Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Baptist pastor performs in blackface at National Young Fundamentalist Conference   ( patheos.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Christian Fundamentalists, pastors  
•       •       •

7808 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:49 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-08 11:02:24 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.


We have a document that defines what our laws can and can't do. Attempting to legislate ones religious beliefs into law violates that document. You are creating a false equivalence, but you've been told that on this site several times over the years when you've attempted to make this argument that you think is very very clever before.
 
2014-03-08 11:03:54 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.


Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.
 
2014-03-08 11:06:59 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ...By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists.


Okay.  You're either exaggerating to attempt to make a point you're failing at making OR you're a complete moron worthy of being ignored by all the adults in the room.

Exagerating to make a point. The seperation imposed by a double standard is far more subtle but just as insideous as a "whites only" drinking fountian. Both are barriers between the races.


There's no double standard, you're just too dumb to understand the difference between the two situations.

If I shoot a guy who is breaking into my house and threatening me with a knife or if I just shoot someone on the street because I don't like his face are two different situations even though both involve me shooting a guy. It's not a "double standard" because context matters. Most people can grasp this concept.
 
2014-03-08 11:15:16 AM  

soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.


If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".
 
2014-03-08 11:19:10 AM  

SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?


Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.
 
2014-03-08 11:20:17 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.

If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".


They can try, but it should never make it into law because it violates the founding document of our country. So at some point it becomes stupid to try. NAMBLA is trying to make boy Farking legal. According to your absurd argument this is the exact same thing as trying to enact legislation to enhance benefits to veterans since both are based on "morality."
 
2014-03-08 11:21:56 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.


Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.
 
2014-03-08 11:23:19 AM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based ...

I think you just don't understand what the word 'just' means inside the concept of justice.


I'm starting to think he doesn't understand what most words mean.
 
2014-03-08 11:31:02 AM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.

If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".

They can try, but it should never make it into law because it violates the founding document of our country. So at some point it becomes stupid to try. NAMBLA is trying to make boy Farking legal. According to your absurd argument this is the exact same thing as trying to enact legislation to enhance benefits to veterans since both are based on "morality."


Correct and based upon my personal philosophy of right and wrong, I would oppose NAMBLA but support Veterans. I wouldn't, however, say NAMBLA shouldn't be allowed to try and convince people they were right and get laws changed.
 
2014-03-08 11:33:17 AM  
TerminalEchoes:

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I do not have formal debate training, but I believe it is not a double standard in this case because of a false equivalency. One is clearly satire, the other is... well that was the question in my post wasn't it?
 
2014-03-08 11:35:39 AM  
The Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of an official state religion. For example, Methodism or the Episcopal church can not be the official church of the United States. The idea that laws will not be based on the religious beliefs of the law makers is ludicrous.  Its not complicated.  Many people make decisions based on their moral convictions.

/Many others can be said to make decisions based on a lack of moral convictions.
 
2014-03-08 11:37:48 AM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.


Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.
 
2014-03-08 11:39:43 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.


And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...
 
2014-03-08 11:48:11 AM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...


Way to fail reading comprehension. I was not saying he was incorrect about the topic of this thread I was rebutting his point from our conversation. It's obvious this pastor did nothing wrong, which I was addressing with a different poster in a different conversation. Sorry but your Trolldar is faulty.
 
2014-03-08 11:49:06 AM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.


For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.
 
2014-03-08 12:02:19 PM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.

For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.


Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.
 
2014-03-08 12:02:41 PM  
Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?
 
2014-03-08 12:05:38 PM  

CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry


No, it isn't. People should base legislative decisions on the LAW, not religion. The law is not based in religion. Never has been in the US, never should be.

You can't even provide an example where it has been.
 
2014-03-08 12:05:59 PM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


JESUS Christ I can never unsee that, you bastard.
 
2014-03-08 12:09:46 PM  
Yet another failure to heed what I call the Fat Cosplayer Rule. It's fine to dress up as a character you don't really look like - just acknowledge that you realize this in some way.

But since this is a fundamentalist baptist preacher from Kentucky, I'm given to think that he knew fairly well a racist bit would go over well with his audience.
 
2014-03-08 12:15:55 PM  

allylloyd: Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?


I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.
 
2014-03-08 12:19:37 PM  

hardinparamedic: JoieD'Zen: So you got laid?

Well, let's just say that I found out I was bi one summer at 16 with a preacher's kid from Little Rock, Arkansas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4339EbVn8
 
2014-03-08 12:21:34 PM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...


I don't think he's a troll, it's why I've never blocked him.

He's just really, really dumb and he thinks he's really, really smart. Think of him like an amusing pet.
 
2014-03-08 12:21:39 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.

boy has this thread jumped a shark (or two).  did i miss a sharknado alert today?

You're saying a person can't disconnect their personal feelings from how they'd want legislation in their country and that is absolutely wrong.  I provided 1 example regarding my personal stance as pro-choice on abortion.  I wouldn't want anyone to have an abortion BUT, I can't insist that my morality apply to the rest of the country.  I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for something that I know would inhibit another person's ability to have their own moral code different from my own.   I have no problem with your personal code.  I have a problem with people insisting that we pass laws based on THEIR code without realizing it's against the spirit of the 1st amendment.


And as I pointed out, that is in itself a personal code of morality. Someone else could say that they could not in good conscience allow someone to murder an innocent and suffer the emotional trauma involved with an abortion. They would be serving the community more by keeping abortions from happening, in their view.
 
2014-03-08 12:24:07 PM  
...and why has no one brought up the desecration of the 3 Stooges???
museum.theclubhouse1.net
Speakin as a fawmuh New Yawkuh, Oim moitified!
 
2014-03-08 12:32:35 PM  

jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.


images.nationalgeographic.com
Frowns at your shenanigans.
 
2014-03-08 12:33:42 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ....

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.

From my perspective (male with German, Dutch, Scot, and Shawnee heritage) I didn't think his intent was racism and I would not assume the man is racist based on what he did.  He is, however, incredibly insensitive to reality to either not recognize or to assume that it wouldn't be considered offensive and in poor taste by some.


Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.
 
2014-03-08 12:35:06 PM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.

For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.

Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.


Like several other words you've used in this thread to try and sound smart, you also don't know what "bigotry" means.
 
2014-03-08 12:35:33 PM  

allylloyd: A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!


How about a black person in white face making fun of white people?
 
2014-03-08 12:36:54 PM  

CanisNoir: allylloyd: Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.


I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T
 
2014-03-08 12:37:40 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.

boy has this thread jumped a shark (or two).  did i miss a sharknado alert today?

You're saying a person can't disconnect their personal feelings from how they'd want legislation in their country and that is absolutely wrong.  I provided 1 example regarding my personal stance as pro-choice on abortion.  I wouldn't want anyone to have an abortion BUT, I can't insist that my morality apply to the rest of the country.  I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for something that I know would inhibit another person's ability to have their own moral code different from my own.   I have no problem with your personal code.  I have a problem with people insisting that we pass laws based on THEIR code without realizing it's against the spirit of the 1st amendment.

And as I pointed out, that is in itself a personal code of morality. Someone else could say that they could not in good conscience allow someone to murder an innocent and suffer the emotional trauma involved with an abortion. They would be serving the community more by keeping abortions from happening, in their view.

Agree to disagree.  (i'll even smoke you up, notmadatu)


Deal :)
 
2014-03-08 12:40:06 PM  

SquiggsIN: xtrc8u: The Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of an official state religion. For example, Methodism or the Episcopal church can not be the official church of the United States. The idea that laws will not be based on the religious beliefs of the law makers is ludicrous.  Its not complicated.  Many people make decisions based on their moral convictions.

/Many others can be said to make decisions based on a lack of moral convictions.

If a given law abides by Religion1 requirements for "good" morality but doesn't fit Religion2's requirements for the same isn't that specifically establishing laws that favor a religion?  Isn't that exactly what the 1st amendment says is a no-no?

I get that you're saying it happens.  I'm saying it's not JUSTIFIED to pass laws based on SUBJECTIVE things like morality.  Which is a pretty difficult concept in itself because most people would say that there is and must be a common morality for any government to function. We must agree on basic things like don't kill, don't steal, don't inflict harm on others and those can be considered morally-based by religion but religion is not required to follow such simply ethical rules.  The majority passing laws that infringe on the minority are still unconstitutional regardless of the justification the majority had for passing them.

Another example that's unpopular for me to point out is the federally recognized holiday of christ mass.  there is zero legal basis for it being recognized by our federal government but, they did it at a time when xtians had excessive power to the point of being able to ignore the 1st amendment when it pleased them.  (same goes for 'in god we trust' on currency)


I understand what you are saying, however, I disagree. If a law is passed, and that law fits religion1's viewpoint but not religion2, then  religion2 is not necessarily injured.   In the U.S., we have majority rule and minority protections. So, if the law inhibits the exercise of religion2, the law is deemed wrong, or the law must be limited in scope (like school systems not being able to penalize students for missing school on religious holidays).  You mentioned "don't kill."  That is part of the 10 Commandments. Certainly we won't repeal this law because it is associated with a religion because it a concept also common with those who do not see themselves as "religious."  Christmas is a national holiday because the majority wants it to be. It does not harm those that do not celebrate Christmas because a person can spend that day however they want to. In the U.S., its not about excessive power. It is about majority rule and minority rights.

Also, while I'm at it, and because I really don't want to do a lot of posting, just because someone has a right to something does not mean someone else has an obligation to provide it for them. That's not a response to anything you said, it's a new piece.
 
2014-03-08 12:40:53 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ....

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.

From my perspective (male with German, Dutch, Scot, and Shawnee heritage) I didn't think his intent was racism and I would not assume the man is racist based on what he did.  He is, however, incredibly insensitive to reality to either not recognize or to assume that it wouldn't be considered offensive and in poor taste by some.


I don't think the pastor was attempting to offend and be racist towards black people with his MrTinstral show. However, I think the fact that he didn't realize what a terrible, terrible idea it would be is because he's racist to some degree.
 
2014-03-08 12:41:44 PM  

DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.


Frowns at your shenanigans.


I think the fact that you had to go back half a century to find a counter example speaks volumes.
 
2014-03-08 12:41:46 PM  

CanisNoir: Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.


The "grow out of bigotry" and "face the reality" bits are pretty nice touches, but they don't really make your points sound that much less stupid.  They really, at this point, just make you sound petulant.
 
2014-03-08 12:42:56 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-08 12:43:22 PM  
You know who is doing a bad imitation of Blackface?

(can't tell you so I don't get banned again)
 
2014-03-08 12:44:30 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir:Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.

Well the guy does only have 109 twitter followers according to another thread comment so I guess that's plausible.


DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]
Frowns at your shenanigans.

Even visionaries can be ignorant/incorrect.  (i wouldn't use the word stupid because it's not appropriate)


Ok, how about James Clerk Maxwell?
 
2014-03-08 12:46:04 PM  

SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)


Not directed at you, but directed to people who don't understand why what this guy did was bad:

You can say "pity the fool" and make all the MR T references you want *without* painting your skin brown. I promise, it's possible.
 
2014-03-08 12:47:49 PM  

DrPainMD: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir:Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.

Well the guy does only have 109 twitter followers according to another thread comment so I guess that's plausible.


DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]
Frowns at your shenanigans.

Even visionaries can be ignorant/incorrect.  (i wouldn't use the word stupid because it's not appropriate)

Ok, how about James Clerk Maxwell?


You had to reach back even farther for that one.

Got any examples from the 21at century?
 
2014-03-08 12:52:02 PM  

SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)


From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.
 
2014-03-08 12:57:39 PM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.


Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?
 
2014-03-08 01:02:25 PM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?


I'm guessing the part where Mr. T is a blackman. To accurately portray a black man, I think looking like a black man would be required.
 
2014-03-08 01:05:33 PM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?

I'm guessing the part where Mr. T is a blackman. To accurately portray a black man, I think looking like a black man would be required.


Good point, he probably could never have gotten the character Mr T across without painting his skin brown.

Also being a black man was central to his point of "overcoming adversity." There's no way he could have got that message across otherwise.

For the record, I'm only pretending to agree with you for purposes of mockery. "Dumbface" if you will...
 
2014-03-08 01:07:36 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

I'd argue that there are a million better examples to showcase to a youth group.  None of those kids have seen the Rocky movies.  Dolph Lundgren is actually a great role model.  Very smart man.


Or, crazy idea but bear with me...

He could have been, I dunno, Rocky? You know, the one who actually had to overcome the adversity, who conveniently requires no skin painting to portray?
 
2014-03-08 01:07:54 PM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well.


CanisNoir  may be what is sometimes called a "clever silly," someone of above-average intelligence who clings tenaciously to ideas which even someone of below-average intelligence can easily see are irrational and illogical.  Sometimes people, instead of using their intelligence to recognize and then dismiss dumb ideas, instead use their intellect to defend them against all opposition, including common sense.

It's rather like "playing Devil's advocate," only without the "realizing that the position you're arguing for isn't one that you should agree with" part.  It's also a bit like being a troll, only again, without the self-awareness that the true troll has.

Basically, if you (1) aren't stupid, (2) argue for stupid ideas, and (3) are not joking or trolling or otherwise aware that the ideas are stupid, you're probably a clever silly.
 
2014-03-08 01:19:39 PM  

The Homer Tax: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

I'd argue that there are a million better examples to showcase to a youth group.  None of those kids have seen the Rocky movies.  Dolph Lundgren is actually a great role model.  Very smart man.

Or, crazy idea but bear with me...

He could have been, I dunno, Rocky? You know, the one who actually had to overcome the adversity, who conveniently requires no skin painting to portray?


I am assuming there was another person playing that part. The article is lacking in details.
 
2014-03-08 01:21:16 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark]
2014-03-08 12:21:01 AM


Not one little bit surprised. Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.

Speaking of bigots. Surprised it took you this long.
www.eonline.com


// not excusing the retard in the story, but bigots blaming "all _____ folks" are just as asinine.
 
2014-03-08 01:26:39 PM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


www.themonolith.com
 
2014-03-08 01:31:08 PM  

Spaced Lion: Yet another failure to heed what I call the Fat Cosplayer Rule. It's fine to dress up as a character you don't really look like - just acknowledge that you realize this in some way.


How do you suggest that a fat cosplayer "acknowledge that" she doesn't really look like Lum (or whoever she's dressed as), exactly?  Is she supposed to wear a sign saying "I acknowledge I'm fat" or what?
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report