Radical Homosexual Terrorism

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Maybe I am overly ignorant about this church but what kind of church is it that they have security guards to begin with? [/quote

DUH ??? Security guards ?

What the hell happened to god ?

Oh that's right, he was lost in the ark that he dwelt in eons ago , well there seems to be a lot of turning of the other cheek to be done

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I live in NY as well and there are plenty of Church's around here that have security.

If you visit NYC, the number of Church's there that employ security goes through the roof.

The Church of Latter Day Saints does not condone or practice polygamy or child marriage. Was the church that is in question a Mormon offshoot or an LDS church?

Eric

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
From a local Michigan source it appears the so called "protest" also took the form of some public sex acts.

The report says nothing of the sort. It makes suggestions that they did so, because, of course, what else would two gay people do in a bathroom. They could have been there for 2 weeks in some crazy gay sex marathon, or there for two minutes hiding from security.

Who knows? Use your own dirty imaginations to fill the gap...



Heh, lewd props? Condoms? So prudish. Nice to see they did just brush it off as the escapades of some rather idiotic people instead of getting all excited and attempting to send them to Gitmo for attacking people with weapons of mass copulation.

Now I wonder if mel will try to analogize what happened in the bathroom with something Jesus did , as "Tu Quoque" seems to be his new favorite form of fallacious reasoning.

When you understand why you are sadly mistaken on applying Tu Quoque to the comparison, get back to me. Here's a start though...

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because

1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

I'm not saying your claim of terrorism for Al Gayda is false because of the inconsistency. I'm asking you to be consistent in your application. Thus, you are a hypocrite. There's a special place for you according to your bearded friend

reply to post by melatonin

The report says nothing of the sort. It makes suggestions that they did so

It only makes suggestions they did so because some people still have a basic sense of decency... adults can fill in the blank with out the graphic detail.

The fact that lives were endangered by inducing panic in a LARGE facility holding over 1,000 people (this is described as a mega church), not to mention public emergency personnel were diverted (possibly missing a REAL fire), in addition property was vandalized, the group poses with masks and weapons, they have attacked a Mormon church since this causing property damage once again. Make light of it and laugh all you want. I applaud your transparency, it's good that all can see what your values are.





[edit on 11/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It only makes suggestions they did so because some people still have a basic sense of decency... adults can fill in the blank with out the graphic detail.

lolwut

Make light of it and laugh all you want. I applaud your transparency, it's good that all can see what your values are.

Dude, it's not hard to make light of it when you attempt to label it as terrorism. It's the only way one can go. Your hypebole just makes a mockery of terrorism and those who have suffered from terrorism.

Yeah, it was a silly and idiotic act. I've already said they should be punished in some appropriate way, that the people involved don't want to do so reflects well on them. But don't expect me to express faux indignation at the juvenile actions of a group of idiots.

However, your response doesn't reflect well on you. And I'll ridicule your response to my hearts content, as you deserve it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Lightmare
Then why have you come to this thread to throw stones at the OP? I'm sorry to hear about what happened in your hometown but I don't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread.

It is because what he referenced was likely a hate-crime which went largely ignored by the Police, and perhaps that a lot of Gays have been killed due to hate crimes. Though they perhaps do need to elaborate more clearly how the point relates.

And please...spare me the BS about "hate coming from Christians". Disapproval of homosexuality due to religious reasons does NOT equate to hatred of individuals who are gay. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

What if it does? How are you to know how it is perceived by Gay people? Perhaps they perceive it the same way as honest to goodness outright hatred, only thinly veiled and self-deceiving and sycophantic.

Perhaps by saying "Hate the sin and not the sinner," to some they may hear that "You ARE sin for what you do, and we must hate you."

Just some sustenance for the cerebellum.

reply to post by melatonin


Well mel you little data base of knowledge has failed you...

When you understand why you are sadly mistaken on applying Tu Quoque to the comparison, get back to me. Here's a start though...

Getting back to you as requested...

Tu quoque (IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/, Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now lets compare that to your post...

I'm not saying your claim of terrorism for Al Gayda is false because of the inconsistency. I'm asking you to be consistent in your application. Thus, you are a hypocrite. There's a special place for you according to your bearded friend

You accused me of a hypocrite which is explicitly listed in the definition of the Tu quoque fallacy. Also consider that my "bearded friend" is the same one you are equating with homosexual terrorists. He has a special place for you I fear.





[edit on 11/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

A smart one. There have been church shootings and churches get threats against them all the time.


Reminds me of Stephen King's "NEEDFUL THINGS". Which, subsequently, was on the other night.

Also, Wizard's First Rule... since people like to believe a thing because they want it to be true or fear it might be.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You are right. It is only a matter of time before somebody is at least hurt, possibly even killed. Their actions are unacceptable.

You mean like the many Homosexuals and Transgender people who have been murdered in cold blood by religious Zealots for infecting society with immoral behavior and for just being gross and unholy?

Oh, Sorry. Forget I said anything.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Well mel you little data base of knowledge has failed you...

Getting back to you as requested...

Tu quoque (IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/, Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now lets compare that to your post...

The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded

Read. Closer.

Did I do this?

In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

Errm, no.

Did I do this...

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.

This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.

Errm, no.

Did I do one of these?

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.

You-too version
A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.

Inconsistency version
A legitimate use of the inconsistency version might be:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.
Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.
Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.

Why, I believe I did.

You accused me of a hypocrite which is explicitly listed in the definition of the Tu quoque fallacy. Also consider that my "bearded friend" is the same one you are equating with homosexual terrorists. He has a special place for you I fear.

How does your foot taste?

Ur funny.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Lightmare
Well, for one thing, most Christians are smart enough to distance themselves from hate groups like Fred Phelps and his followers. We know better than to allow ourselves to be counted among them, be it in the eyes of the world or the eyes of God.

What an interesting choice of words. "DISTANCE THEMSELVES". I love when Talking heads use this to talk about Politicians, because what it essentially means is that the Politician SHARES the views of the person but doesn't want to publicly confess that (As in the Ayers example that was bandied about, and hundreds of others in other elections).

So my question is, are you "DISTANCING" yourself from Phelps etc. because you secretly wish you could be as vocal but know that it is un-PC and would get you hated?

As for rest, many of the non-Christians around here apparently feel threatened by the absolutist views in Christian doctrine. Therefore they look for any reason to try to discredit and silence anything that sounds like a fundamentalist point of view.

I'm sure some of them do seek out these topics in order to attack Christians... just as I'm sure some of them seek out these topics to defend their own positions and views. And I'm certain some come here for a good argument about a topic that is divisive.

Are you arguing that the fundamentalist point of view is superior and preferable to those who oppose it, and that it should not be attacked or questioned?

They preach tolerance and acceptance but show nothing but fear and distrust.

As human beings, we tend to reflect what others treat us with in many cases... and when fear and distrust is expected, people bring their baggage.

I'm not certain most branches of Christianity deserve Tolerance and understanding when they've spread hatred and bigotry via a thinly veiled "We care about your soul" approach.

Originally posted by Lightmare
I know atheists. I know Pagans. I know gay people. I believe they are going to Hell for the way they live. But I don't hate them. In fact, they are my friends and loved ones. I'm worried about their eternal well-being. I love them. I cry for them. Does that make me intolerant?

Yes. It Does. Allow me to explain why; Your belief dictates they are going to hell. You choose to believe this. Whether the bible is "Literally True" or not, you CHOOSE to believe it is. By Choosing to believe they are going to hell, you are choosing to believe it is what they Deserve. Reference "Hell" for why this makes you intolerant.

To me, a cool person is a cool person, regardless of whether or not they are saved. That sounds pretty tolerant to me. I'm sure most of the other fundamentalists around here feel the same way and will tell you so.

Yet you still believe that what they deserve for defying god is "HELL", and whether you cry about it or pray about it or wish that they'd believe as you do, in your SOUL you have chosen this belief that they deserve hell if they don't repent. And that's intolerant.

Christians already tolerate those who disagree with them. And we will continue to do so. What we will NOT do is water down our beliefs for the sake of not offending those who do not believe.

The problem is "TOLERANCE" has come to mean "Endure with much reluctance and disdain"... rather than "Love your fellow man regardless of his position".

I'll agree, a lot of Christians "Barely Tolerate" others.

Edit to add: I really hate the term "fundamentalist" because of the many negative implications that it carries. But if that is what my absolute belief in Christ makes me, then so be it. But please don't think that makes me a bigot or a hater. Seriously.

You did ask nicely, but I'm sorry, I can't help you about what others think... I can only try and explain why they think it.

I do not condone what these people did, and I don't believe in violence, unless in self-defense (not that they were being very violent). The church itself may not have done anything to the LGBT community.

But remember, the overwhelming majority of hatred and intolerance of the LGBT community comes from the bible.
Here's a link: en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by melatonin



The 2 legitimate uses do not apply to you because in case one
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P. -->(I am not guilty of the terrorists behavior)

the second:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P. --> (you did not demonstrate this at all)

When you introduced your argument I had made no mention whatsoever of the incident with Jesus and the moneychangers. Your subsequent attempts to equate the two actions were done after you were exposed for fallacious reasoning.

Ever since you've just been trying to cover your tracks...






[edit on 11/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


They cited a similar Scenario as example. After which, some others involved in the thread responded with apologistic "That's totally different", even though the situations are identical on most levels.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You are right. It is only a matter of time before somebody is at least hurt, possibly even killed. Their actions are unacceptable.

You mean like the many Homosexuals and Transgender people who have been murdered in cold blood by religious Zealots for infecting society with immoral behavior and for just being gross and unholy?

Oh, Sorry. Forget I said anything.

I meant continuing to storm into Churches the way they are, could escalate. And not necessarily from the 'Al Gayda's' themselves. Just that it could escalate. They should choose a different approach.

I have no delusions about the reality of the situation here in the States. Christians are the oppressors. And it often manifests violently. Stats reflects this.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The 2 legitimate uses do not apply to you because in case one
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P. -->(I am not guilty of the terrorists behavior)

I'll have to accept this claim of non-terrorist, but I note you appear to be untrustworthy and a hypocrite.

the second:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P. --> (you did not demonstrate this at all)

When you introduced your argument I had made no mention whatsoever of the incident with Jesus and the moneychangers. Your subsequent attempts to equate the two actions were done after you were exposed for fallacious reasoning. Now your just trying to cover your tracks...

Heh, what I did was raise the comparison. I showed that if we use the defintion you wanted to apply, we could readily use to label Jesus as guilty of terrorism. You mislabelled it as a Tu Quoque phallacy.

And I let people show their inconsistency.

Either both events are terrorism. Or neither are.

I think neither are. Applying your standards consistently, you should think both are. Your choice - hypocrite, kneejerkers error, or hyperbole-meister who worships a terrorist.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Also consider that my "bearded friend" is the same one you are equating with homosexual terrorists. He has a special place for you I fear.

Hell?

Fire and torture for all of eternity.

Forever damnation of his soul.

I find it interesting that we would disagree with calling an ATS member an 'idiot' but it is acceptable, and fairly common on ATS, to tell someone that they are going to hell because they deserve eternal torture.

Seriously people. Look at it. Think about it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by TheColdDragon


In you reply to lightmare you really miss the boat as many unfamiliar with Biblical doctrine do.

Yes. It Does. Allow me to explain why; Your belief dictates they are going to hell. You choose to believe this. Whether the bible is "Literally True" or not, you CHOOSE to believe it is. By Choosing to believe they are going to hell, you are choosing to believe it is what they Deserve. Reference "Hell" for why this makes you intolerant.

The Bible is clear that all deserve hell. For all have fallen short of Gods standard. So in regard to personal righteousness we are no better off than anyone else. It is only by the substitution of Jesus Christ that we are worthy. We have no right to boast in personal righteousness but that of Christ.

Eph. 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

So your straw man concept of what Christianity is - is what makes you intolerant.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Hell?

Fire and torture for all of eternity.

Forever damnation of his soul.

I find it interesting that we would disagree with calling an ATS member an 'idiot' but it is acceptable, and fairly common on ATS, to tell someone that they are going to hell because they deserve eternal torture.

Seriously people. Look at it. Think about it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

It wasn't my idea to get that going...

Mel introduced the idea. That was my reply to his assertion that I would be in danger of hell for being a hypocrite,

Thus, you are a hypocrite. There's a special place for you according to your bearded friend

which was really dumb of mel considering I was accused of being a hypocrite for defending the one who decides who goes to hell

[edit on 11/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]