided my questions though.

My statements do not conflict at all. The bottom line is that tradition does not make a behavior or policy right or wrong.

 

[glockmail]

My statements do not conflict at all. The bottom line is that tradition does not make a behavior or policy right or wrong.

You compared silly little intergenerational traditions based on lack of knowledge with Biblical traditions. The comparison is beyond silly. And you still avoided my questions.

 

[mattskramer]

You compared silly little intergenerational traditions based on lack of knowledge with Biblical traditions. The comparison is beyond silly. And you still avoided my questions.

I was not talking about Biblical tradition. I was talking about tradition. Whether or not the Bible mentions it or does not mention it is irrelevant. What new knowledge was discovered that made slaves free and allowed women to vote?

Anyway, in answer to your questions – as irrelevant as they are:

The Bible does not encourage slavery. It does surprise me that, as despicable as slavery is, the Bible does not discourage it.

The Bible does not discourage women from giving their opinions in matters of State. Yet, it does discourage women from speaking on religious matters. It also calls on women to obey their husbands.

The Bible does not encourage or discourage cannibalism. I doubt that there are instructions on how to prepare turkeys. Yet, the Old Testament (with the same God) gives bizarre and detailed instructions on how to prepare food and what may or may not be consumed.

 

[glockmail]

[1]I was not talking about Biblical tradition. I was talking about tradition. Whether or not the Bible mentions it or does not mention it is irrelevant. What new knowledge was discovered that made slaves free and allowed women to vote?

Anyway, in answer to your questions – as irrelevant as they are:

[2]The Bible does not encourage slavery. It does surprise me that, as despicable as slavery is, the Bible does not discourage it.

[3]The Bible does not discourage women from giving their opinions in matters of State. Yet, it does discourage women from speaking on religious matters. It also calls on women to obey their husbands.

[4]The Bible does not encourage or discourage cannibalism. I doubt that there are instructions on how to prepare turkeys. Yet, the Old Testament (with the same God) gives bizarre and detailed instructions on how to prepare food and what may or may not be consumed.

1. The new knowledge was the teachings of Christ. In America that took the Republicans going to war with the Democrats in order to convince them of this. Later on, after losing the Civil War, the Democrats organized a terrorist group, the KKK, in an attempt to subvert the Republican victory. Christ’s teachings were again used to advance civil rights in the 1960’s by MLK.
2. In biblical times the losers of a war were often spared their lives by becoming indentured servants or slaves. This was more preferable to genocide. There are many instances in the Bible where proper treatment of slaves/ servants is emphasized.
3. It is good for a woman to obey her husband.
4. What you call bizarre methods are still used today, and form the basis of many of our current food safety practices. Isn’t it amazing that these practices were known of before man understood germ theory.

 

[Emmett]

You don't know the whole story and neither do I, but I'm rather sure they didn't force the kid to do anything. And I'm sure the mother isn't around for a reason. Maybe a whore or something like that?

It clearly said he was an orphan! Maybe he had loving parents who were killed somehow! I don't know why our first suggestion would be that his mom was a whore! Incidentally, a whore may still be a very good mom for all we know.

 

[mattskramer]

It clearly said he was an orphan! Maybe he had loving parents who were killed somehow! I don't know why our first suggestion would be that his mom was a whore! Incidentally, a whore may still be a very good mom for all we know.

Here is a possibility: He was the product of a very bitter and troubled marriage. Luckily his parents divorced before the child became too traumatized by the violent relationship.

 

[mattskramer]

1. The new knowledge was the teachings of Christ. In America that took the Republicans going to war with the Democrats in order to convince them of this. Later on, after losing the Civil War, the Democrats organized a terrorist group, the KKK, in an attempt to subvert the Republican victory. Christ’s teachings were again used to advance civil rights in the 1960’s by MLK.
2. In biblical times the losers of a war were often spared their lives by becoming indentured servants or slaves. This was more preferable to genocide. There are many instances in the Bible where proper treatment of slaves/ servants is emphasized.
3. It is good for a woman to obey her husband.
4. What you call bizarre methods are still used today, and form the basis of many of our current food safety practices. Isn’t it amazing that these practices were known of before man understood germ theory.

1. I think that it is good that we do not apply every sentence of Biblical tradition as the law of the land today.

2. I never thought of slaves as being the captives of war. Perhaps we should use that approach with the Iraq and Afghanistan detainees. I’ll buy one for $100.00. I think that it would have been more humane to simply confiscate the enemies’ weapons and let the defeated people have their unarmed freedom.

God tells Moses to exterminate the residents of Canaan and destroy all of their religious symbols and possessions. See Numbers 33:50-52. It seems as though, once a land is conquered, it is okay to take people as slaves in some places but not in others.

Also, see Deuteronomy 2:33-36. At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain."

In Deuteronomy 3:3-6 the Israelites, with God's help, kill all the men, women, and children of every city. Wow. God’s people could not even take children as slaves.

In Deuteronomy 7:2 God instructs the Israelites to kill, without mercy, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer. Golly. Couldn’t they take some of the conquered people as slaves?​

3. What if the Bible had a matriarchal tone? Would you be so willing to obey your wife, no matter what, if the Bible had told you to do so?

4. Is it true that the carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, is unclean unto you? Is it true that every one that toucheth them shall be unclean? See Leviticus 11:26.

Oops. I wore a leather jacket and cotton pants and touched a football.

'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. See Leviticus 19:19.

Awww. The mule is such a useful work animal. It is too bad that God does not approve of such an animal. After all, it is a cross between a horse and a donkey.

Oops. I wore a leather jacket and cotton pants and touched a football.

 

[eots]

don't forget Chaney's daughter she will make a wonderful mother...er father?
mother/father don't ya think ?

 

[mattskramer]

don't forget Chaney's daughter she will make a wonderful mother...er father?
mother/father don't ya think ?

I have no problem with it. See:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=513546&postcount=55

 

[sitarro]

don't forget Chaney's daughter she will make a wonderful mother...er father?
mother/father don't ya think ?

Ya know eots,

You might have a little more credibility if you knew how to spell the name of the man that has been Vice President of the United States for the last 6 years, was White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and a member of the House of Representatives. His name is Richard Bruce Cheney.

How do you know what kind of mother Mary Cheney will be except that she was raised by two very decent parents?

 

[eots]

Ya know eots,

You might have a little more credibility if you knew how to spell the name of the man that has been Vice President of the United States for the last 6 years, was White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and a member of the House of Representatives. His name is Richard Bruce Cheney.

How do you know what kind of mother Mary Cheney will be except that she was raised by two very decent parents?

fine then..cheney it is ..so now i will be more credible when i say dick cheney
is Illuminati ,skull and bones ,new world order globalist ,who worships Satan at the bohemian grove along with all the rest of them , Kerry as well
a election between skull and bones and skull and bones what a joke

 

[glockmail]

God tells Moses to exterminate the residents of Canaan and destroy all of their religious symbols and possessions. See Numbers 33:50-52. It seems as though, once a land is conquered, it is okay to take people as slaves in some places but not in others. .....

You do realize that this was an attempt to destroy the sin that existed in these tribes, don't you?

The first reference to a homosexual act is in Genesis 9:20-25, along with the curse by Noah: “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers."”

Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a man’s nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse. The only logical conclusion here is that Ham committed a homosexual act on a drunken, sleeping Noah.

In Genesis 10:15-20 we find the descendents of Ham: “Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites dispersed. And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.”

In Deuteronomy 7:1-2 we see that Noah’s curse is also God’s curse: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.”​