| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The other Donald" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2005 06:43:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
"RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126566618.666218.310670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Can 'gays' really change?
Nope.
And why the hell should they 'change' when it's only obsessive,
self-loathing pieces of dogshit that have a problem with who they love....
A more fitting question is: When will worthless motherfuckers like you learn
to mind your own business? Can you ever learn to shut-the-*****-up?
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
| User: "Larry J." |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 01:32:29 PM |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <Xns96D2D14F21326larrythefrog@68.6.19.6>,
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
You mean like the belief that black people are sub human and
shouldn't be allowed to rid in the front of a bus or use the
same restroom as white people or shouldn't be allowed to marry
white people?
Or that Jews killed Christ and therefore should be ostracized?
Or that Jews are cheats? Or that Jews drink the blood of
Christian babies for Passover?
I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Don't bother, because those things have nothing in common with
joining a purely voluntary social organization such as the Boy
Scouts.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 03:59:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20 years,
seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think differentely
of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual
orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm the
straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if it
might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves against
your bigotry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry J." |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 01:35:27 PM |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 03:12:02 PM |
|
|
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 03:17:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:12:02 -0400, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Brown-noser.
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry J." |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 03:41:05 PM |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
Brown-noser.
Nice sig line. Keep it.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Eleven million illegal aliens can't be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 03:57:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:41:05 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
Brown-noser.
Nice sig line. Keep it.
In honour of osprey, of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 07:43:57 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 08:02:15 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
Do you agree or disagree?
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA, when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids. That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 10:10:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:02:15 -0400, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
Do you agree or disagree?
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA, when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids. That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 01:36:32 AM |
|
|
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:02:15 -0400, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
Do you agree or disagree?
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA, when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids. That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 05:32:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 01:02:38 PM |
|
|
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 05:30:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:38 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
Wait a minute--this is the first time you've written gems like this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 07:34:49 PM |
|
|
In article <176pi158hqjq7lgteiget4d5fv4332fg8r@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:38 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
Wait a minute--this is the first time you've written gems like this.
LOL! I'd like to think not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
18 Sep 2005 11:54:52 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <176pi158hqjq7lgteiget4d5fv4332fg8r@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:38 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged, conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
Wait a minute--this is the first time you've written gems like this.
LOL! I'd like to think not.
I meant not. Sowwy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
18 Sep 2005 12:39:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1127062491.965874.98870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <176pi158hqjq7lgteiget4d5fv4332fg8r@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:38 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply
to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people
would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged,
conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
Wait a minute--this is the first time you've written gems like this.
LOL! I'd like to think not.
I meant not. Sowwy!
Thanks - I don't take much time with my responses to Osprey. It is
like taking a boat out with tons of tackle, sonar, nets, and a guide,
just to catch a sunfish. Why do it when you can just sit on the dock
and get the same result? He is easy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
18 Sep 2005 12:44:14 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1127062491.965874.98870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <176pi158hqjq7lgteiget4d5fv4332fg8r@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:38 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <p3sni1teaqsk9fje5qp7176jc9phcugu6d@4ax.com>, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:36:32 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <i82ni19ub7nlq9be11iqd2knlha5socmqa@4ax.com>, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
<clip>
Okay, honestly, how does excluding children because they're not
religious teach teamwork and respect?
It doesn't. Excluding children because of their religious beliefs, or
nonreligious beliefs, teaches hatred. It tells children that THEY
belong to the GOOD group. And the Muslims, atheists, whatever, belong
to the BAD group. It teaches children that the laws might not apply
to
THEM, because maybe they are made for the "other people."
Excluding children because they don't believe in God is, with one
exception, the exact same thing as excluding them because they are
black. If the BSA told children it was "bad" to be black, people
would
be outraged. And peopel should be just as outraged if children are
taught being an atheist is "bad." Liberals are outraged,
conservatives
embrace the hatred. Osprey hates - and he wants his children to hate,
too. And the best way to teach children to hate atheists is to have
them belong to an organization that excludes atheists.
Succinctly written, David!
I get lucky sometimes.
Wait a minute--this is the first time you've written gems like this.
LOL! I'd like to think not.
I meant not. Sowwy!
Thanks - I don't take much time with my responses to Osprey. It is
like taking a boat out with tons of tackle, sonar, nets, and a guide,
just to catch a sunfish. Why do it when you can just sit on the dock
and get the same result? He is easy.
You take the time when it's worth it. That's what counts. Witty
flames are meaningless when you can jsut say "boo" to your opponent and
he runs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 10:47:51 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
I ignored nothing.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
And I say that they don't.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
I can't find any reference to this, by the way. Who the heck is "David
Barnes" and why should I consider him a voice of authority on the matter?
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Because, frankly, I don't care.
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA,
I am not attacking the BSA.
when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids.
Yes and that is why, when I have kids, I will do things with them and
give them the choice as to whether they want to join the BSA or not.
That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
We don't need the BSA for that.
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
What "fight against the BSA?"
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
I am not choosing to ignore them. You are chosing to ignore my answers.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
16 Sep 2005 11:51:10 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
I ignored nothing.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
And I say that they don't.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
I can't find any reference to this, by the way. Who the heck is "David
Barnes" and why should I consider him a voice of authority on the matter?
He is somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Well, he claims to be a lot
of things.
Claimed to be a A.F. Officer but yet he didn't know where OTS was
located.
Claimed to be a pilot, but doesn't know what MADAR stands for or what
an APU is.
Claimed to be a police officer, but said when ever a police officer has
to pull out his or her weapon that means that the officer lost control
Claimed to be a lawyer..if you read his post you would see that he
isn't
Claimed to be an educator for Criminal Justice courses in a college,
but he couldn't answer four basic criminal justice questions. Criminal
Justice is my major.
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.
If they are not receiving federal funding, they have a right to choose
who they want. If they are, then they don't have a right to
discriminate.
Personally, I don't care either way because I have no interest in the
NAACP.
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Because, frankly, I don't care.
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA,
I am not attacking the BSA.
Fair enough, as I said if I am reading you wrong I will apologize.
when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids.
Yes and that is why, when I have kids, I will do things with them and
give them the choice as to whether they want to join the BSA or not.
Fair enough, I think that's a good attitude.
That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
We don't need the BSA for that.
No, we don't. But they do provide that.
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
What "fight against the BSA?"
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
I am not choosing to ignore them. You are chosing to ignore my answers.
I am trying to answer them as honestly as possible.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 01:36:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1126932670.728802.69400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
I ignored nothing.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
And I say that they don't.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
I can't find any reference to this, by the way. Who the heck is "David
Barnes" and why should I consider him a voice of authority on the matter?
He is somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Well, he claims to be a lot
of things.
And it drive Osprey crazy so he denies it.
Claimed to be a A.F. Officer but yet he didn't know where OTS was
located.
Osprey confused it with the AF Academy and now can't admit otherwise.
Claimed to be a pilot, but doesn't know what MADAR stands for or what
an APU is.
I have already told you - not playing your stupid childish games
doesn't mean one doesn't "know."
Claimed to be a police officer, but said when ever a police officer has
to pull out his or her weapon that means that the officer lost control
And "fearless Osprey" believes a gun is for crowd control.
Claimed to be a lawyer..if you read his post you would see that he
isn't
You denying the truth doesn't make something untrue.
Claimed to be an educator for Criminal Justice courses in a college,
but he couldn't answer four basic criminal justice questions.
I have already told you - not playing your stupid childish games
doesn't mean one doesn't "know."
Criminal
Justice is my major.
But he thinks that if you don't report a crime you are aware of, that
makes you guilty, too.
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.
If they are not receiving federal funding, they have a right to choose
who they want. If they are, then they don't have a right to
discriminate.
42 USC Section 1981
Personally, I don't care either way because I have no interest in the
NAACP.
THAT, I believe!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 12:51:10 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
I ignored nothing.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
And I say that they don't.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
I can't find any reference to this, by the way. Who the heck is "David
Barnes" and why should I consider him a voice of authority on the matter?
He is somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Well, he claims to be a lot
of things.
Claimed to be a A.F. Officer but yet he didn't know where OTS was
located.
Claimed to be a pilot, but doesn't know what MADAR stands for or what
an APU is.
Claimed to be a police officer, but said when ever a police officer has
to pull out his or her weapon that means that the officer lost control
Claimed to be a lawyer..if you read his post you would see that he
isn't
Claimed to be an educator for Criminal Justice courses in a college,
but he couldn't answer four basic criminal justice questions. Criminal
Justice is my major.
What's that have to do with me?
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.
If they are not receiving federal funding, they have a right to choose
who they want. If they are, then they don't have a right to
discriminate.
Personally, I don't care either way because I have no interest in the
NAACP.
Nor I and the BSA. However, the BSA receives federal funding.
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Because, frankly, I don't care.
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA,
I am not attacking the BSA.
Fair enough, as I said if I am reading you wrong I will apologize.
I await your apology. Or should I consider the above an apology?
when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids.
Yes and that is why, when I have kids, I will do things with them and
give them the choice as to whether they want to join the BSA or not.
Fair enough, I think that's a good attitude.
Thanks. I will, however, tell them what the BSA does...both the good
and the bad.
That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
We don't need the BSA for that.
No, we don't. But they do provide that.
So does the military. So does school. So, too, should parents.
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
What "fight against the BSA?"
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
I am not choosing to ignore them. You are chosing to ignore my answers.
I am trying to answer them as honestly as possible.
Yet you are ill-informed about your answers.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Can 'gays' really change? |
17 Sep 2005 01:08:48 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hFJWe.301$fb6.233@trnddc08...
osprey wrote:
"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D375A49A916larrythefrog@68.6.19.6...
Waiving the right to remain silent, Louise Mallard
<louisemallard@journalist.com> said:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:31 GMT, "Larry J."
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> said:
In article <LsqdnU4sB9jeW7TeRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I have never once in all my years with the BSA, over 20
years, seen the BSA ever teach a child to hate or think
differentely of someone based on race, ethnicity, sex, or
sexual orientation.
But they won't let a homosexual in the organization, falsely
claiming that gays are not "morally straight," and will harm
the straight scouts. That is bigotry.
It's a belief. You have to grant people their belief, even if
it might be mistaken. You have no right to beat them into
submission.
That is the exact opposite of being "liberal."
And what, those folks don't have a right to defend themselves
against your bigotry?
I'm not a bigot, and there is no "defending themselves" of anything
here.
You've got a purely voluntary social organization which has stated
that it wants a certain type of individual.
If anyone is defending themselves, it would be the Boy Scouts.
Exactly
Just as Denny's must defend themselves against those black people.
I notice you ignored several statements, for obvious reasons.
I ignored nothing.
One of your fellow liberals has stated that the NAACP has the right to
discriminate.
And I say that they don't.
It was David Barnes who had said that.
I can't find any reference to this, by the way. Who the heck is "David
Barnes" and why should I consider him a voice of authority on the matter?
He is somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Well, he claims to be a lot
of things.
Claimed to be a A.F. Officer but yet he didn't know where OTS was
located.
Claimed to be a pilot, but doesn't know what MADAR stands for or what
an APU is.
Claimed to be a police officer, but said when ever a police officer has
to pull out his or her weapon that means that the officer lost control
Claimed to be a lawyer..if you read his post you would see that he
isn't
Claimed to be an educator for Criminal Justice courses in a college,
but he couldn't answer four basic criminal justice questions. Criminal
Justice is my major.
What's that have to do with me?
Nothing.
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.
If they are not receiving federal funding, they have a right to choose
who they want. If they are, then they don't have a right to
discriminate.
Personally, I don't care either way because I have no interest in the
NAACP.
Nor I and the BSA. However, the BSA receives federal funding.
And as I have said before, they shouldn't be if they are going to
discriminate.
I also noticed that you have the option to create your own organization for
boys who may or may not be homosexual and/or atheist.
Why are you not doing this?
Because, frankly, I don't care.
Why would you waste your time attacking the BSA,
I am not attacking the BSA.
Fair enough, as I said if I am reading you wrong I will apologize.
I await your apology. Or should I consider the above an apology?
I have apologized in another post. As I said though, and you should be
able to understand this, I am skeptical
when what is really
important is that we do things with our kids.
Yes and that is why, when I have kids, I will do things with them and
give them the choice as to whether they want to join the BSA or not.
Fair enough, I think that's a good attitude.
Thanks. I will, however, tell them what the BSA does...both the good
and the bad.
That's your right as a parent and I don't see anything wrong with that.
That we teach them
leadership, teamwork, values, ethics, manners, respect.
We don't need the BSA for that.
No, we don't. But they do provide that.
So does the military. So does school. So, too, should parents.
I absolutely agree with you, well..except for the school part. I think
our public schools are failing..a lot of that isn't their fault.
Why are you not doing something outside of your fight against the BSA to
create an alternative program?
What "fight against the BSA?"
These are important questions and I would like to know why you are choosing
to ignore them.
I am not choosing to ignore them. You are chosing to ignore my answers.
I am trying to answer them as honestly as possible.
Yet you are ill-informed about your answers.
You are entitled to your opinion
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
