Trump vs Pelosi and Schumer

#752
#752
Orange_Crush said:
Lots of people add their relative preferences to the objective standard. Like I said, sucking at math doesn't mean math doesn't exist.

Also, we all pay more attention to what you don't acknowledge or respond to than what you do. You're not very good at admissions. You're really good at affirming my criticisms, though. So thank you for that, Soupy.
Click to expand...
lol.....2-d OConcrete.
Was dancing immoral in 1965? Or were the preacher, elders, deacons, and Sunday school teachers all wrong?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it was immoral?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it wasn't immoral?
 
#753
#753
luthervol said:
lol.....2-d OConcrete.
Was dancing immoral in 1965? Or were the preacher, elders, deacons, and Sunday school teachers all wrong?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it was immoral?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it wasn't immoral?
Click to expand...

I will be happy to have that conversation on each point, which will entail a reference to the Bible as opposed to your references to personal opinions about the Bible. It may be more appropriate in the Bible thread since you're searching the Christian worldview for internal consistency. But it dettacts from the points made against your internal inconsistencies.

I take it since you won't respond to my specific criticisms of your ethics that you affirm them?
 
#754
#754
luthervol said:
lol.....2-d OConcrete.
Was dancing immoral in 1965? Or were the preacher, elders, deacons, and Sunday school teachers all wrong?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it was immoral?
Would it have been immoral to dance if you thought it wasn't immoral?
Click to expand...
Oh, and the ones teaching that about dancing were all wrong. I can take you to scripture to show why and where.

Yes, it would be wrong to dance if you think it immoral since scripture says that it's a sin to do something you think is a sin. I can show you where it says that.

It wasn't a sin for David to dance and even accidently expose himself doing so, so your last question is absurd.
 
Last edited:
#755
#755
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, and the ones teaching that about dancing were all wrong. U can take you to scripture to show why and where.

Yes, it would be wrong to dance if you think it immoral since scripture says that it's a sin to do something you think is a sin. I can show you where it says that.

It wasn't a sin for David to dance and even accidently expose himself doing so, so your last question is absurd.
Click to expand...
They pointed to scriptures to prove that it was wrong and were confident in their interpretations.....odd.
Change the dancing to oral sex between two 16 year olds on a date.
One thinks it's immoral, the other doesn't.
Are they equally guilty? (sinful)

Change it to heavy petting. Answers remain the same?
Making out with some lustful ogling?
 
#756
#756
luthervol said:
They pointed to scriptures to prove that it was wrong and were confident in their interpretations.....odd.
Change the dancing to oral sex between two 16 year olds on a date.
One thinks it's immoral, the other doesn't.
Are they equally guilty? (sinful)

Change it to heavy petting. Answers remain the same?
Making out with some lustful ogling?
Click to expand...
They had and we have something outside of themselves that you and I can compare against? You're making my points for me.

Since you are ignoring my critiques of your bigoted ethics and seeking to change the subject, am I to take it that you are affirming them?
 
#757
#757
luthervol said:
They pointed to scriptures to prove that it was wrong and were confident in their interpretations.....odd.
Change the dancing to oral sex between two 16 year olds on a date.
One thinks it's immoral, the other doesn't.
Are they equally guilty? (sinful)

Change it to heavy petting. Answers remain the same?
Making out with some lustful ogling?
Click to expand...

I beginning to think you're a sick ****er, actually not think, you are.
 
#758
#758
VolStrom said:
I beginning to think you're a sick ****er, actually not think, you are.
Click to expand...
Soupy is making my point for me. He does this occasionally, thinking he's cornering me. Then it dawns on him that he's undermined his position. Then he disappears for a while.

I think he goes to that soupy altered dimension between his ears where bigotry is a virtue.
 
Last edited:
#759
#759
Orange_Crush said:
They had and we have something outside of themselves that you and I can compare against? You're making my points for me.

Since you are ignoring my critiques of your bigoted ethics and seeking to change the subject, am I to take it that you are affirming them?
Click to expand...
Classic avoidance 2d.
Heavy petting between two 16 year olds.....immoral?
If one thinks it is and the other thinks it is not, is one more guilty than the other?
Specific, straight forward questions.....give it a try sometime.
 
#760
#760
luthervol said:
Classic avoidance 2d.
Heavy petting between two 16 year olds.....immoral?
If one thinks it is and the other thinks it is not, is one more guilty than the other?
Specific, straight forward questions.....give it a try sometime.
Click to expand...

Damn dude, you need to stop and think about what is right and what is wrong.
 
#761
#761
luthervol said:
Classic avoidance 2d.
Heavy petting between two 16 year olds.....immoral?
If one thinks it is and the other thinks it is not, is one more guilty than the other?
Specific, straight forward questions.....give it a try sometime.
Click to expand...
It's not avoidance at all. I just invited you to come discuss it in the Bible thread. I'm actually disallowing your avoidance..

You are trying to deny my reference to an objective standard by doing two things:

First listing people's misunderstandings about the standards, which I've already shown doesn't disprove the existence of the standards any more than being unable to read disprove the existence of traffic laws.

Second, you trying to hurl elephants and force me to answer question after question as opposed to discussing the subject that you're having trouble answering. It's a disingenuous debating tactic that I refuse to cater to.

You are projecting as it's you that is avoiding.

You are questioning my external standard and thus proving that my ethics are rooted in a standard external to myself, thus they do not suffer the same criticisms that yours do. I will be happy to discuss the Bible with you in the Bible thread, but since you've shown that my ethics do not suffer as yours do, let's table that and you deal with the criticisms on you plate.
 
#767
#767
Orange_Crush said:
Soupy, you really would love Alinsky. Hillary, Obama, Bernie go by his playbook and they're heroes. Trump does it and he's the most despicable man ever. You really do have that fluid, Machiavellian, "ends justify the means" ethic down pat. The only ethic is the outcome you want.

As you advertise how despicable Trump is, you then signal how much you suck as a barometer.
Click to expand...
He thinks he's above those that disagree with his ignorant butt fu**ee ideology
 
#771
#771
Dvn2Wy7UYAAQ6we.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#773
#773
Once Pelosi does become speaker, all she has to do is pass the CR that the Senate passed before Christmas, and then it McConnell's headache.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top