Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

[crispybits]

You're not paying attention Gweedo.

Laura says you're wrong - unless you can disprove Laura then I win the argument. We've already established this, now keep up!

[Gweeedo]

@crispybits; Religious desire, belief, understanding, power, wars have always been the main entity of all civilizations, from the beginning of time.
Do you actually believe it can be stomped into oblivion...science can't fill the void.
Your Argument runs full circle.
Religious rite can circumvent the law/laws...

If you have a problem, take a pill...science has created a pill to alleviate any problem that you might have...not helping.
If you have a mental problem, it is good to bring it out in the open...talk it out...what a farce.
If you are mentally unstable there is a good chance you will need therapy for the rest of your life...hogwash!
Science is not the answer. Society through Science is f*cked!
Science gives you a false sense of security, Power, ability...look what it did for Hitler; nyuk nyuk.
Science and our trust in it, will be the downfall of us all...don't put your faith in it.

Our society has excepted homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Not everybody needs to acknowledge it legitimate.
Dropping label's on people (bigot, resist, sexist, homophobe etc.), holds no cause for action!

Edited.
Your argument has nothing to do with anything, other than giving you an opportunity to lambast Christianity and the Church.
The Church/Christians is not the problem.
Science vs God: I listened to Laura years ago, Laura thinks she has things figured out.
Unfortunately Laura is unstable, she continues to correct herself...we know less about Laura then we think.
In the end, you will find Laura points to God, the creator.

[crispybits]

It has everything to do with it. You keep saying "Society under God", well god doesn't exist silly! What we have is Society under Laura! (Laura's getting a bit upset with you denying her by the way, I'd be careful!)

If you think I'm wrong all you have to do is prove that Laura isn't real (that IS how it works right?)

If you can't tell me why I'm being so foolish then I should be free to exercise my right to do anything Laura tells me to. Right now she's telling me to burn all churches within 5 miles of where I sit right now to the ground. I guess as it's a religious act those pesky civil laws won't apply...

(In seriousness, tell me, apart from the word "God" and the word "Laura", and the obvious sarcasm, what is the fundamental difference between my last few posts and yours?)

[Gweeedo]

It has everything to do with it. You keep saying "Society under God", well god doesn't exist silly! What we have is Society under Laura! (Laura's getting a bit upset with you denying her by the way, I'd be careful!)

If you think I'm wrong all you have to do is prove that Laura isn't real (that IS how it works right?)

If you can't tell me why I'm being so foolish then I should be free to exercise my right to do anything Laura tells me to. Right now she's telling me to burn all churches within 5 miles of where I sit right now to the ground. I guess as it's a religious act those pesky civil laws won't apply...

(In seriousness, tell me, apart from the word "God" and the word "Laura", and the obvious sarcasm, what is the fundamental difference between my last few posts and yours?)

I only reply to your; Society backed by Science...that which you keep saying.
The foundation of this country (society) is based on the principles of God.
OK, now we have Science in the picture.
Where do you get, that science destroys God?
Right now science is just an idea (many ideas), Christians/Churches are real...they exist.
Don't be fooled into believing God does not exist, just because we can only see his representatives...which founded this country and conformed society.
I am not saying it is perfect...but it is real, it is fact.

OK, Let us take God out of the picture and run things your way.
Science will now interject its foothold in Society...drug everybody...society backed by science!

[crispybits]

1) I never said science destroys God. I said that the civil secular rules of society have to take precedence over anyone's personal religious rules. I also said repeatedly that you follow whatever religious rules you like in the privacy of your own home or church (as long as you're not harming anyone except yurself by doing so) and I won't say a word - it's only when you step out into wider society and try and claim your religious rules give you any sort of special right not to follow the rules everyone has to follow we have a problem.

2) Science isn't real huh? He says typing on a computer/tablet, over the internet, powered by a huge power station (20% chance it's nuclear fusion), and you're probably going to take some sort of internal combuston engine powered vehicle to your air conditioned workplace tomorrow. In the meantime maybe someone will call you from a significant distance away on the wirless communication device you carry around every day and invite you to a social eent sometime soon. f*ck you science isn't real!

3) The foundation of Iran is based on the principles of God. Unless your flag on your profile page is wrong then you really need some history lessons.

[pimpdave]

Everything you're saying might be technically correct crispybits, but if you've ever once celebrated Christmas, then in the eyes of the Islamo-facist terrorists, you're a Christian. And since Christmas is so popular in the USA, it's considered a Christian nation by the Muslim nations that want to destroy us.

I think it's possible to be an atheist and embrace the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our ancestors. Because we need as many allies as we can get against Islam. The more we push an atheist agenda, the easier it'll be for the Muslims to take power. And they want to, badly. So keep an open mind. Christians can be silly and obnoxious, but by and large, they'll just shake their heads at us heathens, not fucking remove our heads. Think on that.

[Gweeedo]

crispybits wrote:
There are several characteristics which society has decided, with the backing of science, are things that people cannot change about themselves (not within reasonable limits anyway). I can't change my age. I can't change my skin colour. I can't change my gender. I can't change who I am attracted to.

The laws aren't there to give anyone special rights, they are there because those characteristics should be irrelevant in any decision. When someone is dealing with anyone else there shouldn't be the thought...all things that should not even enter the discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imposing Laws is not going to change the way I think, feel, understand.
The controlling influence of such rules are limited...Somebody has to keep law in check.
The Church is not bound by such law...separation of church and State.
Law does show favoritism...silly wrabbit.

[crispybits]

...Everything you say might be technically correct, but you should embrace these incorrect views because these other people with other incorrect views want to kill us all anyway so we need to be friends....



And gweedo, I don't seek to try to change the way you think, feel, or understand. I seek to change the way you ACT.

I can think that all black people are sub-human animals, but as long as I act in all public interactions with them like I think they're normal human beings just like anyone else, including doing business with them the same way as I do business with white people or asian people or hispanic people, then there is no real problem. No black people will complain about me and I won't get called a racist or a bigot. If I go to church on a Sunday and preach the sub-humanity of black people to the other people who believe in the sub-humanity of black people then that's private, protected, religious discourse.

If I step out of the church into wider society and treat black people like sub-humans, breaking civil laws in the process, then I can't claim religious protection for that. I'll get sued or arrested.

Separation of church and state is exactly what this is about. You are free from state interference to have any beliefs you choose to have. We all are. In matters of religious beliefs the government should definitely stay out of that. That doesn't mean that any religiously inspired action must therefore be immune from state control, censorship or punishment. If that was true then the 9-11 hijackers never committed a crime - it was a religious act! Just think for a moment how ludicrous it would be if they had parachuted out just before the planes hit and been arrested, only to be released as free men very quickly because they were only following their religious beliefs.

[pimpdave]

You're a suicidal fool then.

[Gweeedo]

You can try to change the way I act, you can try to change the way the Church acts...why bother.
The church is not trying to change the way you act...it is trying to keep you from committing the act. More so it is trying warn you of the consequences of doing such vile acts.
Promoting self control without the use of drugs.
Nobody uses self control anymore...if it feels good doo it.
Kids (11 year olds) thinking it cool to be gay (not cool or uncool)...just plain foolish.

The homosexuals aught leave the church be.
It is somewhat moot when a homosexual brings it up.
Enforcing such laws will be more of a challenge...good luck.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes Jules, that's exactly what they are telling you.

YES! That IS exactly what we are telling you!

Look, if someone has sincere religious beliefs then nobody should force them to break any of their religious rules in their own lives. BUT in a society where there are many different religious philosophies then nobody should force their religious beliefs upon others either.

Imagine a native american religious group said that everyone must take peyote on their holy days. How far do you think they would get with that?

What you believe in the privacy of your own mind, and what you preach about religious topics in the privacy of your own church is your own business. Nobody should interfere with that (within reason, I'd still want the police to get involved in cults of human sacrifice for example).

But what you do in the public space of wider society should show respect and tolerance of all other law-abiding beliefs, even those fundamentally opposite to yours. This is the point the religious seem to consistently miss. In order to have a society where we all respect and tolerate your right to follow whatever religious rules you want to follow, you have to show the same respect and tolerance for those that follow different rules.

And when you step out of your church and into wider society, and especially where you do so in order to offer goods or services to the public in return for money (as in the case of that chapel, or the baker, or the florist), you should follow all the relevant civil rules about how you do business. If one of those civil rules is that you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexuality then guess what - YOU FOLLOW THAT RULE!!

If following one of those rules would cause you to break a rule in your religion, and there is no compelling interest in enforcing that rule, then sure we can turn a blind eye. In a society where we are constantly having to fight against discrimination of all kinds (not just homophobia, there's racism, sexism, ageism, etc), then there is a compelling interest in ensuring that nobody is allowed to discriminate against people based on these protected characteristics. By doing so we protect not only the minorities, but everyone.

Your religious rules do not get to trump the basic right of anyone else to be treated equally regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or any other protected characteristic.

Ah, secular statism, it's so cute. Tolerance alone really is a weak goal and promoting it through coercion doesn't impart the more desirable lesson of allowing people to learn that bigotry is bad--on their own terms. Anyway, do such interventions end with the goal of promoting "equality" for favored groups of people? Or shall we expect more intervention in other social relations which were previously unrelated to political means of control?

If the state churches were acting indiscriminately, then sure, I agree with you. If a private organization is, then why prohibit it? Why drive bigotry and racism underground? At least, within a society that respects general freedom, we can see who the real bigots are. With state intervention, it's all driven underground (and largely unpunished, since it's easy to avoid: keep it implicit).

[Phatscotty]

Take your chill pills PS

The point is - there are several characteristics which society has decided, with the backing of science, are things that people cannot change about themselves (not within reasonable limits anyway). I can't change my age. I can't change my skin colour. I can't change my gender. I can't change who I am attracted to. So, as a society we have decided that to discriminate based on any of these things is to be a complete douchebag. It doesn't matter what the reason is, if you're ageist or racist or sexist or homophobic then you're a douchebag.

Just a quick question. Science is also declaring that pedophiles are 'born this way' and cannot change who they are or what they are attracted to or who they love either, nor can they change the ages. Opine good sir. My turn to challenge you. If we are against pedophiles, are we douchebags?

[crispybits]

Only time for a quick one, I'm not being deliberately pithy

PS the difference is consent. A gay adult can give another gay adult consent for a gay relationship. A sister can give her brother consent (once they are both adults) for an incestuous relationship. A child is not capable of giving consent to a peadophile (legally speaking, of course the kid could say "yeah go on then"). Even if it is found that peadophilia is a natural sexual orientation, the relationship between an adult and a child is fundamentally different because of consent. If it's a natural orientation then that changes other things, like how we try and deal with these people, but it doesn't change the underlying principle of relationships being consensual.

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

Gweedo why bother? Because your actions do harm to people that don't share the same views as you, and who are doing nothing that causes harm to others themselves. John and Mike live 2 streets over from you and are in a loving gay relationship. Does this do you or anyone else harm? Discrimination does demonstrable harm, and as a society we have pretty much all agreed that things like racism, sexism and homophobia are morally indefensible. There aren't, and should never be, thought crime laws, but there are, and should be, laws based on how you act towards all other members of society based on preventing harmful behaviour. Believe whatever you want to believe, but act based on the limits imposed by civil law and there is no problem here.

pimpdave I simply think you're buying into the fear culture, and the "muslim problem" is not actually a problem for the vast majority. Talking about the muslim extremists is way off topic for this thread though. Create a thread for it with even remotely sensible opening premises and I'll engage in that conversation there.

[thegreekdog]

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

In the United States, what do you think has made more of an impact on "gay bashing" as a cultural taboo?

This? - http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-s ... -marriage/

Or this? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Eye_ ... raight_Guy

Pure speculation, by the way, but I think there is probably more racism in the United States than homophobia.

In any event, and I think I've mentioned this before in another thread, if a local, state, or federal government starts to pass and/or enforce laws against churches that preach against homosexuality, we'll see if the U.S. courts value the first amendment the way that the first amendment was meant to be valued (as the most important of the bill of rights).

[notyou2]

I have an answer for the ordained minister couple. Seeing how the non-discrimination is a city law, all they have to do is move to the country in an unincorporated area. Voila, free, free, free at last.

[BigBallinStalin]

Only time for a quick one, I'm not being deliberately pithy

PS the difference is consent. A gay adult can give another gay adult consent for a gay relationship. A sister can give her brother consent (once they are both adults) for an incestuous relationship. A child is not capable of giving consent to a peadophile (legally speaking, of course the kid could say "yeah go on then"). Even if it is found that peadophilia is a natural sexual orientation, the relationship between an adult and a child is fundamentally different because of consent. If it's a natural orientation then that changes other things, like how we try and deal with these people, but it doesn't change the underlying principle of relationships being consensual.

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

So... You heard of Jim Crow laws, right? That didn't drop outta the sky; it was pushed by some unknown amount of male, white voters. So, this 'state intervention for ending racism' claim is nonsensical. The intentions are not the issue although a many secularists believe it is (go figure, the political arena is full of sentiment).


Anyway, do such interventions end with the goal of promoting "equality" for favored groups of people? Or shall we expect more intervention in other social relations which were previously unrelated to political means of control?

We should expect more intervention into other social relations. Pandora's Box doesn't close when the secularists wish--particularly when some secularists have greater designs on other people's lives than you yourself may have. That's the problem; it's not just about equality. It's about social control for a variety of intentions beyond so-called "equality" (an vague, loaded term).

And even if intervention attains equality in name, it's not like that goal is actually attained. Driving bigotry underground prevents people from identifying bigots, thus denying them the opportunity to call them out (people will inadvertently support bigots through market exchanges; had they known better...). Punishment through the state is not effective in reforming people's attitudes (e.g. see war on drugs, war on terrorism). Your position is counter-productive and unnecessarily abusive.

[AndyDufresne]

Your position is counter-productive and unnecessarily abusive.

Is this a new BBS anti-opponent slogan for the midterm elections next week?


--Andy

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Everything you're saying might be technically correct crispybits, but if you've ever once celebrated Christmas, then in the eyes of the Islamo-facist terrorists, you're a Christian. And since Christmas is so popular in the USA, it's considered a Christian nation by the Muslim nations that want to destroy us.

I think it's possible to be an atheist and embrace the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our ancestors. Because we need as many allies as we can get against Islam. The more we push an atheist agenda, the easier it'll be for the Muslims to take power. And they want to, badly. So keep an open mind. Christians can be silly and obnoxious, but by and large, they'll just shake their heads at us heathens, not fucking remove our heads. Think on that.

If we left them the f*ck alone they wouldn't want to kill us. Problem solved.

-TG

[notyou2]

Everything you're saying might be technically correct crispybits, but if you've ever once celebrated Christmas, then in the eyes of the Islamo-facist terrorists, you're a Christian. And since Christmas is so popular in the USA, it's considered a Christian nation by the Muslim nations that want to destroy us.

I think it's possible to be an atheist and embrace the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our ancestors. Because we need as many allies as we can get against Islam. The more we push an atheist agenda, the easier it'll be for the Muslims to take power. And they want to, badly. So keep an open mind. Christians can be silly and obnoxious, but by and large, they'll just shake their heads at us heathens, not fucking remove our heads. Think on that.

If we left them the f*ck alone they wouldn't want to kill us. Problem solved.



-TG

Yes but think about the oil.

[Gweeedo]

The converse is also true.
'Because homosexuals actions do harm to people that don't share the same views as gays, and who are doing nothing that causes harm to others themselves.

This is nothing more than a Homosexual politician going after the church, cuz it is what gays do.
Gays want to be seen they want to be heard, they want everybody to learn and understand that the Gay lifestyle is not as sick and disgusting as it appears.
One thing I do not understand; have you seen the gay pride Perade...how is that going to help their cause? What a freak show.

The Homosexual community has no Power over the Church, so they seek to destroy it by other means...keep trying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your position is counter-productive and unnecessarily abusive.

Is this a new BBS anti-opponent slogan for the midterm elections next week?


--Andy

Don't I have a 2014 one? Let's save this for 2015.

[notyou2]

So, by Scotties logic, it's OK to be a psychotic mass murderer. They were born that way.

[BigBallinStalin]

Everything you're saying might be technically correct crispybits, but if you've ever once celebrated Christmas, then in the eyes of the Islamo-facist terrorists, you're a Christian. And since Christmas is so popular in the USA, it's considered a Christian nation by the Muslim nations that want to destroy us.

I think it's possible to be an atheist and embrace the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our ancestors. Because we need as many allies as we can get against Islam. The more we push an atheist agenda, the easier it'll be for the Muslims to take power. And they want to, badly. So keep an open mind. Christians can be silly and obnoxious, but by and large, they'll just shake their heads at us heathens, not fucking remove our heads. Think on that.

If we left them the f*ck alone they wouldn't want to kill us. Problem solved.

-TG

Maybe. It's a difficult case to make because there's a series of cause-and-effect over decades--during which many other causes play some influence on the outcomes. And, it's impossible to demonstrate that non-intervention is the answer because there's no counter-factual history (and any use of a proxy--e.g. a non-interventionist country--will be shot down because 'their culture is different than ours' and 'well their history is--blah blah blah').

Also, the government doesn't really conduct much research on its programs which are critical of its status quo. Going against this trend is a great way to get fired or not promoted. It also intentionally obscures its own outcomes (e.g. mislabeling victims of drone strikes as all "militants" v. "unknowns" (i.e. civilians). Sometimes, it conducts no scientific research at all (e.g. its aid distribution and 'infrastructure' rebuilding programs in AFG from small firebases). If pushed, it'll hide behind a "national interest" argument, and the relevant information needed to evaluate various US foreign policies are classified until they feel like releasing them. At that time, voters hardly care, so politicians hardly care, and the same nonsense continues.

But, given the fundamental nature of the political process, I wouldn't expect it to solve 'terrorism'. It's not like we're talking about a different process in regard to its war on drugs, on domestic poverty, and on foreign poverty--all of which should be viewed as an embarrassing waste of resources and unnecessary harm to others.

Also, there's the issue of path-dependency. The US and its previous policies have annoyed a bunch of people, so stopping now wouldn't necessarily end reactions to previous US actions--in the short-term. So, given this logic, the current US foreign policies 'must' be continued, which in my opinion exacerbates the current problems for the long-term. But it's not like politicians, bureaucrats, and voters really need to think about the long-term. Look at how 9-11 was handled: blame others but not ourselves for previous policies, and voters gobbled that shit up.

[crispybits]

The converse is also true.
'Because homosexuals actions do harm to people that don't share the same views as gays, and who are doing nothing that causes harm to others themselves.

This is nothing more than a Homosexual politician going after the church, cuz it is what gays do.
Gays want to be seen they want to be heard, they want everybody to learn and understand that the Gay lifestyle is not as sick and disgusting as it appears.
One thing I do not understand; have you seen the gay pride Perade...how is that going to help their cause? What a freak show.

The Homosexual community has no Power over the Church, so they seek to destroy it by other means...keep trying.

Please, enlighten us all. What demonstrable harm is caused by loving gay couples living their lives the same as loving straight couples do, including getting married...

(Key word there - demonstrable)

I'll start off from the other perspective that discrimination causes demonstrable harm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts. According to some groups, this is linked to heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, including the use of rights and protections for LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages. Depression and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed.

[crispybits]

So... You heard of Jim Crow laws, right? That didn't drop outta the sky; it was pushed by some unknown amount of male, white voters. So, this 'state intervention for ending racism' claim is nonsensical. The intentions are not the issue although a many secularists believe it is (go figure, the political arena is full of sentiment).

Actually they were forced out by a whole series of Supreme Court cases finding them to be unconstitutional. They weren't voted out of the system, they were litigated out of the system.

Anyway, do such interventions end with the goal of promoting "equality" for favored groups of people? Or shall we expect more intervention in other social relations which were previously unrelated to political means of control?

We should expect more intervention into other social relations. Pandora's Box doesn't close when the secularists wish--particularly when some secularists have greater designs on other people's lives than you yourself may have. That's the problem; it's not just about equality. It's about social control for a variety of intentions beyond so-called "equality" (an vague, loaded term).

And even if intervention attains equality in name, it's not like that goal is actually attained. Driving bigotry underground prevents people from identifying bigots, thus denying them the opportunity to call them out (people will inadvertently support bigots through market exchanges; had they known better...). Punishment through the state is not effective in reforming people's attitudes (e.g. see war on drugs, war on terrorism). Your position is counter-productive and unnecessarily abusive.

So in the first paragraph you say it was the power of voters who struck down the Jim Crow laws (and while the political process may be flawed, votes are currency in the "free market" of that process, just as money is the currency of the economic free market). And then in the second section you mke a clear distinction between free market forces and state intervention. I think that's a false distinction.

I think there are lots of things that the state shouldn't be getting involved in that it currently does, but for you on the one hand to claim that state actions were somehow about political free market (vote) processes, and then on the other hand claim that free market processes are better than state processes at identifying and ostracising those who we find unpalatable is just plain weird.

Also racism isn't exactly hidden beyond all sight without a thorough undercover investigation. You only have to lightly scratch the surface of some politicans' policies to find the underlying racist tones that they are trying to conceal. White supremacists are hardly quiet about their goals, in fact many of them tattoo their own faces with their hate messages. Employers that consistently treat their black employees different from their white employees are easily identified through patterns and statistics even if they are cunning enough not to be identified from any given individual case.