The media is communist and obama is gay?
Thank u for seceding.
Thank u for seceding.
San Bernardino
- Thread starter yrusonvus
- Start date
You are quite welcome, sir. My gift to you and yours.
And if you watched the statism video, you know just how generous that gift is meant to be.
And if you watched the statism video, you know just how generous that gift is meant to be.
No, no. Obama is a Muslim, a communist and a pot-head. He's also a "bastard", like Abraham Lincoln. I agree that Obama is a liar. He lies a LOT! He's not Muslim. He's not a Communist. I wish he were a pothead. That office could use a few potheads.
There's a good deal of evidence that "Honest" Abe was born in what is now Gaston County, North Carolina. And that his mother was an indentured servant to a man who sent her away to Kentucky after she'd gotten knocked up (either by himself or one of his poker buddies).
History. Victors write it. Might not be quite true.
Wrong again. "Wrong" is not subject to anyone's interpretation or definition without attached qualifiers, such as wrong for me, wrong for today, or wrong given the current situation.
"Right" can be a synonym for truth, but not the reverse. Bandying semantics is the tactic of the progressive. Got Slick Willie off the congressional hot-seat, but "I did not have sex with that woman" was always a lie, and never the truth. No matter how you slice it, which day it is, who's asking the question, or what some obscure youtube videographer's definition of the word "is" is.
Yes, by all means make this political. I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for any of them, okay? That left vs. right sh*t is wasted on me.
Wrong is defined by what we measure "right" against. It's relative.
Point is that right, wrong, truth and dishonesty are NOT relative and NOT political. Lying is a sin. Sin is wrong. But, if you're a muzzie, your playbook (Koran) advises you (as a muzzie) that it's okay to lie.
And that brings us back to the distinction of islam NOT being a religion, but a conquest strategy disguised as a religion and hiding in political obfuscation.
Mark Steyn offers some truth: At the Chicago Boyz site. Hijacking the debate.
More truth? Sure, why not. What is Islam?
And that brings us back to the distinction of islam NOT being a religion, but a conquest strategy disguised as a religion and hiding in political obfuscation.
Mark Steyn offers some truth: At the Chicago Boyz site. Hijacking the debate.
More truth? Sure, why not. What is Islam?
You're claiming I am Muslim now?
I don't subscribe to any religious social club. NONE!
Truth, dishonest, right, and wrong are all relative to the person/people, society in general, and time.
Right and wrong are MOST DEFINITELY subjective. I would say there is no absolute truth but that statement in itself would be a claim of an absolute truth. Best way to say it is that everyone has their own absolute truth and from there comes their evaluation of right and wrong. People with similar truths tend to group together lending to the false narrative that theres an absolute truth for everyone everywhere.
"Sin" is a religious term and irrelevant to the conversation of right and wrong.
So basically you're demanding we judge right and wrong by YOUR definition. Lol. I'll pass.
But if u wanna have fun please feel free to choose a behavior and tell how its wrong to everyone regardless of sociological, environmental, or religious influence.
Maybe so. But its still irrelevant to discerning right from wrong. Unless you're a christian. Which makes it...guess what...SUBJECTIVE
@heelmanwilm Getting the response inside the part you quoted makes for awkward referencing, so...
You said: You expect us to adhere to YOUR beliefs cause YOU embrace YOUR version of "truth".
No sir, I do not expect that. Truth doesn't have a version. It cares not one whit whether either of us subscribes to it. I don't have to believe it or understand it.
And...
I asked, Is it not wrong if I take something of yours? And you responded, Nope, taxes.
You're actually saying that it would be okay for me to swing by and have what I want of yours, so long as I call it "taxation"? How's Thursday?
Just kidding. Rest assured that I view ALL taxation as theft, and would prefer to leave you everything that is your'n.
You said: You expect us to adhere to YOUR beliefs cause YOU embrace YOUR version of "truth".
No sir, I do not expect that. Truth doesn't have a version. It cares not one whit whether either of us subscribes to it. I don't have to believe it or understand it.
And...
I asked, Is it not wrong if I take something of yours? And you responded, Nope, taxes.
You're actually saying that it would be okay for me to swing by and have what I want of yours, so long as I call it "taxation"? How's Thursday?
Just kidding. Rest assured that I view ALL taxation as theft, and would prefer to leave you everything that is your'n.
there are as many versions of truth as there are people. Each person relies on their senses, their environment and their experiences. Theft to u is a necessary process to others (taxation) So we shot down theft as an absolute wrong. Anything else?
Just playing devil's advocate here, but even with those that feel taxation is a necessary process, to be consistent, wouldn't those same people have to feel theft is ok in all circumstances? You can't be for theft some of the time but against at other times. So would it be fair to say those that don't feel taxation is theft would be cool with JRG dropping by their houses and picking up anything he wants?
Good points but we're talking absolutes. U cant say taking something from someone without their permission is absolutely wrong when taxation exists. Theres other examples. If you're lost in the woods for days and you break in a cabin to get food, eminent domain, manifest destiny doctrine, martial law....all examples where, depending on your perspective, theft could be considered appropriate and "right".
Sorry, but no, WE didn't. A flimsy rationalization does not a shoot-down make.
Having an excuse for thievery doesn't make you any less of a thief, either. The wrong still exists, no matter what spin you put on it.
It's only "wrong" by perception. If everyone were taught from birth that there is plenty of everything we need to live (which there truly is, in abundance), then there would never even be such a thing as theft. The concept of theft would never exist. Everything would be shared, instinctively without hesitation or pause. However, we are taught from birth that there is not enough of everything to go around. So, we all know there is, but we cannot seem to overcome our earlier traits from birth. "Thievery" only exists because we created it in the first place! There's no right or wrong in a universal sense. There never has been. There's only been a need to make it universal.
And what about the hundreds of examples of things that reasonable people disagree on as to whether they are right or wrong. Drinking, taking drugs, gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, eating meat, the death penalty, etc. Are these things absolutely right or absolutely wrong? On what basis?
Last edited:
Bizarre...Maybe you were taught this.
Moral Relativism. The free pass for anyone capable of a little circular reasoning, claiming to be reasonable, rationalizing any action that suits their whims.
Is Moral Relativism not your god? Does it not give you whatever you desire?
I'm not the one arguing for an absolute standard of right and wrong. And you're dodging the question. Are the things I listed objectively right or wrong?
So, then there is no theft for you. So, why are you even arguing that it exists? Nothing is truly "ours", so theft is merely an illusion. Our souls are "ours", but our souls make up a collective body, too. I suppose our bodies and minds are "ours" in an abstract sense, and the soul uses them for a while, in this reality.
Yes, relativism is a cornerstone, if not the keystone, for this consciousness. Because... it's ALL RELATIVE!
Hey, good for you. Neither am I. What is, just is. I need not argue about, of for, or against it.
This is where you get to appreciate the difference between "dodging" and "disdain".
I'd characterize it as it is all relative. That's why I typed " it's ALL RELATIVE!" before.
Then why are you here posting about it if you're not interested in discussing it?
Just in case you special-needs kids came back looking for some more wrong: Wrong as wrong can be.
Or you couldn't sleep without some troof: Taking it where we find it.
The future must not belong to the people who slander the people who slander the so-called prophet muhammed.
Or you couldn't sleep without some troof: Taking it where we find it.
The future must not belong to the people who slander the people who slander the so-called prophet muhammed.
Tks for giving an example that PROVES OUR POINT!!! roughly half the country absolutely 100% believes that obama's policies are "right as right can be."
Well done.
Still waiting on something that is ABSOLUTELY WRONG regardless of sociological, environmental, or religious influence. And no, theft isnt one of them. I PROVED that theft can be "right" in MANY instances. You admitted yourself u consider taxation to be theft yet it is perfectly legal and justified in the opinions of most americans.
Well done.
Still waiting on something that is ABSOLUTELY WRONG regardless of sociological, environmental, or religious influence. And no, theft isnt one of them. I PROVED that theft can be "right" in MANY instances. You admitted yourself u consider taxation to be theft yet it is perfectly legal and justified in the opinions of most americans.
Nope. You can capitalize the whole sentence and be yet unproven. "Legally justified" doesn't change the reality of the thing. Everything the Nazis did was legally justified. Stalin's extermination of 7 MILLION Kulaks was legally justified. Conversely, everything the leaders of the American Revolution did was illegal.
Right is not a popularity contest. 100% of the folks who are wrong, can agree that they're right, but that doesn't change the reality.
Didn't Thoreau teach you anything about the "majority of one"?
You just keep giving more examples to prove my point. Whats wrong to one person is right to another. Ergo: its subjective.
Didnt common sense teach u when to quit?
Still waiting on that example of an absolute wrong.
In some cultures they are perfectly fine. Actually right here in the us with the lds church the jeffords dude was screwing 13 year olds while their mom held them down. And rape has long been a tool of conquering armies to spread their seed and establish dominance. Isis is currently using it supposedly. Then theres india with their rape culture where its a badge of honor.
Once again, i'm with u and rpg on agreeing that these things are "wrong". But they're wrong to us based on our upbringing and religion and so on. Other cultures/races/religions/nationalities are different. Whats murder to blacklivesmatter people is good police work to others. In india u rape a woman you're a hero but u kill a cow and you're beaten to death. canada has legal seal hunts where baby seals are beaten and skinned alive. Japan allows whales to be tortured for hours to be killed. And here u can suck the brains out of your unborn child to collapse the skull to facilitate an abortion and the right to do that is supported by the majority of americans. Its all subjective. This is why religions are so eager to prop up their book and their version of "truth". Its a way of bringing calm to the chaos. It unifies people behind a common good with the threat of eternal sufferng if u disagree. Its fencing in the livestock. U could argue its a necessity.
Last edited:
Post a selfie of you holding your breath.
I asked you if it would not be wrong for someone who looks like me to swing by your casa and help himself to whatever he wants of yours. Instead of acknowledging that that would be wrong, you equivocated to a parallel scenario whereby it might be really the government that takes from you instead. Then you called it "proven, so shut up I proved it." Quibbling and then saying you proved something, doesn't mean that you've proven anything.
Calling an apple an orange does not make that apple an orange. And permission is not the same thing as right.
If I ask you whether it's right for me to enslave you, I'm not asking if it's permitted. Even if every last soul on earth agreed with me (or even failed to disagree) that me enslaving you is permissible, it would still be wrong. In spite of any perceived good that enslavement might mean to the rest of mankind, my stealing your person from you would be wrong. Absolutely.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Upcoming visitors (Update 6-1: Camp season is here -Payne visits Sunday)- Latest: andrew jones