When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[Ackmed]

The quote didn't bash gays in any way. You are the only one bashing, with your name calling. Good try though.

 

[fskimospy]

Why would I use a definition which is not true? Fine, we will pretend you meant number 4.

The rules are not capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported...which means that definition does not apply.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capricious

These same rules have been static for a few thousand years...there is nothing erratic about it.

So sure, we can act like you meant to use a different definition which ALSO does not apply. I just do not understand why you are arguing that you were using a defintion which shows you to be wrong. Why are you doing that?

As I have asked before, what would the age of the rule have to do with whether or not it was created by caprice or whim? Caprice is a sudden, unaccountable change. Something must not continuously, suddenly, and unaccountably change in order to be capricious, it must have only done so in the original case.

Once again, English 101. Serious question, do you know how to read a dictionary?

 

[cybrsage]

As I have asked before, what would the age of the rule have to do with whether or not it was created by caprice or whim? Caprice is a sudden, unaccountable change. Something must not continuously, suddenly, and unaccountably change in order to be capricious, it must have only done so in the original case.

Now now...you are not doing what you demand I do. I posted the definition already...but here it is again. This time, actually read it.

ca·price

   /kəˈpris/ Show Spelled[kuh-prees] Show IPA
noun 1. a sudden, unpredictable change, as of one's mind or the weather.
2. a tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive; whimsicality; capriciousness: With the caprice of a despotic king, he alternated between kindness and cruelty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caprice

There was no unpredictable change, as the culture the Israelites left had many of these sexual rules in place already, so number 1 does not apply. The rules also have not changed, so number 2 does not work either.

It would be simpler to admit you used the wrong word then to continue to act as if the word means something it does not.

 

[PingviN]

I was being nice and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed you were not stupid. Are you claiming I was wrong, and I should have assumed you were stupid when I read your post?

I'm claiming your a religious idiot that can't grasp sarcasm. Thought that was clear.

Damn.

edit: The Bible is full of incredibly retarded stuff. Religious people seem to enjoy cherrypicking the part they agree with, but discarding the parts they don't agree with. If the Bible is packed with God's will and God is almighty and vengeful, I'll see you and everybody else in hell.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm claiming your a religious idiot that can't grasp sarcasm. Thought that was clear.

Damn.

You would be wrong on both accounts. You are allowed to be wrong, though...just be aware that you are wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Now now...you are not doing what you demand I do. I posted the definition already...but here it is again. This time, actually read it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caprice

There was no unpredictable change, as the culture the Israelites left had many of these sexual rules in place already, so number 1 does not apply. The rules also have not changed, so number 2 does not work either.

It would be simpler to admit you used the wrong word then to continue to act as if the word means something it does not.

You can't win this you realize, right? The definitions are there in black and white for everyone to read. By the definitions linked in this thread, something being around for a long time in no way disqualifies it from being arbitrary or capricious. It doesn't matter how long it was carried forward for.

Period.

It would be much simpler for you to admit that you made a mistake and either didn't read the entire definition of the word, or didn't understand what you were reading. If you wish to argue that the rules are not arbitrary because they served some larger societal function you could try that, but you didn't do that. You said that they were not arbitrary by the simple length of their existence, which in no way addresses the definition.

This is how sad things have gotten, I'm trying to help you craft a better argument just so you won't resort to one of these CAD-like fights to the death over a definition you didn't understand.

(EDIT: Not to mention that these actions are both unreasonable and unsupported, two other aspects of the definition which also would not be affected in any way by your argument against it being arbitrary.)

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Wonder what else the bible says is wrong that we do every day.... Hmmmm Pulling out of your wife or girlfriend is out. Hope you don't wear fabric blends. Guess wedding rings are out. She shall not adorn herself with gold after all. Freakin Red Lobster must be run by Satan. Damn shellfish. Anyone got a tattoo? Tsk Tsk.

 

[fskimospy]

Wonder what else the bible says is wrong that we do every day.... Hmmmm Pulling out of your wife or girlfriend is out. Hope you don't wear fabric blends. Guess wedding rings are out. She shall not adorn herself with gold after all. Freakin Red Lobster must be run by Satan. Damn shellfish. Anyone got a tattoo? Tsk Tsk.

Remember, banning people pulling out is not arbitrary because the Catholics still think it's wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

Lets try this again, esk...lets follow the thread.

I post a list of rules which has not changed in a few thousand years and which was not much different than what the people were already doing.

You claim the list is arbitrary. After a short discussion about the meaning of the word, you say the meaing you desired to use was capricious.

So, this means you claim the list is capricious. I post the defintion of capricious which refers us to the word caprice (for obvious reasons). I post that defintion, which only contains two selections.

When we read these selections, we find that neither of them apply to the list. To clarify the two items:

1. a sudden, unpredictable change, as of one's mind or the weather - The change was not unpredicable...nor really that much of a change.

2. a tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive; whimsicality - God did not change His mind.

 

[cybrsage]

Wonder what else the bible says is wrong that we do every day.... Hmmmm Pulling out of your wife or girlfriend is out. Hope you don't wear fabric blends. Guess wedding rings are out. She shall not adorn herself with gold after all. Freakin Red Lobster must be run by Satan. Damn shellfish. Anyone got a tattoo? Tsk Tsk.

Just a few corrections. Pulling out is not wrong. The Catholics have taken the item out of context. They simply want to increase the population of catholic families.

Not all blends are forbidden.

Adornment with god is only forbidden in specific instances...there is no rule against jewelry.

 

[cybrsage]

Pesonally, I am shocked that no one has yet used the obvious rebuttle against my list.

The Law only applies to those bound by the Covenant of which they are a part. Those bound would be all the decendants of the Israelites and Foreignors who were present at the time the Covenant was made. And, of course, those who are not decendants but have voluntarily agreed to be a part of the covenant (converted).

You guys really do not know anything about Judaism or Christianity. This is a bit shocking to me...I expected most people to at least have some very basic knowledge.




All that said, the Sexual Rules are also applied to anyone who is a decendant of Noah via the Noahide Law against sexual immorality. They would therefor apply to everyone anyway.

The shellfish, mixed wool and cotton, Sabbath rest, etc., do not apply, though.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets try this again, esk...lets follow the thread.

I post a list of rules which has not changed in a few thousand years and which was not much different than what the people were already doing.

You claim the list is arbitrary. After a short discussion about the meaning of the word, you say the meaing you desired to use was capricious.

So, this means you claim the list is capricious. I post the defintion of capricious which refers us to the word caprice (for obvious reasons). I post that defintion, which only contains two selections.

When we read these selections, we find that neither of them apply to the list. To clarify the two items:

1. a sudden, unpredictable change, as of one's mind or the weather - The change was not unpredicable...nor really that much of a change.

2. a tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive; whimsicality - God did not change His mind.

1.) Once again I must inform you that the length of time the list has been around is entirely irrelevant. You don't need to mention its length anymore, because it is useless. I hope we are clear on this.

2.) After a short discussion about the meaning of the word you decided to center on the word capricious, not me. I never once said what element of definition #4 I believed to apply to this decision, simply that I believed definition #4 to be accurate. Although I do believe this list to be capricious, it is also the other elements of #4. Please read more carefully in the future, as you have a continuing problem with reading comprehension. It will help you formulate better arguments.

3.) Your argument is fundamentally that the list is not capricious because god didn't change his mind. You of course have absolutely no way to know this, but simply rely on your faith in the bible. The last time I checked, 'God sez so' is not actually an admissible argument in most places, nor is the argument of 'I checked with jesus and he said he's always felt this way'.

Due to these factors, your statement that the Israelites' choice to ban homosexuality is not arbitrary due to the length of time it has been around is totally unsupportable.

Funny thing is that because it's unsupported your argument also fits the definition of arbitrary, lol.

 

[cybrsage]

2.) After a short discussion about the meaning of the word you decided to center on the word capricious, not me. I never once said what element of definition #4 I believed to apply to this decision, simply that I believed definition #4 to be accurate.
Although I do believe this list to be capricious, it is also the other elements of #4. Please read more carefully in the future, as you have a continuing problem with reading comprehension. It will help you formulate better arguments.

Then be specific. Exactly what do you mean. When you remain vague and or refuse to actually be specific, it is impossible to know what you mean.

Be proud and clearly state what portion of the definition you are using.

 

[fskimospy]

Then be specific. Exactly what do you mean. When you remain vague and or refuse to actually be specific, it is impossible to know what you mean.

Be proud and clearly state what portion of the definition you are using.

At least you're now admitting that you can't read for comprehension, this is a start.

I have written more than enough for you to understand exactly what I mean. If you are having trouble there may be someone nearby who can read it for you and assist.

 

[cybrsage]

You did not post which meaning you are using.

 

[fskimospy]

You did not post which meaning you are using.

Untrue, please go back and read more carefully.

If you need assistance in understanding some of the more complex phrases and words, there may be someone nearby who can assist you.

I'm sorry that I have to do this in this thread as well, but you have proven yourself incapable of handling more adult arguments.

 

[Infohawk]

[nonsense]

Not only is you relying on some recorded superstitions for determining whether what is right or wrong arbitrary, but your very interpretation of the superstitions is arbitrary as well.

 

[cybrsage]

Don't be ashamed of yourself. Go ahead and post it again, or post a link to where it is.

You compain I am not using the proper meaning you wanted to use...then refuse to post it when I request it. Yeah, that really is silly.'

Post which meaning you are using.

 

[cybrsage]

Not only is you relying on some recorded superstitions for determining whether what is right or wrong arbitrary, but your very interpretation of the superstitions is arbitrary as well.

Nope, not by any of the definitions of the word. Your hated is blinding you again.

 

[zsdersw]

Who determines what the "true word of God" actually is? Who possesses the only "correct" interpretation of it?

 

[Broheim]

Cybrsage I'm curious, the bible tells me that I should stone my child to death if it is disrespectful, do you condone that?

 

[JSt0rm]

why oh why are you curious as to what happens inside his rotten mind?

 

[Broheim]

why oh why are you curious as to what happens inside his rotten mind?

I wanna see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[dmcowen674]

When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

Well not surprisingly, a slew of republican candidates fearing they are losing momentum, have brought out the "Gays are bad" talking points. When it's time to get people irritated, raise money, or simply grab a few news headlines, nothing works better then bashing a Gay person.

And there you have it....
Your 2012 republican presidential candidates.
Make room for them in your bedroom, America.

Anyone Gay that votes Republican deserves to have these fuckers in their bedroom.

 

[silverpig]

Lets try this again, esk...lets follow the thread.

I post a list of rules which has not changed in a few thousand years and which was not much different than what the people were already doing.

You claim the list is arbitrary. After a short discussion about the meaning of the word, you say the meaing you desired to use was capricious.

So, this means you claim the list is capricious. I post the defintion of capricious which refers us to the word caprice (for obvious reasons). I post that defintion, which only contains two selections.

You're making shit up again.

Capricious was just one of the 3 synonyms given in the 4th definition on that one site.

The other two were "unreasonable" and "unsupported". You said it was supported because there is a book that says it is wrong - fine - we can debate the level of support required, but you completely ignore the "unreasonable" word.

Go to a different site (because dictionary.com is not the final authority in the universe after all) and you'll find other definitions which might make it clear to you why your argument is BS. Arbitrary.

a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee>

There are plenty of other definitions. Saying "no gay sexytime" is indeed completely arbitrary, and what's more, it doesn't even matter what we said. Who cares what the word "arbitrary" means?