If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?

[Town Heretic]

I must have missed your answer, but since I asked A4T to ask it, I understand why you didn't answer it.

"You don't want to ask the question because you're unaware of my wife, the librarian, or my son, Jack. You want to ask because you're who you are and that's what you do."

Or, you're just being childish an insulting, so why on earth would anyone dignify that? Now you've had ample time to move off that point. You should move on.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Being that the poster and I have a history (when he gets angry at me, I get banned)

Got that attempt wrong too, didn't you.

People of the utmost highest moral turpitude at that.

As expected, you take responsibility for your actions and immediately note your mistake. . . Of course you don't. It's everyone else's problem. Well, unless you're suggesting Knight and Delmar, ebenez, Poly and Sherman lack character you have a problem, because they judged your conduct and they found it deficient. It doesn't matter who you were responding to, its your response that gave you the problem.

(It appears that I have a new stalker fan who thinks that he can defeat the message by attacking the messenger).

You need to pick a position. Am I ignoring your threads with huff and vow or stalking you by...answering and rebutting your misstatements aimed at and about me? lain: Either way, you have a problem.

I just love family photos. Do you have any of the 3 of you together?

I think you've had enough time to rethink this approach.

On a closing note: You're more than welcome to return to the 4 part thread (that obviously gives you nightmares) and refute any of the information that I've provided, including how harmful homosexuality is to the people who partake in it, to our invaluable institutions and to the children whose lives are often destroyed by homosexuals and the LGBTQ agenda.

I could watch episodes of Saved by the Bell too, if I thought there was any value in it. But there isn't, so I won't.

 

[Crucible]

a ban for an over the line comment to Rusha

I wonder if Rusha isn't employed to simply be bait for others to be banned.
Like if you put a cymbal-banging monkey in a room of cats lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm almost convinced Rusha is employed to be bait for others to be banned. When a poster's central gambit is simply to antagonize, while offering little in the way of actual conversation, it makes one wonder

No. Rusha was here for a long time, being herself and standing her ground. She's been a staunch advocate against abortion and a reasonable, strong voice on a number of other important issues. She's been a good friend to me, in agreement and in difference. But it doesn't matter how you think of her now. She's taken an indefinite leave of absence. I'm not sure we'll see her here again. In that, she joins a number of TOL women who simply tired of people like you and pushed back from the table, disinterested in the hostility and static you generate.

Congrats. Every day, in every way, people like you continue to dismantle this place, lower its collective IQ, and move discourse to the hostile margins.

 

[Crucible]

No. Rusha was here for a long time, being herself and standing her ground. She's been a staunch advocate against abortion and a reasonable, strong voice on a number of other important issues. She's been a good friend to me, in agreement and in difference. But it doesn't matter how you think of her now. She's taken an indefinite leave of absence. I'm not sure we'll see her here again. In that, she joins a number of TOL women who simply tired of people like you and pushed back from the table, disinterested in the hostility and static you generate.

Congrats. Every day, in every way, people like you continue to dismantle this place, lower its collective IQ, and move discourse to the hostile margins.

I'm pretty sure Rusha is against abortion for a very personal reason- a past quarrel perhaps.
She has literally no other conservative values.

I see a far more probable circumstance that is contrary to your notion that she is unique. She's been a good friend to you because you are a staunch defender of unfair biases which favor women, and resembles little of what you describe.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I must have missed your answer, but since I asked A4T to ask it, I understand why you didn't answer it.

You don't want to ask the question because you're unaware of my wife, the librarian, or my son, Jack. You want to ask because you're who you are and that's what you do."

Or, you're just being childish an insulting, so why on earth would anyone dignify that? Now you've had ample time to move off that point. You should move on.

Insult someone as respectable and intelligent as you? Nevah!


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
People of the utmost highest moral turpitude at that.

As expected, you take responsibility for your actions and immediately note your mistake. . . Of course you don't.

I'll apologize for standing up for God's Word when Hell freezes over.

It's everyone else's problem. Well, unless you're suggesting Knight and Delmar, ebenez, Poly and Sherman lack character you have a problem, because they judged your conduct and they found it deficient. It doesn't matter who you were responding to, its your response that gave you the problem.

They have their jobs to do.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
(It appears that I have a new stalker fan who thinks that he can defeat the message by attacking the messenger).

You need to pick a position. Am I ignoring your threads with huff and vow or stalking you by...answering and rebutting your misstatements aimed at and about me? Either way, you have a problem.

You're the one that unapologetically defends homosexuality, something that God abhors, and I'm the one who has "the problem".

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I just love family photos. Do you have any of the 3 of you together?

I think you've had enough time to rethink this approach.

Here's one you could use:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/899/Beaver312.jpg


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
On a closing note: You're more than welcome to return to the 4 part thread (that obviously gives you nightmares) and refute any of the information that I've provided, including how harmful homosexuality is to the people who partake in it, to our invaluable institutions and to the children whose lives are often destroyed by homosexuals and the LGBTQ agenda.

I could watch episodes of Saved by the Bell too, if I thought there was any value in it. But there isn't, so I won't.

A tv sitcom is the equivalent to a thread showing the destruction of human lives and invaluable institutions. Please come back, as you're a walking posterboy for the cause.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm pretty sure Rusha is against abortion for a very personal reason- a past quarrel perhaps.

And that's your subjective problem in a nutshell. You don't know what you're talking about and confuse the sound of your voice with the truth because you want it to be.

She has literally no other conservative values.

You're wrong on that too. She's pro death penalty, to begin. I could list others, but I'm not going to because you don't rate it, supra. That said, being against abortion isn't an exclusively conservative value, so you're doubling down on not understanding.

I see a far more probable circumstance that is contrary to your notion that she is unique.

That's because you look with your eyes squeezed closed. It's your signature move.

She's been a good friend to you because you are a staunch defender of unfair biases which favor women, and resembles little of what you describe.

No. She's been a good friend to me because it's who she is, in her nature and character. As surely as baseless assertion is in yours.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'll apologize for standing up for God's Word when Hell freezes over.

So you're saying that Knight, Delmar, Poly, ebenz, and Sherman gave you infractions because you stood up for the word of God?

Insanity.

You're the one that unapologetically defends homosexuality,

No, I don't. In fact I've always noted that homosexuality is a sin and that I oppose the practice. It's contrary to the desire of God and the natural order. That's not where we differ.

something that God abhors, and I'm the one who has "the problem".

Demonstrably. You lack control of your tongue or temper or both. Who knows? In any event, it's what gets you banned and dismissed by posters who engage substantively, for the most part.

A tv sitcom is the equivalent to a thread showing the destruction of human lives and invaluable institutions.

No, the principle, which I actually set out a bit more than I would normally and which you still managed to miss, was noted at the end of my response on point. Given the problems with your approach I won't waste time on something that lacks substance. That was the point of comparing your thread, not the topic, to a bad sitcom, poorly written and acted out.

 

[Crucible]

You're wrong on that too. She's pro death penalty, to begin.

For those very male rapists.

See the consistency? I surely have, in everything she perpetuates.

No. She's been a good friend to me because it's who she is, in her nature and character.

Because you defend her bias.. without calling it bias.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I'll apologize for standing up for God's Word when Hell freezes over.

So you're saying that Knight, Delmar, Poly, ebenz, and Sherman gave you infractions because you stood up for the word of God?

Insanity.

Since we're living in a time where immoral men and women run our institutions and indoctrinate innocent children to their ways, I mock those who proudly and unrepentantly defend evil. When it comes to my mockery of those ever so evil people, the TOL moderators do their jobs as they see fit.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You're the one that unapologetically defends homosexuality,...

No, I don't. In fact I've always noted that homosexuality is a sin and that I oppose the practice. It's contrary to the desire of God and the natural order. That's not where we differ.

That's right, you "oppose homosexuality" but you just don't want laws prohibiting the behavior or the LGBTQ agenda (which btw brought forth homosexual 'marriage'). Kinda like the guy who "opposes" abortion/murder, rape, robbery, etc. etc. etc., but doesn't want to do anything about it.

That kind of "oppose".

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
something that God abhors, and I'm the one who has "the problem".

Demonstrably. You lack control of your tongue or temper or both. Who knows? In any event, it's what gets you banned and dismissed by posters who engage substantively, for the most part.

If you think that a clean slate on an internet forum gives you an 'in' with God, are you in for an eternal surprise.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
A tv sitcom is the equivalent to a thread showing the destruction of human lives and invaluable institutions.

No, the principle, which I actually set out a bit more than I would normally and which you still managed to miss, was noted at the end of my response on point. Given the problems with your approach I won't waste time on something that lacks substance. That was the point of comparing your thread, not the topic, to a bad sitcom, poorly written and acted out.

So the evidence showing that homosexuality MUST be recriminalized is valid, but it's the author and his...

"method"

that bothers you so?

On a closing note: I see that you've reported me for implying the obvious.

Seek spiritual and psychological counseling Town Heretic, before it's too late.

 

[MrDante]

The opposite: Using a disease that comes from a changeable behavior as grounds for criminalizing that behavior is an act of love, not hate.

since ones orientation is neither a behavior or changeable you don't have much of a point.

 

[MrDante]

Just so much excrement flung at people, really.

It's all he really has

 

[MrDante]

Are you a gay man?

are you?

 

[ok doser]

I wonder if Rusha isn't employed to simply be bait for others to be banned.
Like if you put a cymbal-banging monkey in a room of cats lain:

does she even post here anymore?

 

[ok doser]

... ones orientation is neither a behavior or changeable ....

does that hold true for those who identify as pedophiles?

 

[Crucible]

does she even post here anymore?

I haven't been on in a couple weeks so if it's a recent change, I wouldn't know. What I do know is that she decided to put everyone on ignore who she couldn't affect.

Those like TH choose not to see motives though.

 

[Tambora]

I wonder if Rusha isn't employed to simply be bait for others to be banned.

Rusha is a cool lady.

Like if you put a cymbal-banging monkey in a room of cats lain:

That would be you.

 

[Crucible]

Rusha is a cool lady.

She serves you all well- one of the local instigators to get others banned. That's the only reason you all would befriend a virtually atheist, liberal gay marriage advocate.

Those are the sort of people you all patently go in on. But she serves you all a good purpose. Sort of like TH :idunno:

 

[MrDante]

does that hold true for those who identify as pedophiles?

What a stupid thing say.
Pedophilia isn't an orientation.

 

[Tambora]

She serves you all well- one of the local instigators to get others banned. That's the only reason you all would befriend a virtually atheist, liberal gay marriage advocate.

Those are the sort of people you all patently go in on. But she serves you all a good purpose. Sort of like TH :idunno:

Rusha didn't ban anyone for anything.
If you, or anyone else, got banned, it was due to your own actions.
While morons like you may want to place the blame of your ban on Rusha, you are not taking responsibility for your own actions.

Man up and quit being such a wuss.

 

[ok doser]

What a stupid thing say.
Pedophilia isn't an orientation.

seems to me like pedophiles are sexually oriented towards children

but let's see what the experts say:

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty