Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[ok doser]

I think you demonsrably can't stop thinking about me, commenting about me and attempting to engage me.

Outside of your Quixote's "look at me" post and any number of other posts I noticed popping up in other threads, keeping within this thread alone since I joined in and taking a quick look across it since you asked, this is what I've found:

You thinking of me...

Refers to his old, weary take on my numbers thread.

You, continuing to talk about me...

Aimed at an answer I made to Trad.

More you thinking about me and my old note on the sound principle of separating secular power from religious institution.


You, referencing (and missing the mark) a comment I made to Trad.


You thinking about me with Trad...


You trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...



More you trying to engage me...


And when chrys echoed something of a comment of mine...

In your dreams, apparently. lain:

More you trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...


You talking about me with Yor...


More you trying to engage me...


More you trying to engage me...


I think I've written of or to you twice now since you came back, discounting a couple of early efforts before I noticed your mirrored username or other habits creeping back in.

And that's more answer than I thought you'd get from me on anything. Maybe one of these days you'll snap out of this miserably obsessive nonsense...in the meantime, flail away. I wanted to make a point about you and having made it...continue to be disinterested in thinking any more about you.

:e4e:

pointing out your inane foolishness =/= trying to engage you


but hey, thanks for demonstrating your obsessiveness by showing how you've been keeping track of me :darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

for example, you make an inane statement:

How is that different from the state allowing smoking? Or is it to you?

my response should not be seen as an invitation to dialogue with me:

my state doesn't allow smoking, in many circumstances

 

[Town Heretic]

I've addressed this before. Simply allowing something to happen does not constitute cooperation of any kind.

You're either being goofy or haven't thought it through. They aren't simply allowing. Their license is required for the sale. They are facilitating and profiting by the facilitation. In any event you have a strange understanding of cooperation. If the activity was criminal that level of involvement would constitute conspiracy.

If I smoke a cigarette just once?

Of course. It isn't the frequency of an act that makes it sinful.

Is that a sin? What if I take a single puff of a cigarrete just once? Is that a sin? I'm inclined to think that the answer is "no."

Then I'd say you've found a neat way to justify a behavior that isn't justifiable.

If you disagree, then I'll answer that every sin is an act of vice and is opposed to acts of some virtue. To which virtue would it be opposed?

What virtue is found in keeping the temple in order?

The problem is that "harm" is far too ambiguous/vague.

Not if you have lung cancer or know someone who has it or mouth cancer, etc.

 

[ok doser]

Not if you have lung cancer or know someone who has it or mouth cancer, etc.

lung cancer, "mouth" cancer, etc aren't necessarily caused by tobacco

likewise, tobacco does not always cause cancer



on the other hand, God is unambiguous when it comes to homosexuality

 

[StanJ]

lung cancer, "mouth" cancer, etc aren't necessarily caused by tobacco
likewise, tobacco does not always cause cancer
on the other hand, God is unambiguous when it comes to homosexuality

Did you used to work for big tobacco?

God is unambiguous about ALL sin, as was Paul when he wrote 1 Cor 5:12-13 (NIV)

 

[TracerBullet]

In the event that anyone is interested, I'm not failing to respond to Tracerbullet because I have no answers. I'm refusing to answer him in principle. I don't talk to broken records. Sorry. If anyone else is interested in proposing his objections, by all means, feel free to do so. :idunno:

Translation: "I can't make anything resembling a coherent response"

 

[ok doser]

Did you used to work for big tobacco?

nope

i work in health care

God is unambiguous about ALL sin, as was Paul when he wrote 1 Cor 5:12-13 (NIV)

what did paul have to say about tobacco?

 

[ok doser]

Translation: "I can't make anything resembling a coherent response"

you know, you're just proving his point

his statement was clear and unchallenging

if you're going to whine about him not responding to you, maybe you should try to understand why he feels about you the way so many here do

 

[Yorzhik]

From you. From your "It's the plural" beginning. I don't think you're completely comfortable with it or with how you understand it will be generally received or why couch or qualify it first?

I was just relaying some of the history of the term. I wasn't softening the insulting nature of the word. Of course I'm not completely comfortable with it. Humans don't like tension. Despite that, it is still amusing to see that my discomfort is far outweighed by their apoplectic reaction. It is indicative of their inability to think rationally. And so, with my amusement and the knowledge that I'm helping humanity, I sally forth by using the description "homos" until it doesn't work anymore.

And given you recognize the term is provocative and insulting. So what sort of fellow is usually trying to start a fight?

The sort that is forced to defend not only myself, but you too, despite yourself.

The power to insult and incite. That amuses you.

Yeah, I can't believe they let it get to them. Just a testament to their irrationality.

No, it really isn't. It's insult, not a part of an argument. Your own acknowledgment of its impact speaks to that.

No, it's part of a rhetorical argument. Emotional appeal.

Are they born with the impairment or is it a choice?

It's by choice. This video is not interesting because the homo lover Zoey Tur threatens physical violence. It's only interesting because everyone in the homo loving community defends him. It's a mass irrational choice to endorse such violence.

And that is just one demonstration of their inability to understand the dialectic approach.

A king doesn't need to talk about his crown. It's on his head. If you have one put it on.

That only works if the other side recognizes the king. As demonstrated, homos don't.

That's literally, factually untrue on its face. I've set out why prior but anyone trying to equate dehumanization with empowerment has a logic problem.

They are identical in principle. Whether dehumanization or empowerment, standing for what is right regardless what the law says is a Christian's obligation. The exercise thereof is the same when it comes to issuing licenses.

Comparing child molesters with homosexuals is just sensationalist nonsense. Why not compare them to fornicators? At least you'd have a rough parallel, that being consensual, sexual congress wrapped in sin.

Not at all. Fornication is not a capital crime while homo behavior is (regardless what man-made law says). The comparison to child molesters is much closer. Consider the comparison would be more appropriate in most of history, and in large parts of the world today.

That's an interesting thesis. What's the supportive tissue?

What is God's view of homo behavior? Do most kids know it? How about kidnapping? Fornication? Slavery? Do you really think most Christian kids know?

But maybe that's too specific. In general, that schools do a horrible job is already well known. Homeschoolers, even un-schoolers, do much better - therefore it's not the parents that have such contempt for a nation's children but the government school system and the officials that run them.

And then again, you might think that bad academics might not have anything to do with the acceptance of homo behavior.

No, there's a real and ongoing argument about nurture and nature, though both play a role in all sorts of behaviors, both good and ill. No school system is teaching biological determinism as a given. Fox would start a separate channel dedicated to following that one.

Oh really? A survey of public school kids says they believe homos are born that way. And they get it from adults as you can see here.

I never heard that.

That's what the saying "equal rights not special rights" means. Turns out homos wanted special rights all along.

I heard and witnessed a march for equality before the law, which was finally granted. And I've noted in this thread how Christians were largely responsible for their attaining it, because popular sentiment is usually moved by attempts on the part of an empowered majority to denigrate and deny a minority access and right. The associations were so obvious anyone with an understanding of history and fundamental human psychology had to be shaking their heads watching the massive and predictable failure in methodology take shape.

"
I'm not an advocate of homosexual union or right, only a recognizer that it was inevitable and, within the framework of the law, necessary.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

It was only inevitable because good people do nothing.

Won't happen. I can't think of a single group that's lost right once it attained it. Not here.

Slave owners. Although that was messy.

Or, a better example would be abortion. Since the sting videos are exposing the truth about murdering babies before they are born, I think the "right" to terminate a pregnancy by killing the child is shakier now than any other time since Roe v. Wade. The only question is whether there are enough good people in the US left.

I wrote: Now if we ever get around to following a more humble, loving and clear walk I think that might have an impact. It won't reverse law or lead people to want to, but it might make some want to walk with us.

I think it's tragic that you believe that, but it doesn't surprise me and I'm not going to try to argue you out of your demonization of the other, in this case bleeding out into any and everyone who differs with you in approach.

That's not it. Not it at all, really.

You're the one that attacked me for my approach. You have a very narrow minded view of what an insult is for and the right time to use them.

If you know homo behavior is a sin, that's the first step. But realize that homo behavior and Christianity are mutually exclusive. One or the other must be put into the closet.

 

[aikido7]

She needs to stay in jail and pay the punishment.

I went to Rawlins Penitentiary for 7 years beginning in 1972 because I declared myself a conscientious objector.

Do the crime, do the time. Stop bellyaching on her behalf.

 

[Traditio]

You're either being goofy or haven't thought it through.

This is what you initially wrote:

"It's allowing and licensing to make profit."

You were directly responding to my point which, roughly speaking, amounted to: "Imposing a tax doesn't seem to contribute to or promote the thing which is being taxed."

You've said at least two things: "Taxation allows" and "Taxation licenses."

My point, to which you most recently responded, was addressed to your assertion that taxation allows. I've already indicated above why allowance doesn't constitute cooperation. So we can safely ignore the "taxation allows" part. Your second point is that "Taxation licenses." You have, however, already raised the point about license. Earlier, you said that the State taxes and licenses tobacco sales. So what you've said is, given your point about taxation: "The State licenses and licenses tobacco sales." In other words, this point is redundant. [irony]You've essentially raised the exact same point twice. You've said the same thing two times over, in fact.[/irony]

[serious]The take off from this is that we can safely ignore the taxation bit and focus on the matter of licensing.[/serious]

They aren't simply allowing.

"It's allowing" (Town Heretic, within the past couple of pages of this thread). It appears as though Town Heretic might disagree with you, Town Heretic. How would you respond to this assertion of Town Heretic?

Their license is required for the sale. They are facilitating and profiting by the facilitation.

In what sense are they facilitating?

Of course. It isn't the frequency of an act that makes it sinful

So it offends God if I smoke a cigar once a month?

I'm having difficulty believing this. What's your argument?

Note, of course, that I agree with you that the frequency of an act doesn't change whether or not that act, considered solely in itself, is sinful. If an act, considered in itself, is sinful, then it's a sin to do it even once.

What virtue is found in keeping the temple in order?

You're speaking metaphorically. Are you asking me: "What virtue appertains to goods of the body"?

Temperance moderates one's desires for the pleasures of touch (i.e., chiefly, food, drink and sex).

Courage or fortitude moderates one's fear of danger, especially the danger of death, for the sake of the noble.

Prudence is the virtue whereby one acts appropriately in the given circumstances. E.g., it is the virtue whereby one determines that this particular circumstance requires this particular act of temperance.

Justice is the virtue whereby each is given according to his due. Properly speaking, it chiefly moderates our interactions with others.

(Note that justice, temperance, fortitude and prudence are the four cardinal natural virtues.)

The supernatural, theological, infused virtues are faith, hope and charity. Faith enables one to believe things of which one is unable to know by one's own efforts. Hope enables one to tend towards God as final end. Charity is supernatural love for God.

Not if you have lung cancer or know someone who has it or mouth cancer, etc.

1. Less than 10 percent of lifelong smokers get cancer.

2. This is a consequentialist argument.

3. That just leads me to think that by "harm" you mean "physical harm," at which point I'll just start listing sins which don't involve physical harm, and then I'll start listing actions which do involve physical harm, but are not sinful.

 

[Traditio]

Remind me to never be in any part pleased or impressed when you find a thing I write amusing.

lain:

I keep up with Pewdiepie's youtube video updates. I haven't subscribed, but I still keep up on a regular basis.

That's right. I'm an unofficial bro, and I don't care who knows it.

 

[Town Heretic]

double post.

 

[Town Heretic]

You've said at least two things: "Taxation allows" and "Taxation licenses."

Edit: the state taxes and the state licenses. It has to permit the activity, that is the activity must be lawful before it can be licensed.

My point, to which you most recently responded, was addressed to your assertion that taxation allows. I've already indicated above why allowance doesn't constitute cooperation.

It's arguing with half the point, which is the foundation for what follows.

So we can safely ignore the "taxation allows" part. Your second point is that "Taxation licenses." You have, however, already raised the point about license. Earlier, you said that the State taxes and licenses tobacco sales. So what you've said is, given your point about taxation: "The State licenses and licenses tobacco sales."

No, taxation is the further profit from license, which is itself profitable.

In other words, this point is redundant. [irony]You've essentially raised the exact same point twice. You've said the same thing two times over, in fact.[/irony]

Well, no, not if you understand that they literally have a license to sell their product. You're thinking of license as permission, I suppose.

In what sense are they facilitating?

It was in the quote itself. If you can't operate a business without purchasing a license then your sale depends on that license.

So it offends God if I smoke a cigar once a month?

I've never thought of it in those terms. Why not ask if a white lie outrages God? Else, I believe that knowingly harming yourself is contrary to His will and that seems sinful to me, however you couch the harm and God's reaction.

I'm having difficulty believing this. What's your argument?

I've made it clearly enough. But go play Russian roulette and if it goes awry let me know what God had to say about it.

Note, of course, that I agree with you that the frequency of an act doesn't change whether or not that act, considered solely in itself, is sinful. If an act, considered in itself, is sinful, then it's a sin to do it even once.

Agreed.

You're speaking metaphorically. Are you asking me: "What virtue appertains to goods of the body"?

I'm suggesting it is virtuous to keep your body in good working order for the sake of your witness as a Christian, that those things which work contrary to that state work contrary to the good and God's desire.

1. Less than 10 percent of lifelong smokers get cancer.

And harms anyone who smokes, also contributing to deaths from associated effects.

158,040 Americans are expected to die from lung cancer in 2015, according to the American Lung Association. Additionally, "Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer."

Smoking is an attack on your own body, a body no longer your own and therefore an attack on the owner. Take a guess at who that landlord is.

2. This is a consequentialist argument.

No, it's an answer to, "What harm?" in part.

3. That just leads me to think that by "harm" you mean "physical harm," at which point I'll just start listing sins which don't involve physical harm, and then I'll start listing actions which do involve physical harm, but are not sinful.

Which wouldn't address the point that this act is both harmful and without any redeeming or offsetting moral value. You could die saving a busload of nuns and count it virtuous. But we aren't talking about that.

 

[ok doser]

She needs to stay in jail and pay the punishment.

what kentucky state law did she violate?

 

[ok doser]

2. This is a consequentialist argument.

and opens the door to an examination of frequency of aids among fags

 

[patrick jane]

She needs to stay in jail and pay the punishment.

I went to Rawlins Penitentiary for 7 years beginning in 1972 because I declared myself a conscientious objector.

Do the crime, do the time. Stop bellyaching on her behalf.

you served the whole 7 ? and that was the only reason ? objecting, refusing to serve ?

 

[aikido7]

you served the whole 7 ? and that was the only reason ? objecting, refusing to serve ?

Yes. I was sentenced to 10 but I was commanded to go to the army physical which I flunked because of my knees. My local draft board decided to stop my punishment and let me be eligible for parole ( think my family and my minister helped me on this end). And I only had to meet with a parole officer for six months.

I got a job in a nursing home and later worked as an oncology tech in a hospital. My floor worked with end-stage cancer patients and their families. I later became a mediator and learned that all human behavior has a good intention underlying it. This view--whether ultimately right or wrong--has served me well in my personal struggle to find nonviolent resolutions to conflict.

I have been trying to take Jesus seriously and at his word for a long, long time. There was no way I was going to skip the whole thing and run away to Canada.

 

[ok doser]

Yes. I was sentenced to 10 but I was commanded to go to the army physical which I flunked because of my knees. My local draft board decided to stop my punishment.

I have been trying to take Jesus seriously and at his word for a long, long time. There was no way I was going to skip the whole thing and run away to Canada.

did you consider serving as a non-combatant - a medical corpsman?

 

[aikido7]

I can also vote. My experience as a felon has helped rather than hurt me.