Jump to content



Photo

Chick-fil-A Meets a First Amendment Buzzsaw in Chicago

first amendment chicago

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
268 replies to this topic

#256 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,981 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 02 August 2012 - 00:48

But they will let Gloria Jeans operate while they provide funding to Hillsong? Lol.


#257 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • 8,663 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 02 August 2012 - 00:49

Also, nice try trying to usurp the Bible and translate it's meaning to fit your points.


Didn't need to. Hard to misinterpret "don unto others as you would have them do unto you", "love your enemies", and "he who is without sin cast the first stone".

#258 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,131 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:02

Try again...


You seem to want to focus on a specific aspect which was NOT mentioned in the post you made initially... and point which is HUMAN SEXUALITY - which is based specifically on some of the things in your quote. Two separate things being talked about between what I wrote and what you want to decry as 'proof'.

Again, people want to conjure fictitious points up as 'proof' they are right... when in fact they are jumping around trying to cloud the issue.

You clearly said "Sexuality and reproduction are not synonymous."

which is flat out wrong. Period. When called out, you pulled the 'ol chestnut out of the fire and proceed to post random possibly semi-related quasi-kinda maybe relational links.

"Sexuality is a broad area of study related to an individual's sex, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation."
http://www.apa.org/t...lity/index.aspx

An individuals sex and sexual orientation are certainly synonymous with reproduction. This is base human coding. Unless you want to try to back out of that one with some random links.

If you want to discuss human sexuality, preference, and other aspects on reproduction, that is cool, but like must = like in responses.

Didn't need to. Hard to misinterpret "don unto others as you would have them do unto you", "love your enemies", and "he who is without sin cast the first stone".


hmm to a Christian:

how is saying gay sex is wrong breaking the 'do unto others' rule?

how is loving your enemies (and you left out an important part... pray for those that persecute you) broken by not loving their sin?

don't see anyone stoning the gays here, but in case you mean verbally, I can't answer for all people, but how is saying gay is wrong 'casting stones'? Seems like basic 'fact' as even Jesus and his followers in the Bible called a spade a spade...

Oh please tell me what "thought' you ever put into any post here? Oh sorry there is none.

I haven't fallen back on anything, i'm just trying to keep up with your back pedalling whenever you're argument has been shot down.

You can keep posting your silly little troll pics all ya want. Doesn't detract from the fact that i've posted more proof to prove you wrong than you will ever post to prove anything you've said.

You back pedal on the meanings of your post as soon as they've been shot down to make it seem as if i'm talking about something else when i'm not. You said we're different than animals. I proved we were not any different. Would you like to continue on your little hissy fit?

Fact: Homosexuality is not a choice.

Fact: Same sex marriage, affects you in no way whatsoever.

Fact: Sex for pleasure has been around for a VERY long time, and so has homosexuality.


keep going, you have yet to really answer anything, or stick to anything being talked about without jumping around, 'cherry picking', and trying to bash people over the head with hog-wash and non-asked for, or needed 'facts'.

That's called obfuscation and misdirection... the sure sign of someone with NOTHING. Which is what you have.

#259 nominak

nominak

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,159 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:04

keep going, you have yet to really answer anything, or stick to anything being talked about without jumping around, 'cherry picking', and trying to bash people over the head with hog-wash and non-asked for, or needed 'facts'.

That's called obfuscation and misdirection... the sure sign of someone with NOTHING. Which is what you have.


You know, except for the fact that this is what we've been going on about for quite a few pages now. But I can see why you'd forget that.

Since you know, the whole Chick-Fil-A being against same sex marriage, and them giving money to anti-gay companies. Again. No surprise that you would forget to mention that.

#260 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,420 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:15

Thanks for once again proving my point.


racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, amungst several other words

vs.

socialist.

liberals way over play identity politics. at least our word equates to a set of failed economic policies. and it doesn't really prove your point.

think about it every time you hear a conservative accuse someone of being a socialist.. i know you chuckle at it..
guess what.
everyone also chuckles at all the words you accuse of being because you've over played it. The accusation no longer carries any weight.

You know, except for the fact that this is what we've been going on about for quite a few pages now. But I can see why you'd forget that.

Since you know, the whole Chick-Fil-A being against same sex marriage, and them giving money to anti-gay companies. Again. No surprise that you would forget to mention that.


actually he's right. You seem to intentionally miss the point of someone's post or take it out of context simply to take a discussion on a tangent.

#261 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,117 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:18

You seem to want to focus on a specific aspect which was NOT mentioned in the post you made initially... and point which is HUMAN SEXUALITY - which is based specifically on some of the things in your quote. Two separate things being talked about between what I wrote and what you want to decry as 'proof'.

Again, people want to conjure fictitious points up as 'proof' they are right... when in fact they are jumping around trying to cloud the issue.

You clearly said "Sexuality and reproduction are not synonymous."

which is flat out wrong. Period. When called out, you pulled the 'ol chestnut out of the fire and proceed to post random possibly semi-related quasi-kinda maybe relational links.

"Sexuality is a broad area of study related to an individual's sex, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation."
http://www.apa.org/t...lity/index.aspx

An individuals sex and sexual orientation are certainly synonymous with reproduction. This is base human coding. Unless you want to try to back out of that one with some random links.

If you want to discuss human sexuality, preference, and other aspects on reproduction, that is cool, but like must = like in responses.



Not sure what initial post you are referring to but that shouldn't matter. Iv stated a few times now that sexuality isn't limited to just sex. Which was originally all about pointing out to seta that homo/heterosexuality isn't just about sexual gratification, which I have clearly pointed out multiple times.

Im not trying to cloud any issue, if anything Im trying to clear away the ignorant smoke clouded by others. I still stand by the statement that "Sexuality and reproduction are not synonymous." Yes reproduction is a part of the over all meaning behind sexuality but it does not cover all aspects such as "individual's sex, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation". If you can't read between the lines and need a break down to the simplest form, then that's an issue with you. Im not here to baby your way through the conversation.

Whether you are male or female or which side of the fence you play ball for is not synonymous with reproduction. They are related to each other and reproduction is even needed for there to be a gender/orientation but they are not alike in meaning.

Definition of SYNONYMOUS


1
: having the character of a synonym; also : alike in meaning or significance
2
: having the same connotations, implications, or reference


At this point you are just arguing over semantics. Talk about trying to cloud the issue.

#262 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • 8,663 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:19

hmm to a Christian:

how is saying gay sex is wrong breaking the 'do unto others' rule?

how is loving your enemies (and you left out an important part... pray for those that persecute you) broken by not loving their sin?

don't see anyone stoning the gays here, but in case you mean verbally, I can't answer for all people, but how is saying gay is wrong 'casting stones'? Seems like basic 'fact' as even Jesus and his followers in the Bible called a spade a spade...


Saying gay sex is wrong != legislating discrimination.

Although, I'll bite -- article I posted earlier in this thread, where McDonald's was boycotted for having a "pro-homo agenda". Well, do unto others, and the "pro-homo agenda" is calling a boycott on Chick-Fil-A. But somehow this is an attack on Christian beliefs.

Calling for homosexuals to be jailed is not loving the sinner, nor is it turning the other cheek. Calling for institutional discrimination based on the rights afforded to married couples is not loving the sinner.

And I'm not sure how literally you're taking the Bible about stoning, the meaning behind the phrase is that you're not perfect, it is not your place to judge another's sin. Where it does not affect you, leave that to God. The story itself also shows that Jesus did not ask people to live by the nominative laws of the Old Covenant, but to make peace with one another.

And yes, Jesus was prone to calling a spade a spade -- his biggest gripe was with the Pharisees who were seen as the old guard of God's Law, and they constantly challenged him on what was written vs. what was reasonable ("The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath"). He also spoke from Hosea 6:6 "I do not desire special gifts from you. I want you to forgive one another and to love one another."

I didn't leave out any important part because it's not relevant. There is no real agenda to make Christianity illegal. No one is calling for the days of old Rome where Christians were fed to lions to please the masses. No groups go out and beat Christians and leave them for dead because of their beliefs. You might think there are, but the blowback is against people who want to enforce Old Testament fundamentalist beliefs (ie, the ones Jesus really didn't care about and didn't really serve God's purpose for us) upon everyone else.

The perceived persecution is from people who want to live their lives and be left alone, and basically allow you to live yours.

#263 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,117 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:26

racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, amungst several other words

vs.

socialist.

liberals way over play identity politics. at least our word equates to a set of failed economic policies. and it doesn't really prove your point.

think about it every time you hear a conservative accuse someone of being a socialist.. i know you chuckle at it..
guess what.
everyone also chuckles at all the words you accuse of being because you've over played it. The accusation no longer carries any weight.




You really are delusional if you think name calling by your side is limited to just socialist. Secondly if you're so offended by the list of words up there, tough ****, that's called a personal problem. If you chuckle over being called that then what exactly is your point of making a case over it now? It seems you lost all grounding in the rest of your argument so you resort to changing the topic to bickering over who says what word in an negative way. You can't be taken serious when you are seen crying over someone calling names.

#264 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,420 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:29

You really are delusional if you think name calling by your side is limited to just socialist. Secondly if you're so offended by the list of words up there, tough ****, that's called a personal problem.

1. okay. other than "socialist" name me another word that is used by conservatives in the context of "shut-up"
2. I'm not offended.
3. told you that no one cares about other peoples feelings if their offended.

If you chuckle over being called that then what exactly is your point of making a case over it now? It seems you lost all grounding in the rest of your argument so you resort to changing the topic to bickering over who says what word in an negative way. You can't be taken serious when you are seen crying over someone calling names.


my point is that I'll never let any of those words be used against me to shut me up like you wish they would. I'll simply call you out on it every time.

#265 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,117 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:40

1. okay. other than "socialist" name me another word that is used by conservatives in the context of "shut-up"
2. I'm not offended.
3. told you that no one cares about other peoples feelings if their offended.



my point is that I'll never let any of those words be used against me to shut me up like you wish they would. I'll simply call you out on it every time.



You are applying the context of "shut-up", Im not seeing it but when I replied to your rants about names used, I was replying in the context of if people act a certain way and they are called out for that context, to me that would be seen of as that context and not in the shut-up and move on way. So again this comes down to how you interpret it.

#266 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,420 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:56

You are applying the context of "shut-up", Im not seeing it but when I replied to your rants about names used, I was replying in the context of if people act a certain way and they are called out for that context, to me that would be seen of as that context and not in the shut-up and move on way. So again this comes down to how you interpret it.




#267 benthebear

benthebear

    Doin' manly things

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 02
  • Location: Florida
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 02 August 2012 - 03:00

when liberals can't win an arguement they call people "racist", "sexist", "bigot", or "homophobe". When ever they use those words they intend to use it in the context of "shut up". Please continue arguing with them to make sure that they know this tactic won't be allowed to work any more.


Look, I don't subscribe to the whole Liberal/Conservative thing because I think it's meant to distract people, but are you sure that conservatives don't do that even with the same words?

too bad liberals make too many false accusations in a desperate attempt to win a argument for the legit ones to be believed.


I've seen people beat their chest and shout that they are a conservative do the same. So, your point?

1. okay. other than "socialist" name me another word that is used by conservatives in the context of "shut-up"


You ready for this? Here it goes...
Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Communist, Atheist, PC crybaby, Marxist, Unpatriotic, Lazy, Elitist, Gay, Welfare recipients, "The Real Enemy", Prius driver...

I mean, it goes on for a while. Just don't act like your side isn't as bad as the other when it actually is.

#268 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,117 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 02 August 2012 - 04:20

https://www.youtube....h?v=lWHgUE9AD4s


LOL like that is supposed to prove anything, well it proves how weak your argument is. If you want to interpret name calling by people as shut-up, it's still an interpretation. If someone acts a certain way, you interpreting it as shut up still doesn't equate to those actions as anything less then what they are. The word I would use for you is ignorance. If you see shut-up, that's purely on you, just as it's on you if you want to live a world of ignorance.

Now that we got that out of the way, maybe you can stop running in circles and get back to the real topic at hand.

#269 vetJohn S.

John S.

     ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  • 19,541 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 02
  • Location: NE 10EC
  • OS: OSX Lion
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 02 August 2012 - 08:56

Apparently we've lost sight of the article....stick a fork in this one


thread closed