Oppressive Secular Laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 02:29 PM)Alla Wrote:  I see, you belong to BLM mob.

Nuts. You got me. And here I thought I was doing such a good job of keeping it hidden, too.

I suppose my biggest mistake was disagreeing with you. Dead giveaway, that. No one who isn't a member of the organization could possibly consider you to be an insane, racist idiot.

Ah, well. I did my best.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-08-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(23-08-2015 02:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  Church was teaching from the beginning of the times that marriage is only between a man and woman so they would procreate posterity for God.
But sometimes God can give an instruction that some men can have more than one wife. There are some reasons for that. But still marriage is when there is father(male) and mother/mothers(females)
First of all, the universe started expanding 14 billion years ago, your church wasn't teaching anything 14 billion years ago.

There are multiple definers and sanctioners of marriage.

The only one that is important is the government.
The religious organisations try to merge their version of marriage with that of the government's. If the government make it illegal for brother and sister to marry then religious organisations cannot marry brother and sister.

If religious organisations claim that two males or two females cannot marry then that makes no difference to the law. If government allow it, then it is legal.
Goverment have authority over marriage.

But this doesn't mean that your church has to perform gay weddings. Your churches weddings are entirely unnecessary rituals where you pretend they mix a bit of magic into the marriage. Your organisation and yourself can play adult make believe all you like. If you do go through the formailities under law of a marriage then even your "make believe" marriage can be supported by the government. They don't recognise nor account for any sacraments having been performed, they don't attest to whether the sacraments were performed "correctly" or not. All the govt cares about is that the rules of law have been met, that the appropriate forms have been signed and witnessed.
Your extra magical superstitious rituals are by the by.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
29-08-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 02:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 02:29 PM)Alla Wrote:  I see, you belong to BLM mob.

Nuts. You got me. And here I thought I was doing such a good job of keeping it hidden, too.

I suppose my biggest mistake was disagreeing with you. Dead giveaway, that. No one who isn't a member of the organization could possibly consider you to be an insane, racist idiot.

Ah, well. I did my best.
Those who defend mob Black Lives Matter belong to mob.
those who shout Black Lives Matter are racists.
those who shout ALL Lives matter are NOT racists.
So, I say ALL Lives Matter.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Alla Wrote:  Those who defend mob Black Lives Matter belong to mob.
those who shout Black Lives Matter are racists.
those who shout ALL Lives matter are NOT racists.
So, I say ALL Lives Matter.

Yes, because, as we all know, those who say that black lives matter obviously mean that other lives don't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-08-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 02:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  Church was teaching from the beginning of the times that marriage is only between a man and woman so they would procreate posterity for God.
But sometimes God can give an instruction that some men can have more than one wife. There are some reasons for that. But still marriage is when there is father(male) and mother/mothers(females)
First of all, the universe started expanding 14 billion years ago, your church wasn't teaching anything 14 billion years ago.
There is no my Church. But there is Church of Jesus Christ and I am member of this Church. Church of Jesus Christ is older then 14 billion years. It existed before universe started to expand.
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are multiple definers and sanctioners of marriage.
The only one that is important is the government.
I have to agree with you even though I do NOT agree with everything that government says.
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The religious organisations try to merge their version of marriage with that of the government's. If the government make it illegal for brother and sister to marry then religious organisations cannot marry brother and sister.
I agree with you.
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If religious organisations claim that two males or two females cannot marry then that makes no difference to the law. If government allow it, then it is legal.
Goverment have authority over marriage.
I understand this.
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But this doesn't mean that your church has to perform gay weddings.
Of course, Church of Jesus Christ will never do this. But world can do what world always does. God gave to all His children moral agency.
I understand that argument "The Bible says.." is NOT an argument.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
When you won't listen, Alla, I won't take you seriously. Especially if you suggest the only reason I support the BLM movement is because I'm part of the "mob". You just don't have a grasp of the history of the United States in terms of our treatment of minority communities, or the effects of gentrification when the police are involved in ramping up that pressure. You need to learn more before you just repeat what people with a "preserve the status quo" agenda tell you.

It's as simple as that.

You don't have all the information, and much of the information you do have is tainted by a lens of a type of media that is built to protect the status quo. Please read the articles I posted before you comment further on this, and cease shrieking nonsense slogans. They're as idiotic in here as you would find me if I started SHOUT TYPING the slogan of the BLM movement.

The fact that you keep calling everyone in the BLM movement "thugs" and saying they are "just" there to burn things down, rather than recognizing that these events occur when things get out of hand and people feel their voices aren't being heard shows me that you don't just fail to understand the real issue, you refuse to.

When you say "I saw it with my own eyes", you are making my point for me. If you see "bullying" and thuggery there, it is because of the filter on your vision, and is why I used the word racist. I do not agree with petty theft, but the clerk of the store was the one who committed assault, by making physical contact with Brown on his way out of the store. We ignore it because we feel he was just defending his store, but it is still him who initiated that encounter, not "Mike the Bully", as you see it. A big part of the article I posted about the BLM movement deals with that very issue, how people focus on the "he was not an angel so he deserved whatever happened to him" element, which lets them ignore how what was so wrong with what happened to him. At no point should police be aggressive enough to turn jaywalking into a shooting. And smoking weed in this country doesn't make you anything but a normal kid, regardless of what the law (drug laws which were invented by an open racist, who admitted the law against marijuana was for racist purposes) says about it.

Focusing on the "hands up" part of the argument is a way of distracting from the question of why the officer felt the need to be so aggressive in stopping two kids for jaywalking, and the fact that much of his story defies the laws of physics. What the DOJ found was that the "hands up" part was not substantiated by other witnesses (and yes, that the friend lied), and in lieu of specific evidence to the contrary, it is standard practice to defer to the officer's story. I still smell a rat in the shooting of Mike Brown. That has nothing to do with the thousands of other incidents that are 100% legitimate, and which have infuriated the communities who are protesting.

Claiming that they are all criminals, or just hate cops, is a fake argument. It is dishonest, it is racist, and it is not even worth addressing, only mocking. Telling us, quote, "I saw mob. I saw thugs and criminals" tells us exactly what kind of person you are.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 03:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 02:55 PM)Alla Wrote:  Those who defend mob Black Lives Matter belong to mob.
those who shout Black Lives Matter are racists.
those who shout ALL Lives matter are NOT racists.
So, I say ALL Lives Matter.

Yes, because, as we all know, those who say that black lives matter obviously mean that other lives don't.
obviously "black lives matter" at least sounds racist.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 03:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  When you won't listen, Alla, I won't take you seriously. Especially if you suggest the only reason I support the BLM movement is because I'm part of the "mob". You just don't have a grasp of the history of the United States in terms of our treatment of minority communities, or the effects of gentrification when the police are involved in ramping up that pressure. You need to learn more before you just repeat what people with a "preserve the status quo" agenda tell you.

It's as simple as that.

You don't have all the information, and much of the information you do have is tainted by a lens of a type of media that is built to protect the status quo. Please read the articles I posted before you comment further on this, and cease shrieking nonsense slogans. They're as idiotic in here as you would find me if I started SHOUT TYPING the slogan of the BLM movement.

The fact that you keep calling everyone in the BLM movement "thugs" and saying they are "just" there to burn things down, rather than recognizing that these events occur when things get out of hand and people feel their voices aren't being heard shows me that you don't just fail to understand the real issue, you refuse to.

When you say "I saw it with my own eyes", you are making my point for me. If you see "bullying" and thuggery there, it is because of the filter on your vision, and is why I used the word racist. I do not agree with petty theft, but the clerk of the store was the one who committed assault, by making physical contact with Brown on his way out of the store. We ignore it because we feel he was just defending his store, but it is still him who initiated that encounter, not "Mike the Bully", as you see it. A big part of the article I posted about the BLM movement deals with that very issue, how people focus on the "he was not an angel so he deserved whatever happened to him" element, which lets them ignore how what was so wrong with what happened to him. At no point should police be aggressive enough to turn jaywalking into a shooting. And smoking weed in this country doesn't make you anything but a normal kid, regardless of what the law (drug laws which were invented by an open racist, who admitted the law against marijuana was for racist purposes) says about it.

Focusing on the "hands up" part of the argument is a way of distracting from the question of why the officer felt the need to be so aggressive in stopping two kids for jaywalking, and the fact that much of his story defies the laws of physics. What the DOJ found was that the "hands up" part was not substantiated by other witnesses (and yes, that the friend lied), and in lieu of specific evidence to the contrary, it is standard practice to defer to the officer's story. I still smell a rat in the shooting of Mike Brown. That has nothing to do with the thousands of other incidents that are 100% legitimate, and which have infuriated the communities who are protesting.

Claiming that they are all criminals, or just hate cops, is a fake argument. It is dishonest, it is racist, and it is not even worth addressing, only mocking. Telling us, quote, "I saw mob. I saw thugs and criminals" tells us exactly what kind of person you are.

Mob is always ignorant. But leaders know what they do. Leaders of BLM are evil.
I believe that some cops are racists but not all cops.
I don't say that all who protest are criminals. There are good people who just believe lies. But all who were paid by evil leaders to destroy are criminals. Leaders who paid the mob to destroy are criminals.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
Sigh.

Okay, I'm only giving this serious reply ONCE. After that, I'm going to stop taking the objections seriously.

Yes, all lives matter.

But there is a strong statistical trend among law enforcement in this country to deal more harshly with black individuals than with whites, leading to increased loss of life, injury, incarceration, and penalties beyond what is justified by their behavior alone. (Also, more harshly with Hispanics and Native Americans than with Asians, yes, there are other races in play.)

As with all statistical trends, it is difficult to point to this one particular incident and say it's caused by the trend, or to another one and say it would have happened regardless.

This is heightened in the case of Mike Brown (and other cases), where multiple autopsies came to different conclusions, where the police were much more interested in shifting the blame to him by pointing out his earlier theft from a convenience store (which, it turned out, was completely unrelated to the shooting) and so cannot be considered neutral in their statements, and where the cop's testimony is difficult to contradict because the person in the best position to contradict it is dead.

This is not necessarily a problem of classical racism where the officers are blatantly hateful of blacks or blatantly dismissive of their humanity... though that arises too. But much of the problem is systemic and structural, tied to which communities get high- and low-quality officers based on economics, which economic classes get hit harder with harsher enforcement because they are less able to defend themselves legally, and blacks are disproportionately represented among the lower economic classes. (This in turn limits their upward social mobility, making it a self-perpetuating cycle.)

Again, while it is difficult to ascribe blame in any particular case, looking at the data as a whole reveals a deep streak of racial oppression directed towards blacks by the law enforcement community as a whole.

But regardless of the particular case (which, as I said, is murky), the trend remains, and it is obvious to those forced to endure it, and it has engendered a deep distrust and anger. Part of that distrust includes a distrust of official police statements and findings, and the system at large. It did not escape the attention of the black community that the prosecutor in the Mike Brown case had deep ties with the police community, and that in the grand jury proceedings he presented a case for both the prosecution AND THE DEFENSE. This is practically unheard of for a grand jury indictment proceeding, and was tantamount to throwing the case.

For these reasons, a great deal of anger and resentment is there, and some of it is being expressed.

Some of that expression is criminal and violent. Some of that crime is being committed by people who associate themselves with Black Lives Matter. But the organization -- it is better to call it a movement -- is so decentralized and informal that membership is a vague concept and holding them to collective responsibility is unrealistic. It is clear that MOST Black Lives Matter individuals are focusing on peaceful (if heated) protest, simply from the sheer numbers. If any more than a tiny minority of the vast numbers engaged in that movement were expressing their anger in a criminal manner, half the country would be burning.

So do all lives matter? Yes. But law enforcement does not need to be told that all lives matter. They in particular do not need to be told that white lives matter. They already know that. The message that they're not getting -- and hence the point of delivering the message -- is that BLACK lives matter. Not because those are the only lives that matter, but because those are the lives that matter least to law enforcement.

That was the serious response.

Now for the frank response. Your childish transmutation of "Black Lives Matter" to "Black Lies Matter" is not a valid talking point, any more than "atheists can't be trusted with power because communism", and you need to stop getting your news, your reasoning process, your slogans, and your attitudes from Fox News and the Blaze, because that's a bit like trying to learn advanced science from Sesame Street if Sesame Street were run by Creation Scientists. It CERTAINLY does not solve, or address, or pretend to address, or acknowledge, or try to comprehend the underlying problems. If anything it makes them worse, and that makes you part of the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Reltzik's post
29-08-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(29-08-2015 03:05 PM)Alla Wrote:  obviously "black lives matter" at least sounds racist.

Other people are not responsible for your paranoid delusions.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: