Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[francoHFW]

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened?

Not everyone is a lazy, illiterate fool like you is what happened.

Idiot Pubtroll "tutor". So bitter and useless.

Learn the language or get out of my country, fool.

Eat shytte and die, idiot Pubtroll or WHATEVER. Terminal bore.

 

[Unkotare]

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened?

Not everyone is a lazy, illiterate fool like you is what happened.

Idiot Pubtroll "tutor". So bitter and useless.

Learn the language or get out of my country, fool.

Eat shytte and die, idiot Pubtroll or WHATEVER. Terminal bore.

Get off the weed and get hooked on phonics, you idiotic punk.

 

[kaz]

And of course, back up your claim that the majority of Americans didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex. Back your crap up.

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

I "lied repeatedly" about whether you said interracial marriage or interracial sex? What you are doing is diversion, you got caught making up your crap and now you're trying to make up a big ridiculous issue to get out of admitting you made it up.

Either way, as I keep saying, it makes no difference. Pick whichever you want, interracial marriage or interracial sex. I don't care, you won't be either to show either. Whichever one you want, show that in the United States in 1967, a country where for most of the population interracial couples could legally have sex AND get married, that a majority of Americans wanted it to be a crime.

Whichever one you want. Stop being a coward and deflecting and pick whichever one you want and ... back ... it ... up ...

 

[kaz]

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

Partisan gamesmanship with your wording aside, Skylar's claim was far, far beyond that. He said a majority of Americans, he didn't say a majority of southerners. And he didn't just say they were against it, he said they wanted it to be a crime.

Which is why he is throwing much fur to avoid backing it up. He got caught in a flat out lie.

 

[kaz]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

I don't know what I can tell you. You're just rationalizing. You're no different than liberals, you just want different things. Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

So what if you can't enforce traffic laws on personal property? What does that have to do with anything?

Again, like the liberals, you can't get a point no matter how obvious. You raised traffic laws, which ragards public property, as an example of government making our decisions for us preemtively. I have no issue with laws on public property against doing drugs or drinking, it's ... public ... property. I pointed out that's a false analogy because with drugs you want to legislate what people do to their own bodies on private property when they are harming no one. Which makes your analogy fall apart, traffic laws do not apply to private property. How did you not get that? It seems very simple.

Building codes, for example, most certainly regulate personal property under the guise of minimizing harm(economic and social costs of poorly built buildings). So are you against building codes because they are laws on people's personal property?

Yes, I am. If a bank loans you hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house, they don't need the government to force you to build it safely or buy one that is inspected as safe. If you spend your own money, you probably don't need government to force you to either. And if you want to spend your own money on an unsafe house, how is it for government to stop you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

Your concession is AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...and when your claims are debunked, your reasoning smashed and you've painted yourself in a rhetorical corner, you always flee to the same place: your 'concession' schtick in place of a reasoned reply.

Its your white flag. When you find the courage to address the point I've raised rather than running from them, I'll be here.

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(I should point out that you're Intellectual Average is sitting on the line of acceptable efficacy. I would ask that you take some time to consider how you might improve and I would suggest that your tactic of repeatedly pretending that your posts have no been given the courtesy of a response, should be immediately scuttled.

As where such occurs, even once more, you will be sentenced to Summary "Ignor-cution,"

You're an annoying imbecile, but there are so few among the sexually abnormal who can last as long as you've managed, so I would hate to see ya go. But, alas, the law IS the law. So please... for your own sake, bring up your game.

Ok?)

- Note you don't actually address, refute or even disagree with any point I've raised.

- There is not so much as a single of your stated positions which remain standing.

- Religion provides the objective balance against the subjective nature of the human being.

- Homosexuality deviates from the natural design of the Human Being. Thus Homosexuality is a Deviant Sexuality driven by Deviant Human Reasoning.

- Homosexuals do not comprise a race. Therefore Homosexuals are not entitled to Marry by common Gender, based upon the law which provides that those of distinct race can marry.

-For the Record, IF there were a law that provided that Cats and Goldfish could marry, that law would also NOT endorse the marriage of individuals human beings of the same gender.

- Nature provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

- Fascism =/=Progressivism=/=Liberalism=/=socialism=/=Communism=/=Left-think, and NO adherent to ANY of those Foreign Ideas, hostile to American Principle, can ever be counted as an American.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest ******* MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY ******* TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A ******* CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC?

ROFLMNAO!

So the Relativist only requires that its opposition go through every move that a person who lived 70 years ago, made... to PROVE that they did not do something.

Which they require because they can't show the behavior which THEY DEMAND the individual DID.

Now if one is a person who suffers from a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Relativist... that makes 'perfect sense'.

Wow, you really are a dishonest piece of shit, as well as an arrogant asshole.

Sweet Irony... You truly gotta love it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

 

[Skylar]

- There is not so much as a single of your stated positions which remain standing.

You seem to be confusing simply disagreeing with me with refuting any point I've raised with a reasoned, rational argument. You've done the former. You have yet to do the latter. As your below 'points' are merely declarations of personal opinion that I've already systematically evicerated with better reasoning and sound logic. Let me demonstrate yet again:

- Religion provides the objective balance against the subjective nature of the human being.

Religion is anything but objective, being malluable, unstable, subjective, changable, arbitrary, self contradictory...varying wildly between sects of the same faith between individuals of the same sect, between cultures practicing the same general faith, between faiths, and over time. As words of religious texts are merely paper. Their meaning can only be gleaned through subjective interpretation of the reader. And readers disagree.

Subjective interpretation is the only prism through which religion can ever be accessed or defined. There is no other way to apply meaning.

And each person can arbitrarily and unilaterally cherry pick whatever they'd like from any text based on whatever reasoning they wish to imagine. The Founders interpreted Leviticus 20:13 literally and executed gays for sodomy. Modern Christians don't, interpreting around the 'commandments' as you did. Literally ignoring whatever they don't want to believe. Rendering their religion whatever they want it to be based on their personal interpretations, opinions and biases.

Personal opinions, personal interpretations and personal biases are gloriously subjective. And the beating heart of religion. Religion is subject to the whims of culture, changes in society, changes in time over history, and the personal context of any given reader.The only folks interpreting a faith are people. As the Bible doesn't interpret itself, being inanimate paper and cardboard.

And your response to these huge, 'objectivity' killing holes in your claims, the example contradicting you, the logic refuting your ever claim........is to simply declare that religion is objective. Over and over. With no rational explanation, no evidence, no logic, nor even an attempt to shore up the holes in your reasoning. Your ability to type a claim doesn't establish its veracity.

All the other points you've raised......homosexuality v. 'natural design', homosexuals comprising a race, arguments attacking gay marriage, communism, etc.....are strawman and red herrings. As none of them have a thing to do with what you're responding to: my demonstration that religion is inescapably subjective.

With religion being subjective, your claims that religion is required for morality and that the rejection of faith is the rejection of morality are both debunked by your own standards. As religion has the same subjective basis as using one's own moral reasoning to reach moral decisions. Its entirely possible to come to moral decisions based on your own capacity to reason.....without any leviathan telling you what to do.

 

[Skylar]

I "lied repeatedly" about whether you said interracial marriage or interracial sex?

Sadly, yes. You've intentionally and willfully misstated my argument repeatedly. You claimed that I had argued that Americans want to criminalize interracial sex. I never said this. I said the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense.

You lied.

And when that attempt at awkward deception failed, you bizarrely began to insist that what I had been referring to was interracial marriage. Not interracial sex. Despite the fact that you've quoted me referencing interracial sex no less than half a dozen times.

You lied again. Willfully, intentionally, and repeatedly. And I've proven as much with your own posts. Demonstrating this point, you've established that you're simply not trustworthy, as you'll gladly lie and attempt to deceive to back your points.

If your arguments have merit, why did you need to lie to support them? Its a question you've never had the courage or integrity to answer.

What you are doing is diversion, you got caught making up your crap and now you're trying to make up a big ridiculous issue to get out of admitting you made it up.

You're the one who has claimed that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. When I challenge you to back up this statement......you flee to your lies, misstatements, and inept attempts at deception.

Back your crap. With sources....as you've already demonstrated that you lack integrity, can't be trusted, and lie without thinking to support your argument.

 

[Skylar]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

So can we take it from your sudden rout to gay pride T shirts that you've completely abandoned your 'religion is required for morality' and 'abandoning religion is abandoning morality' nonsense?

As you now refuse to discuss it. And have never managed to give us a rational, logical reason why any of your claims would ever be true.

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

Either way, as I keep saying, it makes no difference. Pick whichever you want, interracial marriage or interracial sex. I don't care, you won't be either to show either.

Oh, I believe you. But this Kaz guy? He calls you a hapless liar. Again.

You did not say interracial sex, you said interracial marriage. You're still wrong, but quote yourself correctly. And I am addressing that point. I am saying you are full of shit. Show that in 1967 the majority of people supported the "criminalization" of interracial marriage. You stated ... sans evidence ... that the majority of people in a country where the majority of people could enter into a legal interracial marriage wanted interracial marriage to be a crime.

Kaz
Post 2290

Hitler Fascism and the right wing Page 229 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh, *obviously* you don't care. Which is why you misrepresented my argument, moved the goal posts and lied over and over. And you already told us that you understood what I'd said. You even quoted me half a dozen times citing interracial sex. So a 'misunderstanding' isn't an option. You lied. And in yet another fit of deceptive revisionism try to pretend that you don't care what was actually said.

If that were true, the above post of yours would never have existed. And you would never have bothered to lie about my argument. The harder I press you to back this statement;

Whether or not people wanted it recognized, the number of people who wanted people arrested for it was in no way a majority.

Kaz
Post 2252

Hitler Fascism and the right wing Page 226 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

....the more lies you tell to avoid backing it.

Back your crap. With sources. As you clearly can't be trusted....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

- There is not so much as a single of your stated positions which remain standing.

You seem to be confusing simply disagreeing with me with refuting any point I've raised with a reasoned, rational argument.

Refutation: prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

Prove: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Huh... Look at THAT!

No where in the defining attributes of the words you used to convey your most recently repeated feckless contest is there any standard which requires your assent.

So where you claim; for instance, that no evidence has been advanced in the contest of the position that Religion is innately objective, the record of the discussion provides evidence to the contrary, thus proving your statement/theory to be wrong and false; meaning that the record disproves your otherwise strongly held 'feelings', in the face of evidence provided as proof demonstrating such to be false... .

Further, the evidence of objective standards pertinent to religion is not altered by the evidence that human beings are innately subjective, which was also established in reasoned argument. Which you have simultaneously adhered to and contested, proving that your 'feelings' present as psychosis; specifically that of Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Now... THIS is what is known as 'refutation'. Wherein soundly reasoned evidence has been presented, as proof... that your assertion is false.

Rest assured that such in no way hinges on you agreeing with either the evidence or the conclusion. The argument does not seek to convince you or anything. It seeks to provide the objective third party reader with the evidence and reasoning, so that they may draw their own conclusion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

So can we take it from your sudden rout to gay pride T shirts that you've completely abandoned your 'religion is required for morality' and 'abandoning religion is abandoning morality' nonsense?

What we take is the win. Given that such proves the fascist nature of the Leftists, who exclusively comprise the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This is where you should demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality are actually Right-wingers pretending to be socialists, as a means to acquire the power which will provide them the means to better attack, the Right-wing.

This even as you engage the discussion which you claim is not being engaged by those with whom you're presently engaged.

Which, if you're keeping score, is further evidence and a demonstration of the Perversion of Human reasoning common to the Sexually Abnormal, which is evidence of 'the threat' which the Sexually Abnormal represent... which reasonably rests as the basis that Nature requires that you poor wretches be put down.

 

[Skylar]

Refutation:prove (a statement or theory; reason) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Prove:demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Proof:evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Evidence:the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Huh... Look at THAT!

And your reply is simply to say 'Religion is objective'.

That's not a refutation of my argument that religion is subjective. That's not a demonstration by evidence. That's a mere statement of personal opinion. A personal opinion you can't logically or rationally support. So you just keep typing over and over.

Worse, I've provided arguments, examples, demonstrations, logic and reason that utterly decimate your claims. Demonstrating that religion is anything but objective.....that its inherently and inescapably subjective, as its meaning can only be gleaned through subjective interpretation. And any piece of text or tenet can be arbitrarily ignored and discarded by any theist based on whatever critierea they imagine.

Exactly as you did when you magically morphed 'they must be put to death' into 'they don't have to be put to death' through the wonder of subjective interpretation, your own imagination, and personal opinion. Which is the epitome of subjectivity. And the only lens through which religion can ever be accessed.

And how do you respond to these salient points? You type 'religion is objective' again.

Can you see why your position is a little....underwhelming?

So where you claim; for instance, that no evidence has been advanced in the contest of the position that Religion is innately objective, the record of the discussion provides evidence to the contrary, thus proving your state/theory to be wrong and false; meaning that the record disproves your otherwise strongly held 'feelings', in the face of evidence provided as proof demonstrating such to be false... .

But the record doesn't show that evidence has been advanced that religion is inantely objective. As you simply typing the words 'Religion is objective' isn't evidence. Its a statement of personal opinion. Which you can't back with a reasoned or rational argument.

Nor can you shore up the 'objectivity' killing holes that I've punched into your claims. You won't touch any of the above points I've raised with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Skylar]

And that's just one branch of how you're wrong. There are so many others. The fact that theistic beliefs contradict one another, that they change over time, that they are subject to changes in culture, changes in society, and vary based on the personal context of any given individual. And this is 'objective'?

I don't think the term means what you think it means.

The fact that almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be both a Pantheon of Greek Gods AND Jesus. And there are thousands, perhaps millions of mutually exclusive religious systems that have existed. And all but ONE of these mutually exclusive religions must be self deluded nonsense. As if they are mutually exclusive, the truth of one demonstrates the fallacy of all the others. What I like to call the 'Highlander Principle'.

So logically, almost ever theists that have every lived have had faith in self deluded fallacies. The odds that any given religion is the one and only faith that got it right is ridiculously small.

Worse, there's nothing that requires that ANY theists are right. They could all be wrong. Its entirely possible that none of them represent the will of God. You could be completely wrong about what you think God wants. If you're being rational or logical, you have to admit this. But you refuse...insisting that *your* beleifs are objective and accurate. Apparently, because you say so.

Worse still....there's nothing that requires that a god would interact with us, be aware of us, or even be capable of being aware of us. The logical basis of theism, the 'cosmological argument' mandates only a first mover. That's it. All the other embellishments you add, the attributes you imagine, the dietary restrictions you make up are not supported by the cosmological argument. The first mover doesn't have to be sentient. It doesn't have to be good. It simply has to have moved first.

And from this mishmash of self contradictory assumptions, overwhelming self delusion, and deeply personal subjective interpretation.......you insist you have an objective system?

Um, no.

 

[kaz]

I "lied repeatedly" about whether you said interracial marriage or interracial sex?

Sadly, yes. You've intentionally and willfully misstated my argument repeatedly. You claimed that I had argued that Americans want to criminalize interracial sex. I never said this. I said the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense.
.

I said repeatedly I am referring to 1967. I used the past tense. And when you said this over and over, I said I am referring to 1967 over and over. And when I keep reissuing the challenge for you to back up your claim, I say show that in 1967 the majority of people wanted it to be a crime. It's very clear, I am referring to your statement as regarding in 1967. Repeatedly, iteratively, redundantly so. I am referring to 1-9-6-7. Is this clear to you yet?

So, show that in 1967, a time when the majority of Americans could legally engage in interracial sex and then get an interracial marriage, a majority of Americans wanted that to be a crime. That was your claim. There is no way in 1967 the majority of people considered it a criminal act to engage in interracial sex. In NINETEEN SIXTY SEVEN. The year you referred to, the year I keep referring to OVER AND OVER.

You are full of shit, that's why you keep kicking up dirt and throwing fur instead of addressing the point.

 

[Skylar]

What we take is the win. Given that such proves the fascist nature of the Leftists, who exclusively comprise the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Which has nothing to do with your claims that religion is required for morality, that religion is objective, or that the abandonment of religion is the abandonment of morality.

You've abandoned your entire argument. Since you've tossed your claims on the rhetorical midden heap where they belong, surely you'll understand if I treat your claims the same way.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, as luck would have it, on today's Front Page of "The Blaze" is an article which demonstrates the classic Fascist nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This article demonstrates in no uncertain terms the "THREAT" posed by Sexual Abnormality, and why Nature requires the Sexually Abnormal to be stripped of their lives and why the Founders of the United States complied with nature's law.

Here we find a person who owns a printing business, who refused to print upon t-shirts, language which promotes the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality sued him, the Leftists jurists who heard the case, 'decided' that he was discriminating against the Sexually Abnormal by not assisting them in their March to the Sea, burning down decency and cultural viability as they go. The court them 'required' that this business man, pay to 're-train' himself and his employees, so that they could be reformed as good National Socialists, comporting themselves with the ideals of the Party or face bankruptcy, the destruction of his business and to avoid prison.

This businessman is appealing the decision and is determined to sue 'em back! Defending his God-given rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States to freely practice his religion.

Christian Printer Was Punished After Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts and Now He 8217 s Fighting Back TheBlaze.com

Posted by a Talibanie of unknown national allegiance, but for certain not one who believes in the American ethos, best sourced in these hollowed words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Refutation:prove (a statement or theory; reason) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Prove:demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Proof:evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Evidence:the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Huh... Look at THAT!

And your reply is simply to say 'Religion is objective'.

False. The record of this discussion is replete with reasoning demonstrating the objective nature of religion, not the least of which is your own citation of Leviticus wherein God's law calls for the destruction of Homosexuals. That law does not provide for any consideration that a given homosexual should be given a pass because they are known to those who should execute them, who may know them to be 'a good person' or because they 'grew up together... . The Law objectively determines that Homosexuals are a threat to the species, therefore God determines that they should be released from this life at the hand of those who their behavior, threatens.

That's not a refutation of my argument that religion is subjective.

It literally IS a refutation of your would-be 'argument'. That you disagree, is as predictable, as it is irrelevant.