murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Dec 1, 2011 6:13:18 GMT -5
Yes, I do realize that churches don't have to provide services because they are private organizations. However, they can be influenced to change through social pressure. If news got out around here that a store owner kicked out an interracial couple, that store would be boycotted in a snap. Churches have the right to oppose interracial marriage. I have a right to say that those churches are run by fucktards. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. But if you do this, you will be just as bad as them! Apparently. I'm... not trying to understand LHM anymore. By the way, the YouTube comments are waaaay too over the top for me to obfuscate over them. Obvious trolls are obvious, and also mildly entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 1, 2011 6:45:55 GMT -5
You weren't trying in the first place, since I never said that.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 1, 2011 6:51:21 GMT -5
You weren't trying in the first place, since I never said that. You flat-out said that we couldn't maintain the moral high ground if we criticized the church and its people for doing this. It's practically a SYNONYM of what murdin said you said. So yes, that is what you said. Don't try to deny reality.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 1, 2011 7:02:02 GMT -5
You weren't trying in the first place, since I never said that. You flat-out said that we couldn't maintain the moral high ground if we criticized the church and its people for doing this. It's practically a SYNONYM of what murdin said you said. So yes, that is what you said. Don't try to deny reality. Maybe you need to re-read what I said. But anyway my point was more that kneejerk hatred of a group for their kneejerk hatred of a group is somewhat counterproductive. Beyond that... I've said my piece and, I think, explained myself. Even had a couple of people agree with me. I don't think I have anything new to say on the matter, other than "their church, their rules".
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 1, 2011 7:05:36 GMT -5
You flat-out said that we couldn't maintain the moral high ground if we criticized the church and its people for doing this. It's practically a SYNONYM of what murdin said you said. So yes, that is what you said. Don't try to deny reality. Maybe you need to re-read what I said. No, you need to own up to what you said. I know what I read, and so do you. It's odd how you seem to think that knee-jerk reaction to a group's action is in any way, shape, or form comparable to the knee-jerk reaction to a group's skin-color. Well? Mind explaining why hatred towards racism is apparently comparable to racism, while you simultaneously deny that you said such a thing... only to more or less repeat it afterwards?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 1, 2011 7:12:47 GMT -5
Maybe you need to re-read what I said. No, you need to own up to what you said. I know what I read, and so do you. It's odd how you seem to think that knee-jerk reaction to a group's action is in any way, shape, or form comparable to the knee-jerk reaction to a group's skin-color. Well? Mind explaining why hatred towards racism is apparently comparable to racism, while you simultaneously deny that you said such a thing... only to more or less repeat it afterwards? Sorry, but I no longer have the energy to deal with these semantic tapdances. I'm pretty sure I have explained myself adequately. You know my thoughts on the subjectivity of arbitrary moral opinions, including about race and racism. I decline to discuss the issue further.
|
|
|
Post by Hyperio on Dec 1, 2011 8:07:50 GMT -5
They have a right to deny them the service, but other Christians (and non-Christians) have also right to call them on that.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Dec 1, 2011 9:05:24 GMT -5
You weren't trying in the first place, since I never said that. You flat-out said that we couldn't maintain the moral high ground if we criticized the church and its people for doing this. It's practically a SYNONYM of what murdin said you said. So yes, that is what you said. Don't try to deny reality. Lighthorseman said they had a right to their opinion. He never said he agreed with them, or that we should defend them. To put it another way... "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to give you the right to say it."
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 1, 2011 9:26:34 GMT -5
Ah the South. Land of total degenerates. The bane of the US. If I went into detail about every single evil thing the South has ever done, I would be typing this all day and well into next week, and may well hit the character limit for a post. So all I can say is GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU FUCKTARDS WHO GIVE AMERICA A BAD NAME.
I can tolerate the existence of fundies and even racists in places like Canada, Australia, or Europe. But when they exist in America, they fulfill the negative stereotypes of Americans, and that is unforgivable. My hatred of the South knows no bounds. For as long as they hold the rest of us back and ruin our reputations, Dixie will be the focus of my righteous indignation.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Dec 1, 2011 10:01:45 GMT -5
Lighthorseman said they had a right to their opinion. He never said he agreed with them, or that we should defend them. To put it another way... "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to give you the right to say it." That's pretty much how I read it. And what was going to be my reaction to that was pretty well covered, albeit much nicer and more articulate. Pretty much, all of our anger isn't bent on changing laws or forcing them to conform to our views via illegal or legislative measures. More like their right to be assholes does not impede on our right to call them the hate filled assholes they are. The difference here is between saying they should have a rusty cactus shoved up them somewhere and showing up to the church with a rusty cactus.
|
|
Kali
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by Kali on Dec 1, 2011 10:19:10 GMT -5
Ah the South. Land of total degenerates. The bane of the US. If I went into detail about every single evil thing the South has ever done, I would be typing this all day and well into next week, and may well hit the character limit for a post. So all I can say is GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU FUCKTARDS WHO GIVE AMERICA A BAD NAME. I can tolerate the existence of fundies and even racists in places like Canada, Australia, or Europe. But when they exist in America, they fulfill the negative stereotypes of Americans, and that is unforgivable. My hatred of the South knows no bounds. For as long as they hold the rest of us back and ruin our reputations, Dixie will be the focus of my righteous indignation. Dude...chill. I think most people know better than to believe stereotypes. Also, your hatred of the South- isn't that applying stereotypes, the very thing you want to stop non-Americans from doing to Americans?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 1, 2011 10:43:56 GMT -5
No, you need to own up to what you said. I know what I read, and so do you. It's odd how you seem to think that knee-jerk reaction to a group's action is in any way, shape, or form comparable to the knee-jerk reaction to a group's skin-color. Well? Mind explaining why hatred towards racism is apparently comparable to racism, while you simultaneously deny that you said such a thing... only to more or less repeat it afterwards? Sorry, but I no longer have the energy to deal with these semantic tapdances. I'm pretty sure I have explained myself adequately. You know my thoughts on the subjectivity of arbitrary moral opinions, including about race and racism. I decline to discuss the issue further. You know what I find the funniest about this? LHM is still taking a moral stance, specifically tolerance. All you peons are not allowed to criticize other people's moral opinions, but I can sure as fuck criticize yours. If he was an actual subjectivist he would be unable to criticize the people here for their reaction to the church because both stances are equal in weight.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Dec 1, 2011 11:06:39 GMT -5
You know what I find the funniest about this? LHM is still taking a moral stance, specifically tolerance. All you peons are not allowed to criticize other people's moral opinions, but I can sure as fuck criticize yours. If he was an actual subjectivist he would be unable to criticize the people here for their reaction to the church because both stances are equal in weight. I don't have peer-reviewed studies on this, so my opinion is worthless. That said, I believe that Lighthorseman is pointing out that a church has a right to be a bunch of bigoted, knuckle-dragging morons, as it is their rules to do so. He hasn't stated he agrees with the pastor's decision, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't (Again, I have no peer-reviewed studies to back this.) And although I do disagree with some if not many of LHM's opinions and sometimes do find him quite dense on occasion, this isn't a formal debate, and I do find Zack going a bit too far to prove he agrees with the church's position. In fact, I find this to be jumping to the wrong conclusion and just runs down the slide from there.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 1, 2011 11:08:34 GMT -5
I'm a peer - Lord Fontleroy of Big Britches - and having reviewed your statements I find them to be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Dec 1, 2011 11:10:53 GMT -5
Made my day, MaybeNever.
|
|