Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[glorydaz]

sure i do

in one case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into a child's body

in the other case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into the body of another man's wife

in both cases, the filthy pervert should be executed, and if the wife participated willingly, she should be executed too

You're being incredibly foolish. Down right stupid, in fact.

Hopefully, your next topic of discussion won't put you to this level of shame.

 

[glorydaz]

well, no

not if it was a marriage performed before God

I'm thinking it wasn't such a marriage. The evidence seems clear enough to me.

You are to flee youthful lusts...not jump headlong into them and then cry foul.

 

[musterion]

Stupidity or willfully doing what you know to be wrong? :think:

They are the same thing, in my opinion. Stupid means "without thinking." It implies (or used to imply) not that one was completely ignorant, but that one knew better and did it anyway. That's the correct use of the word, not in the sense of "ignorant."

The Bible uses foolish in the same sense, which is why God is merciless in speaking about fools. They KNOW better but go ahead anyway.

So, one isn't being stupid when one cannot know any better. This excludes deceived children and the mentally deficient. But a grown woman (or man) who willfully incapacitates themself around strangers is a stupid fool, even if nothing happens to them as a result. And if someone is raped, robbed or murdered after self-intoxication, the one who did it to them bears 100% of the criminal guilt but the one who put themself in the situation bears responsibility because God always holds fools responsible...and what they chose to do was foolish and stupid.

Do they DESERVE to get raped? No, but since rape is a foreseeable possibility of intoxicating yourself beyond your ability to sense and avoid risk, for that stupid choice they can hold only themselves responsible.

The issue of women dressing in a manner specifically designed to arouse lust in men is also foolish -- hence (I believe) the Bible promoting modest dress and deportment, not women dressing like sluts and whores, as young girls have been pushed into doing for that past five decades.

 

[Tambora]

i think an intelligent person, giving careful consideration to the position they are taking, might give some thought to the question as asked, and if they were unable to give a careful considered answer, might wonder whether their position is tenable

One that looks at their marriage per the law instead of the heart seek such a list.

 

[ok doser]

One that looks at their marriage per the law...

what do you think marriage vows are?

...instead of the heart seek such a list.

do you believe that the validity of a marriage is dependent on the vagaries of the heart?

do you believe that if one spouse wakes up one morning and says "that's it, i'm just not feeling it anymore - this marriage is over", they're free to commit adultery blamelessly?


the reason i "seek such a list" is to show you the inadequacies of your position - i don't seek such a list because I believe it exists, I ask you to provide it to illustrate that your position is untenable, that it makes a mockery of marriage, of marriage vows and of God


so let's put together some of your statements and see what we get:




tam made the scripturally unsupportable claim:

The (marriage) contract is broken when (one spouse) is abusive

I stated that I disagreed and tried to get some idea of what constituted "abuse" and what, in her mind, constituted an acceptable level of "abuse" to declare the marriage void

tams response?

hehe!
You think there is an actual check list?
How cute!

A man that needs to ask for such a check list is one that is not a prime candidate to be having a wife in the first place.

which i interpret to read "there is no checklist" and "there is no definition of abuse or acceptable levels of abuse"

I pushed to get a better understanding of tam's position and got this:

One that looks at their marriage per the law instead of the heart seek such a list.

and so, we're left with a position that the marriage contract and the vows before God, all of that is to be subject to the whims of the heart, the vagaries of feelings, the same "every cause" that we see in Matthew 19:3

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

tam calls me a legalist for taking Christ's words as written, while her position bears more than a faint resemblance to that of the israelites that Moses had to contend with :sigh:

 

[Tambora]

tam made the scripturally unsupportable claim:
I stated that I disagreed and tried to get some idea of what constituted "abuse" and what, in her mind, constituted an acceptable level of "abuse" to declare the marriage void

tams response?

which i interpret to read "there is no checklist" and "there is no definition of abuse or acceptable levels of abuse"

I pushed to get a better understanding of tam's position and got this:


and so, we're left with a position that the marriage contract and the vows before God, allof that is to be subject to the whims of the heart, the vagaries of feelings

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

tam calls me a legalist for taking Christ's words as written, while her position bears more gthan a faint resemblance to that of the israelite that Moses had to contend with :sigh:

Still looking to the law to justify I see.
Such a pity.

 

[ok doser]

sure i do

in one case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into a child's body

in the other case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into the body of another man's wife

in both cases, the filthy pervert should be executed, and if the wife participated willingly, she should be executed too

You're being incredibly foolish. Down right stupid, in fact.

Hopefully, your next topic of discussion won't put you to this level of shame.

explain - what part of my post do you find foolish, stupid and shameful?

is it:

1. in one case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into a child's body
or
2. in the other case, it's a pervert sticking his filthy appendages into the body of another man's wife
or
3. in both cases, the filthy pervert should be executed
or
4. and if the wife participated willingly, she should be executed too

 

[ok doser]

Still looking to the law to justify I see.
Such a pity.

well, no

i was quoting Jesus' words


and you missed half of my response to you

 

[ok doser]

God did it...not me. :chuckle:

jesus says: "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law"

glory says: "God says no more law! Wheeeeee!"

i'm gonna go with the big guy on this one, glory

sorry :idunno:




doser notes:

... you're perfectly happy to have that innocent child raised in a household where the perversion of adultery is allowed

glory tries to justify her acceptance of the perversion of adultery by claiming that the world is awash with all kinds of perversion, so we should accept it:

If that's the only perversion the child is exposed to then I'd be astounded. We live in a world of sin...

:sigh:

 

[ok doser]

They are the same thing, in my opinion. Stupid means "without thinking." It implies (or used to imply) not that one was completely ignorant, but that one knew better and did it anyway. That's the correct use of the word, not in the sense of "ignorant."

i use the word "retarded" in a similar manner - not because I believe that the person I am referring to has an organic mental disability, but because I believe that the use of their cognitive skills is impaired - usually when discussing a particular matter - a blind spot that many have because of trigger words like rape or adultery or spousal abuse

in fact, the word "retarded" is a trigger word for the overly sensitive politically correct types who argue interminably that it is hurtful to those who are totally unaware that it's being used :chuckle:

Do they DESERVE to get raped? No, but since rape is a foreseeable possibility of intoxicating yourself beyond your ability to sense and avoid risk, for that stupid choice they can hold only themselves responsible.

those who are triggered by the word "rape" will say that the bolded part is victim-blaming, or an attempt to remove responsibility from the rapist

and they'll call me a misogynist for believing that victim blaming is sometimes appropriate, that in some circumstances the victim should be blamed for their contributory behavior

in fact, if annabananahead ever comes back and notices that I wrote "victim blaming is sometimes appropriate", i would expect a half dozen threads started to call attention to it :chuckle:

for me, it all comes down to the following:

play stupid games, win stupid prizes


and don't whine if someone like me points out that you started it by being stupid


worth sharing:

Spoiler

and the retards whine "America is evil because it is the only country in history to kill people with nuclear weapons!" and "America is evil because it killed thousands of innocent japanese women and children with nuclear weapons!" and "No fair - japan didn't deserve to have nuclear weapons dropped on it!"

and unrelated but hilarious:

Spoiler

 

[Tambora]

well, no

Well, yes.

 

[Tambora]

i use the word "retarded" in a similar manner - not because I believe that the person I am referring to has an organic mental disability, but because I believe that the use of their cognitive skills is impaired - usually when discussing a particular matter - a blind spot that many have because of trigger words like rape or adultery or spousal abuse

in fact, the word "retarded" is a trigger word for the overly sensitive politically correct types who argue interminably that it is hurtful to those who are totally unaware that it's being used :chuckle:



those who are triggered by the word "rape" will say that the bolded part is victim-blaming, or an attempt to remove responsibility from the rapist

and they'll call me a misogynist for believing that victim blaming is sometimes appropriate, that in some circumstances the victim should be blamed for their contributory behavior

in fact, if annabananahead ever comes back and notices that I wrote "victim blaming is sometimes appropriate", i would expect a half dozen threads started to call attention to it :chuckle:

for me, it all comes down to the following:

play stupid games, win stupid prizes


and don't whine if someone like me points out that you started it by being stupid


worth sharing:

Spoiler

and unrelated but hilarious:

Spoiler

Rubbish.

Does a woman that acts promiscuously and it results in a man taking her as his wife to protect and love, did she earn and deserve it by her promiscuous behavior?
Like almost any action, it can result in a good consequence or a bad one.
You like to skew events to a one-sided conclusion.

 

[ok doser]

Well, yes.

you really can't see that your position is untenable, unsupportable?

i understand why rape is one of your trigger words and why you can't discuss it rationally

i can only guess why you're triggered by the topics of marriage and adultery and spousal abuse and promiscuity to the point where you can't discuss them rationally either :sigh:

 

[George Affleck]

Here's a new one! What gender is this?

[video]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-19/japanese-man-marries-teenage-girl-hologram[/video]

 

[ok doser]

Rubbish.

Does a woman that acts promiscuously and it results in a man taking her as his wife to protect and love, did she earn and deserve it by her promiscuous behavior?
Like almost any action, it can result in a good consequence or a bad one.
You like to skew events to a one-sided conclusion.

sorry - should have included a trigger warning :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

Here's a new one! What gender is this?

[video]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-19/japanese-man-marries-teenage-girl-hologram[/video]

the japanese lead the world when it comes to weird

i wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a ten year old girl instead of a sixteen year old girl :think:

 

[ok doser]

Does a woman that acts promiscuously ...

does scripture encourage women to act promiscuously?

does scripture say that acting promiscuously can result in "a good consequence or a bad one"?

 

[ok doser]

Like almost any action, it can result in a good consequence or a bad one.

is this true of rape?
is this true of child molestation?
is this true of murder?
is this true of adultery?
is this true of engaging in homo sex?

 

[JudgeRightly]

i use the word "retarded" in a similar manner - not because I believe that the person I am referring to has an organic mental disability, but because I believe that the use of their cognitive skills is impaired - usually when discussing a particular matter - a blind spot that many have because of trigger words like rape or adultery or spousal abuse

in fact, the word "retarded" is a trigger word for the overly sensitive politically correct types who argue interminably that it is hurtful to those who are totally unaware that it's being used :chuckle:



those who are triggered by the word "rape" will say that the bolded part is victim-blaming, or an attempt to remove responsibility from the rapist

and they'll call me a misogynist for believing that victim blaming is sometimes appropriate, that in some circumstances the victim should be blamed for their contributory behavior

in fact, if annabananahead ever comes back and notices that I wrote "victim blaming is sometimes appropriate", i would expect a half dozen threads started to call attention to it :chuckle:

for me, it all comes down to the following:

play stupid games, win stupid prizes


and don't whine if someone like me points out that you started it by being stupid


worth sharing:

Spoiler

and unrelated but hilarious:

Spoiler

I think part of the problem stems from the fact that most people don't understand that guilt is infinitely diluteable. Unlike adding water to, say, paint, which thins out the paint, yet there is only a finite amount, and if you keep adding more and more water to the paint eventually means it's the substance is 99.9% water, guilt can only increase when someone participates in criminal or even sinful activities.

A man rapes a woman? He is guilty of rape. He deserves to be put to death.

A woman dresses or acts seductively and a man sees it and rapes her? She is guilty of promiscuity, he is guilty of rape. She deserves to be flogged, and he deserves to be executed.

A woman dresses or acts seductively and a man sees it and rapes her, and a lawyer defends the rapist in court? The woman deserves to be flogged, and the rapist AND the lawyer deserve to be executed, the rapist for rape, and the lawyer for defending criminal behavior.

 

[ok doser]

I think part of the problem stems from the fact that most people don't understand that guilt is infinitely diluteable. Unlike adding water to, say, paint, which thins out the paint, yet there is only a finite amount, and if you keep adding more and more water to the paint eventually means it's the substance is 99.9% water, guilt can only increase when someone participates in criminal or even sinful activities.

A man rapes a woman? He is guilty of rape. He deserves to be put to death.

A woman dresses or acts seductively and a man sees it and rapes her? She is guilty of promiscuity, he is guilty of rape. She deserves to be flogged, and he deserves to be executed.

A woman dresses or acts seductively and a man sees it and rapes her, and a lawyer defends the rapist in court? The woman deserves to be flogged, and the rapist AND the lawyer deserve to be executed, the rapist for rape, and the lawyer for defending criminal behavior.

i agree, but the nature of the triggering makes rational discussion about these matters impossible

gonna have to read up on the psychological mechanisms behind triggering - don't remembered getting it in psych 1 or 2**, and until recently it had only been an object of derision, but i'm starting to think there's something deeper going on when you see the incredible increase in irrationality in the public sphere, in public discourse, especially with regard to politics and social issues

**eta: i did get exposed to it when we discussed PTSD