GOP Candidate Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I discovered the best way to get my older son to make his bed - pay part of his allowance to his younger brother to make it for him when the older brother forgets.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
The American Taliban is alive and well.

We need a revolution of a different kind. A revolution that denies Extremist Christianity the audience it seeks in this country.

ATS: Atheist Televangelical Service.

Really, the blatant anti-Christian hate speech on this website(speech that is often supported by moderators) reveals who the real radicals are, and who the real threat is. Most Christians ignore atheists and want atheists to leave them alone, but atheists go our of their way to move into Christian communities and demand that Christians not be Christians.

That is probably why I find most atheists to be such pathetic creatures. They are too cowardly to try and establish their own communities so they seek to control the behavior of others. The inquisition never ended, it is just that the Inquisitors found it safe to drop any pretenses of faith.

But I thank atheist kind for proving my point: That tolerance isn't real. It is merely something that hateful demand upon those that they wish to destroy. History is littered of 20th Century accounts of good little atheists like yourself mass murdering Christians. From the USSR all the way to Columbine(yes the Columbine shooters where atheists who targeted a small Christian School Club[something atheists have worked to outlaw in public schools in most areas] instead of the "bully jocks").

But keep up the chauvinism, keep up the climate of hate, but do well to remember this: Hatred is a twice curse, it curses the one you hate and it curses yourself. Sooner or later the same culture of hate that atheists promote against Christianity will be targeted again atheists themselves as no one will care about a group that has caused so much pain and committed the worse sin in our superficial society, being an annoying pest/crybaby.

reply to post by korathin


any of the religious books are like highways, you can follow them in either direction, and weather it be heaven or hell, is really up to the heart that is seeking...

when humans act stupid and do stupid things on their own accord, when sinners act like sinners and do wrong....
we know that God had nothing to do with the act...

but when the act is encouraged with a justification with the word God in it, well, that is another story entirelly....
that's why we have people laughing at the religion while pointing to such things as the witch burnings....

remember Bush's crusade!!!
we are still entangled into it...
we are still paying for it...
are lies from God??? my understanding is that all liers will have their place in the lake of fire!!!
and there were lies and deceit involved in getting us into his crusade!!!

there are wolves in sheep clothing.
the church should be the first ones to call them out, it will be their religion that ends up paying in the end with the loss of credibility.

reply to post by mahatche


You are missing simple logic. It should be mandatory for all libs to take logic, then we wouldnt have libs. Here's a crash course: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. That is the method you are using. Using your logic the talibans actual murder of people and the idiots comments are equals. This is the opposite of logic. Watch this:

All eugenist are racist
Planned parenthood was created by eugenist
All supporters of planned parenthood are racist

Using your logic everything is evil. It is dumb. When you fail to recognize the relationship between "A" and "B", you cannot make a rational argument. I suspect though you are simply entertaining those who dislike religion, and no amount to rationale wil do anything to change that.

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

You are missing simple logic. It should be mandatory for all libs to take logic, then we wouldnt have libs. Here's a crash course: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. That is the method you are using. Using your logic the talibans actual murder of people and the idiots comments are equals. This is the opposite of logic. Watch this:

All eugenist are racist
Planned parenthood was created by eugenist
All supporters of planned parenthood are racist

Using your logic everything is evil. It is dumb. When you fail to recognize the relationship between "A" and "B", you cannot make a rational argument. I suspect though you are simply entertaining those who dislike religion, and no amount to rationale wil do anything to change that.

Parroting Ann Coulter type rhetoric is cute and all, but if you wish to have a respectable discussion it's a good idea to not start off with such dismissive vitriol. It makes you look like a condescending ass, who can only join conversations after setting up a defense mechanism.

Anyway, If a person running for office says a law should be passed allowing people to kill rebellious kids, what makes you believe they wouldn't be interested in using that law? The only reason to pass such a law is to use it.

Currently this man lives in a society where we have laws that would imprison him for the rest of his life if he killed anyone, and he doesn't want that, but he would like it if those laws where changed, to allow him to act on his beliefs. Those beliefs happen to be "we should be allowed to kill rebellious youth"

As I've pointed out multiple times, the Taliban lives in a more lawless unstable society, where they are able to establish themselves as the law. They get away with doing what they want. So pointing out that they go through with the killings is a simplistic way of evaluating it.

Fuqua isn't allowed to murder, but the philosophical similarities are undeniable. Fuqua is an extreme fundamentalists. He believes we should impose strict biblical law for everyone. He uses scripture to justify murder.

Is it really that difficult for you to accept that some people could see things this way? Earlier in the thread we linked to the domionist doctrine, which clearly states that old testament laws should be upheld as the law of the world. They view it as part of their sanctification.

reply to post by mahatche


Ann has nothing to do with basic logic. You can demonize the man all you want, but you are using a single idiots comments to slander an entire religion, and worse, compare them to murderers. You are doing so all using bad logic. What you are not understanding is that the basic premise in your argument is wrong. This is not about politics, but basic reasoning. If you hate religion simply say you hate religion and this man's statement supports your viewpoint, but your comparison in this post is extreme and illogical.

I'll see that and raise you with a Democrat who thinks that Gays should be put to death.

Westb oro Baptist Church Member Says Gays Should ‘Absolutely’ Be Put to Death & Claims to Be ‘Life-Long Democrat’

Call anybody?

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

Ann has nothing to do with basic logic. You can demonize the man all you want, but you are using a single idiots comments to slander an entire religion, and worse, compare them to murderers. You are doing so all using bad logic. What you are not understanding is that the basic premise in your argument is wrong. This is not about politics, but basic reasoning. If you hate religion simply say you hate religion and this man's statement supports your viewpoint, but your comparison in this post is extreme and illogical.

Wrong, I never once criticized the entire religion, you are being hyper defensive. You've done more to lump this man in with the rest of the Christians than I have.

I have multiple posts in this thread acknowledging he doesn't represent the religion as a whole. My 2nd response to you clearly states I don't hate religion, I'm only against extremists who use religion to justify murder. I clearly said I don't hate religion as I am also religious, but you insist that I do because it fits your dismissive narrative.

It reminds me of the reaction some had to pedophile priests, most gave them their deserved criticism, but some wen't into defend Christianity at all costs mode, and they forgot to hold the bad guys accountable. I don't know what you are doing here, but in your attempt to paint liberals as the problem, you are letting this guy off the hook.

And no Ann has nothing to do with logic, but your "if libs blah blah blah LIBERALS!" is the type of trash she spews, and it's a #ty way to start a conversation.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'll see that and raise you with a Democrat who thinks that Gays should be put to death.

Westb oro Baptist Church Member Says Gays Should ‘Absolutely’ Be Put to Death & Claims to Be ‘Life-Long Democrat’

Call anybody?

It's been established long ago that westboro baptist church members are crazy and think gays should die.

How bout this. Instead of finger pointing in defense of political parties, we just hold all crazies accountable with out bias? To me this seems to be our best interest, but partisan cheerleaders on both sides would rather deflect and find who has worse people.

If Fugua was a Dem I would have put Dem in the title, I put GOP because it's information, he is a republican running for office, that's kind of important. I don't belong to either party, so I don't care which is worse.

But if you must do the bickering, fuqua is running for office, westborro baptist guy isn't.

Wackos come in all sexes, races, religions and political affiliations. Don't tell me that there is no bias here.


Call.

reply to post by mahatche


"If anyone had any doubt that a Christian equivalent to the Taliban is out there, read this", your words. Here you are lumping Christianity with taliban. Like somehow the Christians have their own sect of the taliban. This is why I was describing logic to you, you claim to be non-biased, but your statement is biased. Not only is it biased, it is incorrect, therefore everything that follows is incorrect. You can claim all you want to be some "middle" of the road person but your statement is inflammatory in nature, which is how you intended. So it should not be a suprise to you that you receive inflammatory reponses.

A non-biased statement would go something like... idiot USES Chritianity to......., not Christian = taliban... but that was not your intent. You are being dishonest and cannot defend your argument. Start with the first sentence if you want to defend this illogical garbage. My reasoning is bipartisan, I use politcal terms because the dishonesty of your argument reveals your agenda, and these terms describe where your agenda is coming from.

reply to post by pyramid head
sorry, there are a few sects of christianity that well....would agree with this guy...
I agree, not all christians, but there are a few sects...
just like not all muslims are taliban...

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

"If anyone had any doubt that a Christian equivalent to the Taliban is out there, read this", your words. Here you are lumping Christianity with taliban. Like somehow the Christians have their own sect of the taliban. This is why I was describing logic to you, you claim to be non-biased, but your statement is biased. Not only is it biased, it is incorrect, therefore everything that follows is incorrect. You can claim all you want to be some "middle" of the road person but your statement is inflammatory in nature, which is how you intended. So it should not be a suprise to you that you receive inflammatory reponses.

A non-biased statement would go something like... idiot USES Chritianity to......., not Christian = taliban... but that was not your intent. You are being dishonest and cannot defend your argument. Start with the first sentence if you want to defend this illogical garbage. My reasoning is bipartisan, I use politcal terms because the dishonesty of your argument reveals your agenda, and these terms describe where your agenda is coming from.

Your reading comprehension needs some work if you see "a christian equivalent is out there", and understand it as "every single christian in the world is equal to the taliban"

Since you quote me and twist it at your connivance, here's another quote from me earlier in this thread.

When I said there is a Christian equivalent to the Taliban, that wasn't to suggest they represent all Christians, but here's the thing, the Taliban doesn't represent all Muslims either. The Taliban makes up a very small percentage of the worlds 2 billion Muslims.

You have done a great job of projecting your assumptions on to someone you've never interacted with in the past, but I've been consistent with it this whole thread, and in the rest of my posting history as well.

Here's another post from me in another completely unrelated thread that asked if atheists hate Christians

Originally posted by mahatche
I don't hate religion, but I hate how some people practice their religion. I hate how intolerant some atheists can be as well. I think everyone deserves the right to search for personal truth, especially on an issue this important, but some people really lose sight of the personal side of personal faith.

I enjoy respectful discussions, but anybody who crosses the line and tries forcing their views on me, will be meet with the strongest challenge I'm capable of giving.

reply to post by dawnstar


Show me one sect of Christianity that is like the taliban, not just words, actions. That means beheading a man on live television, or flying planes into building killing thousands of people, that kind of thing. In your example please use a Chrisitan group that is supported by other well known Christian organizations, because the taliban is supported by well known Islamic groups.

reply to post by mahatche


You did not read my example. Read my example, that will explain to you the difference between an unbiased remark and one that is biased. You are still not defending your premise. You labled Christianity weather its a "sect" or all, you labled them and associated them with people who murder with support from a religious community under religious context. There is no rational comparison between the taliban and ANY sect of Christianity, because it does not exist.

What you are failing to understand, or ignore, is that the taliban is on no way equal to this idiot or any part of Christianity. A does not equal B. You must explain how the two are similar, otherwise why use the statement at all, you can't claim to to be in the middle or unbiased use inflammatory remarks, and then deny their origin.

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

You are missing simple logic. It should be mandatory for all libs to take logic, then we wouldnt have libs. Here's a crash course: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. That is the method you are using. Using your logic the talibans actual murder of people and the idiots comments are equals. This is the opposite of logic. Watch this:

All eugenist are racist
Planned parenthood was created by eugenist
All supporters of planned parenthood are racist

Using your logic everything is evil. It is dumb. When you fail to recognize the relationship between "A" and "B", you cannot make a rational argument. I suspect though you are simply entertaining those who dislike religion, and no amount to rationale wil do anything to change that.

I actually disagree with this, first Liberalism is a dead movement so there are little to no liberals around(if you want to use real speech, applying the real meaning to terms and words), secondly it has already been logically proven that logic is illogical.

en.wikipedia.org...

That said though, there is no point in debating with psychopaths and sociopaths. Some people are just born evil and will twist and turn every word to there own advantage and use it in passive aggressive attacks.

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

You did not read my example. Read my example, that will explain to you the difference between an unbiased remark and one that is biased. You are still not defending your premise. You labled Christianity weather its a "sect" or all, you labled them and associated them with people who murder with support from a religious community under religious context. There is no rational comparison between the taliban and ANY sect of Christianity, because it does not exist.

What you are failing to understand, or ignore, is that the taliban is on no way equal to this idiot or any part of Christianity. A does not equal B. You must explain how the two are similar, otherwise why use the statement at all, you can't claim to to be in the middle or unbiased use inflammatory remarks, and then deny their origin.

Do you believe people who call for laws to change to allow us to kill rebellious kids, aren't interested in taking advantage of those laws?

I'll answer some more of this post later, but please address this first.

Originally posted by korathin


That said though, there is no point in debating with psychopaths and sociopaths. Some people are just born evil and will twist and turn every word to there own advantage and use it in passive aggressive attacks.

who are you suggesting is a psychopath/sociopath?

reply to post by mahatche


No I do not. That is not what is at disscusion though, I addressed how you would say that. What you used to illustrate your point was a irrational comparison. The idiot who made those comments is an just that, an idiot, but there is no rational comparison between said idiot and the taliban. Should we start persecuting people based on speach, or associate said speach with actions that have not occured. If he was a world leader you might have an argument, but he is not, we do not have dictators in the US just yet. What is at argument is your association between Christians and the taliban. The morality of his statement is not in question, just the association between Christians and the taliban, I have not once supported anything he has said, in fact just refered to him by "idiot".

reply to post by korathin


Liberalism has many definitions, todays liberal does not mean classical liberal, but it does not mean the word does not exist, and I did use it in the correct context. There is a large portion of the population who consider themselves "liberals" based on their common views, because you say it does not exist does not make it so. I can clarify it for you by saying "the modern liberal", but I thought it was implied.

Logic is not illogical, it is the basis for a proper argument, pick up a book instead of a link to wikipedia. I will not explain such as it is entails a great deal. Your last statement does not even make any sense or have relevence to the disscusion I have been addressing. Socio/psychopaths have no relevence here, it is not being disscussed, I am simply addressing a comparison, and the validity of it. If you are suggesting I am one, your statement makes even less sense. If you would like to make an relevent comment please re-read the conversation, otherwise your statements are incoherrent dismissive generalizations.