Simultaneous issues with both sides of many arguments.

In this modern world of ours too many times people line up to be counted among either this or that stance, Polarizing themselves against others.

Some of us have simultaneous issues with both sides of many arguments.

- You want people not to have the right to bare arms?
Doesn't make criminals harmless but would make honest people vulnerable.

- You want to keep your right to keep and bare arms?
Then act responsibly and not be some moron walking through public places where people are unaware of your need to act like a turd while armed to the teeth and scare the living # out of them just to prove your point.

- You want gay marriage?
Doesn't bother me, who you love and want as your spouse isn't any of my business. Just don't try to push any agendas in my face.

- You have issues with gay marriage?
Doesn't change the Earth's rotation, if it bothers your version of morality that much then you may need to decide just how much of someone else's business/life is yours?

- You don't believe in God?
Doesn't change the fact that many people do. Why does it bother you if they choose to?

- You believe in God?
Doesn't give you the right to try to convert nor shove your version of morality down everyone's throat simply because you think they need to hear you or your message.

- You want to burn the flag?
Doesn't reflect on those who are proud of the honest people and the good their country has done.

- You hate your flag being burned?
Doesn't change the fact that people may not like how your country may impact theirs and their lives. It's burning reflects on you personally how exactly?

- You want to burn the Bible, Qur'an, Torah?
Doesn't shake a true believers faith. But does demonstrate your intolerance.

- You hate the Bible, Qur'an, Torah being burned?
If you're a true believer then believe and have faith. The burning shouldn't reflect on/diminish your faith,

Sadly, there are always those who think they know best and will go so far as to force others to allow for it. Look at recent events.

Honestly it isn't so much a question of what side are you on or what you believe in.

It's a question regarding are you or is the guy in front of you intolerant.

It's not up to us to determine if someone can marry another man or if he wants to believe in god.

Likewise we expect from others that they don't try to force their own opinions on the rest of society. It's really not complicated as a concept.

Marrying another man is a private decision. Burning a bible too. But if you start doing it with the express purpose of hurting others you cross a limit and start being intolerant of other people's opinions.


People can keep debating as long as they want to explain how their opinion is the best. Their opinion isn't the best but it's theirs and that should be respected.

It just means you are able to think for yourself and care about the world. I'm a mind my own business type person and there are times when I find myself sitting on the middle of the fence. (ouch)

Whatever you do don't give a rational, neutral perspective on ats or you will be completely ignored. The only way to get discussion here unfortunately is to polarize one way or the other.

Repeat something often enough and it becomes accepted more widely. So theres the agenda thing. In denial we insist we're right to others to reinforce our belief in something.

Other wise we might stop to see our mistaken "side" of it.

You can't expect me to deny my own ignorance?

the horror

a reply to: SLAYER69

To paraphrase Professor Lawerence Krauss "Anyone who believes in one religion is atheistic to the others." I thought that was brilliant.

Freedom of speech also allows the right of reply- most of the press doesn't understand this, or worse they do understand and couldn't give a damn. Personal opinions are just that-personal-and you can choose to either ignore them, praise them or disagree with them. But journalism is meant to be impartial and impersonal but nowadays they are just thinly veiled diatribes where the facts ride shotgun.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Don't take this the wrong way, but I love you.

Pretty fair stance, if the world was unicorns and rainbows all the time.

It is not though.

The gays have to have their parades to push it in peoples faces, get their morality forced into classrooms on impressionable children, and it is not any different than religion haters trying to vanquish every invocation of God or the Ten Commandments.

Morality is on the decline, it is unstoppable as history repeats itself. Rome became more decadent over time.

There are those that want to forcibly turn back the clock, glance over at the Caliphate and see one possible future.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Morality is on the decline, it is unstoppable as history repeats itself. Rome became more decadent over time.

There are those that want to forcibly turn back the clock, glance over at the Caliphate and see one possible future.

These two statements are at odds with each other. The "Caliphate" is the result of Muslim theocracy run amok. You know forcing religious morality onto the populace at large? The Caliphate isn't defined by a reduction of morality, and one certainly would never show up as they decayed.

HOWEVER, I could certainly see a religious Caliphate if the Christians were given too much theocratic power to enforce their morals in the government like you seem to want to be the case. So I'd say that it is more likely that YOU'D usher in a Caliphate (or the Christian equivalent) if given your way than a sjw arguing for gay equality.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Morality is on the decline, it is unstoppable as history repeats itself. Rome became more decadent over time.

There are those that want to forcibly turn back the clock, glance over at the Caliphate and see one possible future.

These two statements are at odds with each other. The "Caliphate" is the result of Muslim theocracy run amok. You know forcing religious morality onto the populace at large? The Caliphate isn't defined by a reduction of morality, and one certainly would never show up as they decayed.

HOWEVER, I could certainly see a religious Caliphate if the Christians were given too much theocratic power to enforce their morals in the government like you seem to want to be the case. So I'd say that it is more likely that YOU'D usher in a Caliphate (or the Christian equivalent) if given your way than a sjw arguing for gay equality.

The heads displayed in public squares or the gays thrown off public rooftops are not the result of strong morality but the absence of morality.

You saying a Christian nation would do the same is disgusting and perverse, and opposite of what is happening in the world right now. The Jihadists lost their morality and are murdering gays, the West lost its morality and are marrying gays in celebration. See a difference? Now Russia is making a strong orthodox Christian stance on gays and are not murdering them with the State, but they are not affording them any rights either.

So the closest thing today on Earth to your disgusting insinuation that a Christian nation would be doing the same or worse than the Caliphate is a bunch of bunk. The closest thing is your Komrads over there in Putinville.

a reply to: SLAYER69

So, basically, you're libertarian-minded, then.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The heads displayed in public squares or the gays thrown off public rooftops are not the result of strong morality but the absence of morality.

No it is QUITE clearly Muslim morality. Warped Muslim morality, but certainly Muslim morality. I can see similar zealotry when I see Christians bomb abortion clinics or try to legislate against gay people.

You saying a Christian nation would do the same is disgusting and perverse, and opposite of what is happening in the world right now. The Jihadists lost their morality and are murdering gays, the West lost its morality and are marrying gays in celebration. See a difference? Now Russia is making a strong orthodox Christian stance on gays and are not murdering them with the State, but they are not affording them any rights either.

I know it is disgusting and perverse, but it doesn't make it not true. Theocracies have traditionally been VERY oppressive to people they view as outside their morality. Christians included. So if this nation became a Christian nation, it is only a matter of time before we start persecuting people again. I only have to point to the Salem Witch trials to make my point.

For instance, the Jihadists didn't lose their morality. Homosexuality is just as an affront to Christianity as it is against Islam. There are PLENTY of Christians, if given the opportunity, would throw homosexuals off of buildings.

Meanwhile, in the west, we are abandoning stupid religious morals and are becoming MORE accepting as a people. It's a great thing. I know an oppressive Christian like you finds this bad, but that's because you can't see your own hypocrisy.

So the closest thing today on Earth to your disgusting insinuation that a Christian nation would be doing the same or worse than the Caliphate is a bunch of bunk. The closest thing is your Komrads over there in Putinville.

Yea if you call the historical record bunk. By the way, Russia is closer to a theocracy and therefore a result of rampant Christianity in the government than Christianity outside the government. It is more likely that Putin is YOUR comrade.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There are PLENTY of Christians, if given the opportunity, would throw homosexuals off of buildings.

Heck There are still plenty of Christians who are beating and killing the people they consider immoral.

It might not be an organized effort from a state but clearly they act like that because of their understanding of their religion.

I understand why a Christian would be offended to be compared to a Muslim, but in all honesty you will find moderate, loving and tolerant individuals, as well as violent, hateful extremists in all monotheistic religion, if not all religions and philosophies.

Christians are not magically immune to being extremists and all beliefs (religious or not) can lead to intolerant and extremist behaviors.

a reply to: JUhrman

Exactly. And as we usually see in society, it is the loudest and most irate that get the most attention. Naturally, the extremists always tend to be the loudest.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JUhrman

Exactly. And as we usually see in society, it is the loudest and most irate that get the most attention. Naturally, the extremists always tend to be the loudest.

You must be referring to Putin.
He doesn't tolerate homosexuals.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No. I'm referring to all extremists. Including the loud ones on ATS. *cough cough*

Your statement appiers to be the exception to the rule
But I'm in total agreemen,t ignored, twisted and greeted with hostility
I've seen many posters and 3 friends banned for what were only neutral perspectives, alas emotion and bias rule, none more so than in some of the mods. I've seen a few things of late that only confirms to me that ATS is a place to support ignorance as long as it's regarding their chosen topics or nontopics as it seems to be but still worth popping on to check an information hub
But no people come here and think it's the best thing since ......tinfoil hats, unbeknownst to them that this site is the same as every other website OWNED with its owners dictating content and restricting of information based on their beliefs


a reply to: jaws1975

originally posted by: jaws1975
Whatever you do don't give a rational, neutral perspective on ats or you will be completely ignored. The only way to get discussion here unfortunately is to polarize one way or the other.

That or being bashed for your choice of opinion after stating both sides of a conflict.

"Your opinion is stupid, I'm smarter because THIS is my opinion!"

I very often find myself critiquing both sides of arguments, and proposing a new way of looking at it which is neither of the 2 supposed sides...doesn't seem to make me too popular...lol