Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory
especially on the basis of race or religion.
**************
Note 'religion', Steven. Now go ahead and call Mohammed a Pedophile,
or if anyone here is a Muslim, or Buddhist, or whatever, and call Jesus
a FudgePacker, and go ahead and deny that you're a Racist. Your fellow
Racists will at least believe you.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 02:44:08 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
**************
Note 'religion', Steven.
Yes, and I have absolutely NO discriminatory policy in my daily life
due to anyone's religion. Are you extrapolating your defintion to
include criticism of a religion (which has nothing to do with how I
treat people, you moron).
Now go ahead and call Mohammed a Pedophile,
or if anyone here is a Muslim, or Buddhist, or whatever, and call Jesus
a FudgePacker, and go ahead and deny that you're a Racist. Your fellow
Racists will at least believe you.
There are others here who participate in religion bashing -- why are
you so focused on me? I've been specifically referred to as a
superstituous savage -- I don't remembert you exhorting that person for
his racism. Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
11 Nov 2005 09:27:03 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131482648.031343.202070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
Oh yeah...it's true. Sometimes, Stevie, life experience outdoes Google
searches. I know a racist when I smell one -- and you stink to high
heaven, junior. Pseudo intellectualize your closet hatred for Arabs and
your bigotry against Islam all you want, vacuum brains. It's quite
entertaining. Nicely and politely discuss the points one by one, and
argue, argue, argue your case that you're not racist. One, it serves your
purpose of filling the many vacant hours of your useless life, and, two,
there's always all that attention you get that you crave in order to
bolster your chronic poor self-image. (insert sarcastic laughter here,
Stevie!) Keep the therapy going, baby!
Doc ;))
**************
Note 'religion', Steven.
Yes, and I have absolutely NO discriminatory policy in my daily life
due to anyone's religion. Are you extrapolating your defintion to
include criticism of a religion (which has nothing to do with how I
treat people, you moron).
Now go ahead and call Mohammed a Pedophile,
or if anyone here is a Muslim, or Buddhist, or whatever, and call Jesus
a FudgePacker, and go ahead and deny that you're a Racist. Your fellow
Racists will at least believe you.
There are others here who participate in religion bashing -- why are
you so focused on me? I've been specifically referred to as a
superstituous savage -- I don't remembert you exhorting that person for
his racism. Why is that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:13:04 PM |
|
|
Lighten up Steven. I'm not focused on you. In fact, I doubt that I
have ever posted a message to you b4.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 03:15:33 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 03:33:58 PM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 03:54:36 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:09:03 PM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131486876.660412.120890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab
at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it
any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
Yes, but under eric's definition, one could say that he is "racist" against
religious people, as he regularly insults them and their beliefs.
Jane
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:21:06 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131486876.660412.120890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab
at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it
any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
Yes, but under eric's definition, one could say that he is "racist" against
religious people, as he regularly insults them and their beliefs.
Jane
He does nothing of the sort. He counters the intolerance of the bigots
who post here. Plain and simple.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:30:15 PM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131488466.489535.214620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131486876.660412.120890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last
stab
at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make
it
any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do
not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an
answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
Yes, but under eric's definition, one could say that he is "racist"
against
religious people, as he regularly insults them and their beliefs.
Jane
He does nothing of the sort. He counters the intolerance of the bigots
who post here. Plain and simple.
What is "superstitious savage", if not an insult? What is "I spit on your
Jesus"? (Directed at Jean)
Jane
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:42:31 PM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Jane wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131486876.660412.120890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab
at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it
any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
Yes, but under eric's definition, one could say that he is "racist" against
religious people, as he regularly insults them and their beliefs.
Jane
He does nothing of the sort. He counters the intolerance of the bigots
who post here. Plain and simple.
Plain and simple, he mocks and belittles religious people for their
beliefs -- "superstitious savage" has been mockingly aimed at various
people for simply stating a religous belief.
P.S. For eric: this message refers to tw, not you. See the quoted text
above. Though this did happen to me once, when I thought I was being
addressed and it was actually meant for Jane. So I've done the same
thing. No big deal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 07:28:31 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131493351.342044.28400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WH wrote:
Jane wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131486876.660412.120890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last
stab
at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't
make it
any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You
do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that
"discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an
answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out. So I s'pose if you want me to put a label
on him it'de have to be something like...hmmm...let me see
then...hmmm...OK whow about this then "The democratic anti-sky pixie
Taffe!"...or maybe "Theological Taffe -***** no!". Or maybe
"daffyd...the democratic dogma dodger".
Yes, but under eric's definition, one could say that he is "racist"
against
religious people, as he regularly insults them and their beliefs.
Jane
He does nothing of the sort. He counters the intolerance of the bigots
who post here. Plain and simple.
Plain and simple, he mocks and belittles religious people for their
beliefs -- "superstitious savage" has been mockingly aimed at various
people for simply stating a religous belief.
P.S. For eric: this message refers to tw, not you. See the quoted text
above. Though this did happen to me once, when I thought I was being
addressed and it was actually meant for Jane. So I've done the same
thing. No big deal.
It was no biggie that eric believed that post was for him. It was his
rediculous reaction that prompted me to call him on it in a rather hasrsh
fashion.
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:37:48 PM |
|
|
thank-you WH. Appreciated
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:36:27 PM |
|
|
Jane, you ignorant *****,
I AM a religious person. I'm a Catholic. But I couldn't call myself
one if I regularly denigrated other religions as u do. But as usual u
misconstrue, and misrepresent what I have said in the past.
Listen, you dumb broad, I have NEVER insulted anyones religious
beliefs. Quite the opposite. I have frequently stood up for other
religions against attacks from people like you. The only "religious"
people I attack, are the same ones Jesus also attacked. These are the
Hypocrites, and the Pharisees, whom Jesus referred to as Whitened
Selpulchres. These Whitened Selpulchres tend to be the Fundamentalists
of all religious Stripes. You know them by their fruits, and we all
know who they are in APN.
Do you think Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson are really Christian?
These guys are our Taliban. This is your typical tactic on me, woman.
Smarten up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:43:36 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131489387.805355.165010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane, you ignorant *****,
I AM a religious person. I'm a Catholic. But I couldn't call myself
one if I regularly denigrated other religions as u do. But as usual u
misconstrue, and misrepresent what I have said in the past.
Listen, you dumb broad, I have NEVER insulted anyones religious
beliefs. Quite the opposite. I have frequently stood up for other
religions against attacks from people like you. The only "religious"
people I attack, are the same ones Jesus also attacked. These are the
Hypocrites, and the Pharisees, whom Jesus referred to as Whitened
Selpulchres. These Whitened Selpulchres tend to be the Fundamentalists
of all religious Stripes. You know them by their fruits, and we all
know who they are in APN.
Do you think Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson are really Christian?
These guys are our Taliban. This is your typical tactic on me, woman.
Smarten up.
Will you get a fuckin' grip?!?! We were discussing tw, braindead one!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:47:04 PM |
|
|
discuss This, Beee-aaatch.
eric.
P.S. watch your language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:52:36 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131490024.518689.127860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
discuss This, Beee-aaatch.
eric.
P.S. watch your language.
Steven certainly aptly renamed this thread.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:25:34 PM |
|
|
I named the thread. Steven changed the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 07:25:15 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131492334.616859.109130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I named the thread. Steven changed the subject.
And very aptly, as I said.
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:10:12 PM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Steven, since you just don't seem to get it, this is my last stab at
getting u to understand
- Racist -
Pure, and simple here is my dictionary definition. I can't make it any
simpler than this:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance;
I do not engage in racial intolerance.
"racist remarks"
I do not make racist remarks.
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
I am not discriminatory, on the basis or race or religion. You do not
know me, and you have no basis to attribute that "discriminatory"
defintion to me. It is not true.
What...write your posts in your sleep do you douglas?
No response to the actual point? You'd rather make up BS, with no
basis, and attributte it to me? Why not respond to my question about
tw's anti-relgious bias? What does that make him? Do you have an answer?
But douglas, he's equally anti-all religions...he doesn't single any
particular one of them out.
That's not exactly true. He focuses most of his anti-religious remarks
on Judeo-Christianity. And when someone dares criticize Islam, he tends
to disagree -- and then shifts the debate to his own
anti-Judeo-Christianity bias. And, unlike me, he directs some of his
anti-relgious contempt directly at individual people, by using his
famous "superstitious savage" label. I have never directed a single
anti-relgious remark to any individual -- I reserve my criticism for
the institution rather than any individual. Of course, that doesn't
stop you (and others) from going after me for my bias, while ignoring
or even excusing tw's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:44:20 PM |
|
|
Total BS. I tend to defend Islam, only because as a CatholicI feel it
is my duty since it is regularly trashed here.
Hmmm. I wonder if you would even consider Catholics as Christians.
Many of the fundy xenophobes don't. They're some of the ones who call
the Pope the AntiChrist...dumbasses.
eric.
p.s. If you call Mohammed a pedophile then we know what you are, but
as I said b4, your fellow racists will assure u, that you are not..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 04:56:49 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Total BS.
What is BS is you thinking everyone is talking about you when we were
talking about tw.
I tend to defend Islam, only because as a CatholicI feel it
is my duty since it is regularly trashed here.
Hmmm. I wonder if you would even consider Catholics as Christians.
Many of the fundy xenophobes don't. They're some of the ones who call
the Pope the AntiChrist...dumbasses.
Why do you (and others) feel the need to project beliefs onto me that I
don't hold?
eric.
p.s. If you call Mohammed a pedophile then we know what you are, but
as I said b4, your fellow racists will assure u, that you are not..
Assuming the Hadith is correct, and Muhammad had a sexual relationship
with a nine-year-old girl, what would you call that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 10:22:15 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Assuming the Hadith is correct, and Muhammad had a sexual relationship
with a nine-year-old girl, what would you call that?
It depends on the mores of that time and place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 11:32:04 PM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Assuming the Hadith is correct, and Muhammad had a sexual relationship
with a nine-year-old girl, what would you call that?
It depends on the mores of that time and place.
I see. So if the mores of a certain time and place decide it is okay
for a fifty-year-old man to marry a six-year-old girl, and start having
sex with her three years later, you're just fine with it?
How about the mores of a time and place that allow slavery to exist?
Are you okay with that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
09 Nov 2005 08:43:26 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
goozlefotz wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Assuming the Hadith is correct, and Muhammad had a sexual relationship
with a nine-year-old girl, what would you call that?
It depends on the mores of that time and place.
I see. So if the mores of a certain time and place decide it is okay
for a fifty-year-old man to marry a six-year-old girl, and start having
sex with her three years later, you're just fine with it?
How about the mores of a time and place that allow slavery to exist?
Are you okay with that?
Several of our revered Founding Fathers had slaves. Would that be OK
here and now? No. Was it OK there and then? Definitely. You cannot
separate one person from the culture that they live in and expect them
to live by some absolute values defined by you.
ps: You can drop the "righteous indignation" act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
09 Nov 2005 05:54:46 PM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
goozlefotz wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Assuming the Hadith is correct, and Muhammad had a sexual relationship
with a nine-year-old girl, what would you call that?
It depends on the mores of that time and place.
I see. So if the mores of a certain time and place decide it is okay
for a fifty-year-old man to marry a six-year-old girl, and start having
sex with her three years later, you're just fine with it?
How about the mores of a time and place that allow slavery to exist?
Are you okay with that?
Several of our revered Founding Fathers had slaves. Would that be OK
here and now? No. Was it OK there and then? Definitely. You cannot
separate one person from the culture that they live in and expect them
to live by some absolute values defined by you.
I expected something like this. Yes, I understand that was a different
time -- but those same Founding Fathers incorporated some things into
our Constitution that hindered the spread of slavery, and with the
leadership of abolitionists, our nation was able to eventually end the
institution of slavery.
But my statement above (about the mores of a time and place that allow
slavery to exist) was actually referring to the present, with the place
being the Islamic Republic of Sudan, where slavery is allowed to exist
to this day. Any opinion on that?
ps: You can drop the "righteous indignation" act.
No, thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:01:05 PM |
|
|
You're the one who thinks I'm focusing on you. I don't even know who
you are.
I would call u a racist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:06:01 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
You're the one who thinks I'm focusing on you. I don't even know who
you are.
You were certainly focusing on me when you started this thread.
I would call u a racist.
And you would be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:24:32 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't be wrong if you label Mohammed a Pedophile. Since you say
as much, u just hung yourself with your own rope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:32:37 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
I wouldn't be wrong if you label Mohammed a Pedophile. Since you say
as much, u just hung yourself with your own rope.
Why don't you answer my question? What do you consider a man who
engages in a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl? If you
think it's a good thing, just say so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbing it Down for eric |
08 Nov 2005 05:40:12 PM |
|
|
I suppose you think Jesus was a Homosexual since St. John was the
Apostle he loved.
eric.
P.S. In case u still don't get it, I refuse to enter into a dialogue in
the Spiritual Gutter. Wallow there if u must. I won't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
