timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[phrozen]

Fine, I'll say it. I feel like I basically ran this place for a couple of years in or around 2008 and I can't believe I didn't make Fred's post. How quickly memories fade.

I joined around the same time as you and enjoyed your threads. I don't post here as much as I would like, but your single in NYC threads were similar to what was going on with me but living in DC.You are a GB and I would help you in any way I could here or IRL. Well except for diet advice as it has been rejected in the past.

Things like Ashley York, your crush on a girl with one arm, buying a 3 digit number and pretending to be an April 03er, and never figuring out if Sulla was male/female, etc did bring you down just a peg .

You are a major net positive for the board and 2007-2009 would have not been the same without you.

How could I forget one of your best contributions - tucking in your T-shirt into your underwear. That was gold and I have done it everyday ever since.

 

[NCCommish]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

"Who started it" is a good point. The muslims first stormed across the pagan and Christian middle east and North Africa and right up even into Europe. There was definitely a power vacuum after Rome fell too and the caliphates rushed in to fill it.

First off there was never supposed to be a crusade. They just wanted a few more knights to help defend one city. The Pope got a little carried away and turned it into a holy war. Kill a Muslim for Christ and all that. Prior to the crusades Christians lived in those lands in peace and in fact I have seen it suggested the crusaders may have killed more Christians than Muslims.

 

[phrozen]

Top 5 Christmas movies of all time, in no particular order:

1. Lethal Weapon

2. Die Hard

3. The Nightmare Before Christmas

4. A Christmas Story

5. It's a Wonderful Life

Those movies are OK. I like Die Hard. None of those movies or any other holiday movie I can think of would make my amy favorite lists for me.

Well I asked you. What are yours?

1.) Christmas Vacation2.) A Christmas Story

3.) Home Alone

4.) Miracle on 34th Street

5.) Elf

IMO Die Hard is not a Christmas movie. Just because the story took place around Christmas, doesn't make it a Christmas movie.

 

[timschochet]

Lots of good points this morning Saints. But let's talk about WLker. Of course there are lots of differences between him and Nixon, but even so there is something about Walker's demeanor, plus the response he gets from Dems, that remind me of Nixon. That was not meant as an insult in any way. I'm not s big fan of Walker (though I would have voted for him in the recall and likely this last election as well) but he fascinates me.

And moving beyond the Nixon comparison, here's another reason why Walker could win this thing if he runs: conservatives and especially the Tea Party love the guy and HE ISNT A NUTJOB. Let's face it, the reason Romney won last time was because conservatives couldn't unite behind a viable candidate: Newt? Santorum? Perry? Bachman? Nobody could see them as President, so Romney won by default, yet he still struggled. Walker (and Kasich as well) are serious thoughtful conservatives who really could be Preaident, which is something the GOP hasn't seen in some time. They also could win the Midwest swing states for Republicans which is crucial.

 

[timschochet]

Also regarding Jeb- yeah he's already ahead. But based on previous elections and name recognition he should be at least 20-25% at this point. 14%, with the next guy at 11, is meaningless.

 

[timschochet]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

"Who started it" is a good point. The muslims first stormed across the pagan and Christian middle east and North Africa and right up even into Europe. There was definitely a power vacuum after Rome fell too and the caliphates rushed in to fill it.

First off there was never supposed to be a crusade. They just wanted a few more knights to help defend one city. The Pope got a little carried away and turned it into a holy war. Kill a Muslim for Christ and all that. Prior to the crusades Christians lives in thise lands in peace and in fact I have seen it suggested the crusaders may have killed more Christians than Muslims.

They killed lots of Jews as well.

 

[phrozen]

Tim you know I like you. People have given you great feedback so the only thing I will add is your consistent hard headedness regarding Libertarianism. I stopped engaging you about my views because you are a broken record regarding how today's Libertarianism is different than what it was in the 80's. It is tiresome and stifles good debates of Libertarian views of the world.

JMO

 

[Todd Andrews]

squidchochet

 

[NCCommish]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

"Who started it" is a good point. The muslims first stormed across the pagan and Christian middle east and North Africa and right up even into Europe. There was definitely a power vacuum after Rome fell too and the caliphates rushed in to fill it.

First off there was never supposed to be a crusade. They just wanted a few more knights to help defend one city. The Pope got a little carried away and turned it into a holy war. Kill a Muslim for Christ and all that. Prior to the crusades Christians lives in thise lands in peace and in fact I have seen it suggested the crusaders may have killed more Christians than Muslims.

They killed lots of Jews as well.

Yes they did

 

[timschochet]

Tim you know I like you. People have given you great feedback so the only thing I will add is your consistent hard headedness regarding Libertarianism. I stopped engaging you about my views because you are a broken record regarding how today's Libertarianism is different than what it was in the 80's. It is tiresome and stifles good debates of Libertarian views of the world.

JMO

What good debates are those? You mean how we mustn't limit the size of soda cup you can drink or whether or not someone should be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet? Those kind of debates? I find those debates asinine, sorry. Also most of these guys who call themselves libertarians today rail against illegal immigration. That's not a libertarian position.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

"Who started it" is a good point. The muslims first stormed across the pagan and Christian middle east and North Africa and right up even into Europe. There was definitely a power vacuum after Rome fell too and the caliphates rushed in to fill it.

First off there was never supposed to be a crusade. They just wanted a few more knights to help defend one city. The Pope got a little carried away and turned it into a holy war. Kill a Muslim for Christ and all that. Prior to the crusades Christians lived in those lands in peace and in fact I have seen it suggested the crusaders may have killed more Christians than Muslims.

You're right. The 1st Crusade they sacked Constantinople, it was tragic and hurt their own cause. And the number of Crusades is up for debate but a good number of them, maybe even most of them, were against other Christians, maybe the most notable being against the Cathars.

 

[phrozen]

Tim you know I like you. People have given you great feedback so the only thing I will add is your consistent hard headedness regarding Libertarianism. I stopped engaging you about my views because you are a broken record regarding how today's Libertarianism is different than what it was in the 80's. It is tiresome and stifles good debates of Libertarian views of the world.

JMO

What good debates are those? You mean how we mustn't limit the size of soda cup you can drink or whether or not someone should be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet? Those kind of debates? I find those debates asinine, sorry. Also most of these guys who call themselves libertarians today rail against illegal immigration. That's not a libertarian position.

See there you go again. Pulling out things like sodas and helmets are classic examples of your arrogance and a focus on small issues rather than the larger issues. Your arrogance was present in the NSA thread and Exhibit A of why people have issues against you.Also you bringing in race and immigration into a debate.

I love being in the FFA league and will be back next year (unlucky FU) but don't expect me debating you in political threads. Again your post above shows that despite all the feedback given, you won't change.

Again, I like you around here but your post reflects your stubbornness and arrogance.

Have fun in the political threads, I won't see you in there because engaging you is futile. If you are truly serious about changing, I recommend you stop being a complete one note asshhole.

Best of luck.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Were the Crusades that bad? I have always seen them as a response to Islamic conquest of Christian territories over several centuries. And was the Spanish Inquisition really that big of a deal? Sure it was brutal, but from a historic perspective it was not that large scale, maybe a few thousand people.

"Who started it" is a good point. The muslims first stormed across the pagan and Christian middle east and North Africa and right up even into Europe. There was definitely a power vacuum after Rome fell too and the caliphates rushed in to fill it.

First off there was never supposed to be a crusade. They just wanted a few more knights to help defend one city. The Pope got a little carried away and turned it into a holy war. Kill a Muslim for Christ and all that. Prior to the crusades Christians lives in thise lands in peace and in fact I have seen it suggested the crusaders may have killed more Christians than Muslims.

They killed lots of Jews as well.

Yes they did

As did - and as have, and do still - the muslims. Ancient Jewish communities have been driven out of Iraq and other muslim countries almost in entirety now.

At any rate the Crusades - the ones that were antimuslim - pale in comparison to the massive multi-centuries invasions and aggressions of the caliphates and Ottomans. Starting with Muhammed's own warring against neighboring tribes, including Jewish ones, right up to the gates of Vienna and Toulouse, the Crusades don't come close in any measure, in size, duration, or sheer religious enmity.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

 

[timschochet]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

 

[bostonfred]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

also not a libertarian position imo

 

[NCCommish]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

Tim, there are no Jews left in Iraq. None.

 

[timschochet]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

Tim, there are no Jews left in Iraq. None.

Yeah but we're talking about the Crusades.

 

[timschochet]

NC I'm not thin skinned. I haven't given up my right to be in other threads if I want. But I have to say I do enjoy tLking to people who want to talk to me.

 

[NCCommish]

NC I'm not thin skinned. I haven't given up my right to be in other threads if I want. But I have to say I do enjoy tLking to people who want to talk to me.

Well if it works for you then run with it because that's what matters.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

Tim, there are no Jews left in Iraq. None.

Yeah but we're talking about the Crusades.

Then it is a vast generalization, the Fatimids were extremely harsh on the Jewish peoples. One of the caliphs drove the Jewish completely out of Jerusalem. The west and Europe is very good at self-critical history, the Arabs not so much.

 

[jon_mx]

NC I'm not thin skinned. I haven't given up my right to be in other threads if I want. But I have to say I do enjoy tLking to people who want to talk to me.

I had mad sweeney (and several versions of his alias) stalk me for several years. It did not bother me so much, but it is hard to just ignore it. Kind of damned it you do respond though because you end up looking as bad and no one really cares who started the nonsense.

 

[timschochet]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

Tim, there are no Jews left in Iraq. None.

Yeah but we're talking about the Crusades.

Then it is a vast generalization, the Fatimids were extremely harsh on the Jewish peoples. One of the caliphs drove the Jewish completely out of Jerusalem. The west and Europe is very good at self-critical history, the Arabs not so much.

Your last sentence is absolutely accurate and extremely important.

 

[NCCommish]

NC I'm not thin skinned. I haven't given up my right to be in other threads if I want. But I have to say I do enjoy tLking to people who want to talk to me.

I had mad sweeney (and several versions of his alias) stalk me for several years. It did not bother me so much, but it is hard to just ignore it. Kind of damned it you do respond though because you end up looking as bad and no one really cares who started the nonsense.

Stalkers are an interesting phenomenon. I have had a few over the years. Some were actually pretty funny and I enjoyed it even though I was supposed to be upset I guess. Most are just annoying though.

 

[NCCommish]

Saints your statement is somewhat misleading. Yes Muslim states have mistreated Jews throughout history but never at the level of Christian mistreatment. If we're going to look at all of religious history and not just the last few hundred years, Islam has a much higher standard of religious tolerance than any other religion.

Tim, there are no Jews left in Iraq. None.

Yeah but we're talking about the Crusades.

Then it is a vast generalization, the Fatimids were extremely harsh on the Jewish peoples. One of the caliphs drove the Jewish completely out of Jerusalem. The west and Europe is very good at self-critical history, the Arabs not so much.

Your last sentence is absolutely accurate and extremely important.

True but they aren't the only ones. It seems Asian culture has the same issue to some degree.

 

[General Malaise]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

I don't think Tim is running away or hiding from anything. He's just trying something new. He has as many admirers as he does detractors. This thread is already 15 pages long. Something is keeping it moving.

 

[NCCommish]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

I don't think Tim is running away or hiding from anything. He's just trying something new. He has as many admirers as he does detractors. This thread is already 15 pages long. Something is keeping it moving.

I just feel like he gets a lot of undeserved abuse. Anyway he seems to be enjoying himself and that's all that matters so rock on I say.

 

[General Malaise]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

I don't think Tim is running away or hiding from anything. He's just trying something new. He has as many admirers as he does detractors. This thread is already 15 pages long. Something is keeping it moving.

I just feel like he gets a lot of undeserved abuse. Anyway he seems to be enjoying himself and that's all that matters so rock on I say.

I think a lot of that abuse stems from a machine gun posting approach, so perhaps this might curb some of that. I understand some of the criticism, but I also count myself as somebody who likes TIm, even though I don't read much of what he writes. Personally, I think he's a good dude and like his insight to life more than his takes on Ann Ryand or politics or current affairs.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Tim

Do you drink alcohol?

If no, why not?

If so - how often? What kind?

Smoke pot?

I'm really just curious. You seem pretty straight edge and I was curious.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

I don't think Tim is running away or hiding from anything. He's just trying something new. He has as many admirers as he does detractors. This thread is already 15 pages long. Something is keeping it moving.

I just feel like he gets a lot of undeserved abuse. Anyway he seems to be enjoying himself and that's all that matters so rock on I say.

I blame Institutionalized anti-Timism.

 

[NCCommish]

Hey Phrozen just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean I'm being arrogant. I don't think I am, but even if I was, can't I express my opinion in my own ####### thread? Don't worry, I've stopped polluting the political threads with my arrogance and repetiveness. Yet apparently that's not enough; I need to shut up in my own thread as well.

Tim you are being entirely too thin skinned here. I was pretty vilified around here during the run up to the bungle in the desert as one of the few vocal dissenters against that war. Criticized, called names and stalked for my opinions. I didn't run and hide in some thread. I just kept on keeping on. I am still here most of those folks whose hate list I made are long gone. I'll be damned if I would let anybody chase me into doing some thread of my own rather than expressing my opinion as I want and where I want. If they don't like it they need to deal and if they can't then sucks to be them.

I don't think Tim is running away or hiding from anything. He's just trying something new. He has as many admirers as he does detractors. This thread is already 15 pages long. Something is keeping it moving.

I just feel like he gets a lot of undeserved abuse. Anyway he seems to be enjoying himself and that's all that matters so rock on I say.

I blame Institutionalized anti-Timism.

Darn Anti-Timites

 

[Henry Ford]

Tim you know I like you. People have given you great feedback so the only thing I will add is your consistent hard headedness regarding Libertarianism. I stopped engaging you about my views because you are a broken record regarding how today's Libertarianism is different than what it was in the 80's. It is tiresome and stifles good debates of Libertarian views of the world.

JMO

What good debates are those? You mean how we mustn't limit the size of soda cup you can drink or whether or not someone should be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet? Those kind of debates? I find those debates asinine, sorry. Also most of these guys who call themselves libertarians today rail against illegal immigration. That's not a libertarian position.

See there you go again. Pulling out things like sodas and helmets are classic examples of your arrogance and a focus on small issues rather than the larger issues. Your arrogance was present in the NSA thread and Exhibit A of why people have issues against you.Also you bringing in race and immigration into a debate.

I love being in the FFA league and will be back next year (unlucky FU) but don't expect me debating you in political threads. Again your post above shows that despite all the feedback given, you won't change.

Again, I like you around here but your post reflects your stubbornness and arrogance.

Have fun in the political threads, I won't see you in there because engaging you is futile. If you are truly serious about changing, I recommend you stop being a complete one note asshhole.

Best of luck.

You seem like you missed the point of this thread.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

 

[timschochet]

Tim

Do you drink alcohol?

If no, why not?

If so - how often? What kind?

Smoke pot?

I'm really just curious. You seem pretty straight edge and I was curious.

a beer now and then or a glass of red wine. The only time I get sloshed is before UCLA football games. This couple in their 70s, friends of my dad, host this tailgate and they are total lushes, always mixing strong bloody Mary's. I haven't smoked pot in years. Used to on a regular basis. I also did LSD and crystal in college but never a lot.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

 

[HellToupee]

LSD in college??

 

[bostonfred]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

 

[bostonfred]

Tim

Do you drink alcohol?

If no, why not?

If so - how often? What kind?

Smoke pot?

I'm really just curious. You seem pretty straight edge and I was curious.

a beer now and then or a glass of red wine. The only time I get sloshed is before UCLA football games. This couple in their 70s, friends of my dad, host this tailgate and they are total lushes, always mixing strong bloody Mary's. I haven't smoked pot in years. Used to on a regular basis. I also did LSD and crystal in college but never a lot.

wait, crystal?

 

[simey]

Tim

Do you drink alcohol?

If no, why not?

If so - how often? What kind?

Smoke pot?

I'm really just curious. You seem pretty straight edge and I was curious.

a beer now and then or a glass of red wine. The only time I get sloshed is before UCLA football games. This couple in their 70s, friends of my dad, host this tailgate and they are total lushes, always mixing strong bloody Mary's.I haven't smoked pot in years. Used to on a regular basis. I also did LSD and crystal in college but never a lot.

wait, crystal?

Crystal Meth. Tim was a tweeker.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Tim

Do you drink alcohol?

If no, why not?

If so - how often? What kind?

Smoke pot?

I'm really just curious. You seem pretty straight edge and I was curious.

a beer now and then or a glass of red wine. The only time I get sloshed is before UCLA football games. This couple in their 70s, friends of my dad, host this tailgate and they are total lushes, always mixing strong bloody Mary's.I haven't smoked pot in years. Used to on a regular basis. I also did LSD and crystal in college but never a lot.

Pretty shocked about the crystal revelation. That stuff is hardcore, even for college

 

[timschochet]

It wasn't really. During my last year of college I worked at a payroll company packing envelopes, 5 days a week from 9pm to 4am. We did lines of crystal to keep awake. I did it about a half dozen times. Made me feel shaky so I quit. Like drinking too much caffeine.

 

[timschochet]

The story out of New York is just terrible.

However there seems to be, in this forum, an eagerness to blame the Michael Brown protestors, Al Sharpton, and Mayor Di Blasio, none of whom had anything to do with this. I would think the conservatives would know better. They get pissed off, rightfully so, when some progressives try to blame the insane acts of right wing nut jobs on talk radio or conservative rhetoric. Yet here some of them are returning the favor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The story out of New York is just terrible.

However there seems to be, in this forum, an eagerness to blame the Michael Brown protestors, Al Sharpton, and Mayor Di Blasio, none of whom had anything to do with this. I would think the conservatives would know better. They get pissed off, rightfully so, when some progressives try to blame the insane acts of right wing nut jobs on talk radio or conservative rhetoric. Yet here some of them are returning the favor.

You didn't do that when Giffords was shot?

Political murders are just that, based on political actions. Sad but true, our country should not have these things happen.

Try describing what has happened in NYC without describing the killer's motives with any sort of political background. Give it a shot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, conservatives are dumb. it's their whole platform.

I mean this in the most intellectually honest, deferential way possible. I would love to hear the killer's motive or some description of why this happened absent any kind of political context.

Totally willing to listen.

 

[timschochet]

The story out of New York is just terrible.

However there seems to be, in this forum, an eagerness to blame the Michael Brown protestors, Al Sharpton, and Mayor Di Blasio, none of whom had anything to do with this. I would think the conservatives would know better. They get pissed off, rightfully so, when some progressives try to blame the insane acts of right wing nut jobs on talk radio or conservative rhetoric. Yet here some of them are returning the favor.

You didn't do that when Giffords was shot?

Political murders are just that, based on political actions. Sad but true, our country should not have these things happen.

Try describing what has happened in NYC without describing the killer's motives with any sort of political background. Give it a shot.

First off, the answer is I did do it after Giffords, and I eas ashamed of myself, and I apologized here. It was wrong, Second, yes this guy had a political motive; also possibly a religious one. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It's wrong though to attempt to blame other people who share his resentment against police. It's OK to mistrust police; sometimes, especially in the case of minorities, it is absolutely justified to do so. It's not OK to murder policemen for revenge, obviously.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, conservatives are dumb. it's their whole platform.

Most conservatives I know are not dumb at all.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Tim, conservatives are dumb. it's their whole platform.

I mean this in the most intellectually honest, deferential way possible. I would love to hear the killer's motive or some description of why this happened absent any kind of political context.

Totally willing to listen.

I deleted my post. I'm not delving into this, even as a joke. Good luck.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!