Town Quixote's

[bybee]

Are we to blame you for rainee leaving? Your prints are, after all, on the door sill.

Is not Rainee intelligent enough to make her own decisions without laying blame on another?
She is able to take care of herself admirably.

 

[Town Heretic]

A brief pause for...

The Friday Morning Gazette​

Tried to lead a dead horse to water...

...if you think that the abortion movement and homosexual movements are entirely two different things, then show the readers of this thread how you'd go about cracking down on a woman's right to chooooose while still allowing Bruth and what's their names to have the supposed 'freedom'

They're absolutely two very different issues. Abortion fails to consider half the equation when it comes to right, which is the foundation for my objection as a matter of law. The unborn are reasonably as vested as you or I or, rather, rationally should be following an argument I've made repeatedly on the point. It's not about simply a woman's autonomy, which itself is a far cry from absolute (see: drug laws, laws against suicide, ect.)

Homosexuality, within the compact and legal sense, is nothing more or less than an expression of sexual choice that isn't properly your business or mine to interfere with absent an argument that would sustain the prohibition/discrimination.

So the immoral behavior that you defend is better than others? On what grounds?

I don't defend immoral behavior. That's your old lie, the one that stumbles like a drunk on a ship deck during rough seas when I note that you can support the right to speak without supporting everything that's said.

Rather, I reject discriminatory practice absent a compelling state interest that necessitates it.

So why the denial that age of sexual consent will eventually be lowered and abolished as seen in the 1972 'gay' agenda?

For the same reason I'd "deny" that Gandhi was a professional hockey player.

There are doubtless groups in this country who would love to see everything from race separation to Sharia law as a Constitutional amendment, but it isn't going to happen. I've set out why and nothing in your above or past is responsive to any of what I've noted.

Said goodbye, it seems, to an old acquaintance...

...I just explained what went wrong above. Ok?

And I wouldn't at this point have had time to read it, since you were still typing and hadn't actually hit "submit reply". lain:

Believe it or not you guys are not the center of the universe, and whatever i think or feel about y'all is not my driving force.

I don't know why I think I'm that important to you.

Listen, you [patrick jane] wrote on my personal page while making sure I can't write on yours. I reported Town last time he did that, not that anything came of it, but nevertheless...

Oh, yeah. That's why.

Good Lord, woman, you're talking about/carrying around ill will about a report you made in 2010 where I told you "I'm disinclined to treat you with kid gloves"?

Because rocket noted...

Looks like Rainee went dark...pulled the plug on her TOL membership???

Odd (either) but that's one where I can't say I'm surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if she came back under another name. In fact, I hope she does. Half the time she was fun to talk with...the other half she was pure crazy on a stick, but that's still better than some.

And...

Crazy on a stick??? do you consume crazy?

:chuckle:...............:noid:

Then PJ staggered in with...

i can' believe i'm not re-loaded with reps yet - it's been 24 hours -

So you're saying you're normally loaded in a 24 hr period? :think:

And anna said to the Barbarian...

Please don't go.

I hope you stick around too, but I'm unwilling to invoke K.C. and the Sunshine Band. A man has to draw lines.

Acw was back with...

(Silence from Town Heretic)

Might as well put: "I talked about pornographers on the moon turning cheese into robots" (silence from Town Heretic.)

Still waiting on some synaptic firing on my rejection of your attempt to paint a defense of right as a support for particular use of it. But we both know that won't happen, I suppose.

...Is homosexuality not immoral in your mind?

You mean, is homosexuality immoral? The "not" confuses your question. But I've answered that one more times than you've been irrational: homosexuality is a sin. All sin is immoral.

So US laws have strengthened when it comes to the exploitation of children to both heterosex and perverse homosex? Name some.

I've already done that prior and I'm not particularly interested in doing more leg work you'll ignore, but just a couple of things for you to not think about then:..."From 2005 onwards, states have started to enact Jessica's Law statutes, which provide for lengthy penalties (often a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring) for the most aggravated forms of child sexual abuse (usually of a child under age 12)."

A number of states have raised their consent age and a handful since the 60s. Some are considering raising it again..Outside of the above, to touch on a few things we've done as a nation since the 60s: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (I think around 1998); The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (begun in the 70s and reauthorized in 2010); Child Protective Services have been institutionalized since those same 60s; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment (1974); Indian Child Welfare Act (1978); Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997), to name a few.

Then dr started acting like a University of Florida fan before kickoff...

KY County Clerk Jailed

...Under the totalitarian notion that you can be put in a cage indefinitely for having the appropriate attitude, contempt, towards a federal judge.

She can have any attitude she wants. She's in jail for not doing her job and, as an extension of the Court, interfering with the execution of a legal order.

How dare she not bow down before “The Law,” which is not the natural law, but whatever 5 government lawyers in a pagan temple in DC said last Thursday.

Oh go bow down and pay your taxes. Or bow down and mind the speed limit. lain:

And I'll close with my contribution to the Fractured Fairy Tale thread...

Little Bo Peep had lost her sheep and didn't know where to find them, so she folded her LLC, took a tax write-off, applied for some grant and aid money to go back to school and trained for a new profession. I mean, honestly, it wasn't like she had any real aptitude for sheep herding to begin with. All her job reduced to was following them around and she couldn't even manage to do that much.

Luckily, it's often not how a girl does in business but that she was in business that matters when it comes right down to it and before you know it she'll have bounced back. Might even be the front runner in the next Republican debate cycle. Go Peep!

Tomorrow? Partly crazy with occasionally fair skies but no chance of rainee, sadly enough. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Another brief pause for...

The Sunday Afternoon Gazette​

Noted this about the Kentucky dust-up...

U.S. District Judge David Bunning said he had no choice but to jail Kim Davis for contempt after she insisted that her "conscience will not allow" her to follow federal court rulings on gay marriage...Bunning offered to release Davis if she would promise not to interfere with her employees issuing marriage licenses on Friday morning. But Davis, through her attorneys, rejected that offer and chose to stay in jail. Boston Herald, 9/5​

Gannam (her attorney) compared her willingness to be jailed to protest being prohibited from denying citizens of this nation their rights to MLK's willingness to be jailed for protesting people being denied their rights.

Seriously, he did that. Well, he didn't acknowledge the fundamental difference, but he did compare them.

In related news: spinning sound heard around King Center tomb.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky...

many here already support same sex marriage so do you really care what they think?

the issue here is religious freedom

No it isn't. The issue would be rather she has a right to deny others the operation of law because of her religious conviction. And the answer to that is no.

She can't deny black people medical treatment, even if she really, really believes they suffer justly under the mark of Cain. She can't deny Jews the right to live in her neighborhood, even if she really believes they're Christ killers and God's judgment follows them. And she can't deny homosexuals that same operation of law, no matter what she believes about them.

And over in the morning thread pattern insinuation was peaking...

A stingray or a duck flying up out of a lake.

At least, that's what I see...

Those are both wrong answers. lain:



I see Italy and a pig.

I see benchmark year for the pharmaceutical industry. lain:

Then Angel said...

...it is the fascists who will not compromise.

Well, you know, one fellow's meat is another man's anarchy.

And the devil take the rump roast. :shocked:

And...

yep, Mike Huckabee for President

Of what? lain:

GF opined...

She [the Kentucky clerk] is being represented pro bono by attorneys for Liberty Counsel. They will want to score points for the pro-family side with this case. Perhaps this will include leaving her in jail for awhile, to make the point about Christian persecution? :think:

Well, it would be persecution in the same sense that Otis Campbell was persecuted by Andy Taylor, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her stay a while.

Then anna said to aCW...

I'm fascinated by the repeated (unsuccessful) attempts to read my mind.

You think that's funny you should hear him try to speak his own. lain:

Easy. If you have a problem with what the government declares legal, don't work for the government.

Funny how people who would balk at drinking a Coke or going to Disneyland to underscore their objections to how social policies are handled by them can't see the simple wisdom of not working for the thing they routinely call evil.

Had a word with anna about...

Selective outrage.

Struck me that way since the whole outpouring began and I noted that the only truly Biblical version of marriage involves more than differing sex organs. It involves a God's joining, but you don't have and never have had a concerted objection to atheists marrying, let alone one that resembles the upheaval on this issue.

Spoke directly to the problem of the Kentucky clerk as a symbol...

If that is the case, then it would appear you are incorrect. His ruling aligned with his conscience and morality. Further, if that is the case, he feels that he ruled justly. Otherwise, he would have done something else, as you said.

“She doesn’t have a problem with recording” a license for a same-sex couple, her attorney said. “But she has a problem with her name being listed on it.”

Now think about that. She's concerned with the appearance of her name on the thing. If they stripped that away she'd be handing them out like candy.

Apply that to a more obvious moral objection. "She doesn't have a problem with a permit for human sacrifice, but she has a problem with her name being listed on it" and you see what is and isn't happening here.

So, after I reminded chrys that I never have defended gay marriage or homosexuality, that I saw and see it as a necessary legal evil while being morally opposed to the choice...

Excuse me but you seem to be endorsing same sex marriage

No. I can recognize your right to speak your mind without endorsing everything you say.

by saying it is necessary evil.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

He did not lie. Your wording is so vague, dear.

...There's nothing vague in my wording at all, which is why you don't quote me and point out the ambiguity that doesn't exist.

You are sending mixed messages.

No, I'm not. Not even a little.

Then the only thing worse than a hopeless romantic (a hopeful one) said...

Dallas Cowboys to the superbowl.

Where will they be sitting?

So chrys said...

my advice to kim
you go girl

To jail, directly to jail. lain: I guess she doesn't have a monopoly after all.

And came back with his standard lie/line...

town is okay with same sex marriage

In the sense that I'm okay with income tax.

Tomorrow? Stan wants to know you, Trad hears a hoot and someone spots a woolly-bully.

 

[Sherman]

Odd (either) but that's one where I can't say I'm surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if she came back under another name. In fact, I hope she does. Half the time she was fun to talk with...the other half she was pure crazy on a stick, but that's still better than some.

:rotfl:

Sad but true. I've had too many dustups with her because of her nuttieness. The biggest furball was over avatars.

 

[Town Heretic]

bump.

 

[ok doser]

:rotfl:

Sad but true. I've had too many dustups with her because of her nuttieness. The biggest furball was over avatars.

i caught a lot of flack from various people who didn't like my mona leonidas avatar



whaddya gonna do? :idunno:



still, i hope rainee comes back

thunders muse, too


and tye porter! :banana:

 

[fzappa13]

i caught a lot of flack from various people who didn't like my mona leonidas avatar



whaddya gonna do? :idunno:



still, i hope rainee comes back

thunders muse, too


and tye porter! :banana:

What would this place be with Tye and no Billy Bob to balance the site's Chi?

 

[Eeset]

What would this place be with Tye and no Billy Bob to balance the site's Chi?

A no stick town?

 

[Town Heretic]

Really, it's no problem at all. Open for business after a brief respite for the...

The Tuesday Morning Gazette​

So Stan had a notion about mob behavior in a singular sense...

...IMO, anonymity also makes people act the way they do because there is no recourse.

There's no more recourse with a photo of someone you don't know and will never likely meet. So unless we're posting addresses and phone numbers a photo isn't going to really expose anyone to any particular intrusion...

Argued the definition of tyranny with mo...

Which is it; you DO decide what is law, or you DON'T?

There's no confusion or contradiction in what I've written. We were talking about individuals, first about the clerk. I said and it remains true that we don't as individuals decide what laws are valid. The laws are objective restraints and guarantees relating to right. Those rights and laws begin with the Constitution and the Court is charged with determining what meets or runs afoul of it.

We all routinely decide what is and what is not the law.

Just as demonstrably wrong as the first time you wrote it, supra and prior.

...are you really just a tyrannist, who prefers the oligarchy of 5 of 9 people, and you don't care one whit what the language of the constitution means?

As I said, allowing people the freedom to make choices relating to their own personal and moral consequence isn't tyranny. Denying them that can be.

...Amazingly, you seem to be able to judge that a law is bad, when you've said that we can't decide what the law is.

I've said we don't determine the law as individuals. I've never said anyone isn't free to an opinion about whether a law is just or unjust, well reasoned or idiotic.

Then Rusha said of meshak's judgement train...

You are no gentle lamb.

Blessings.

She's a woolly-bully.

Trad made a curious defense...

...Is the court order itself constitutional? If it violates the first amendment, then the argument that contempt of court is contempt of court is not really a compelling argument.

It doesn't violate her rights. She has no right to deny anyone their legal right to a thing because she really, really believes she should. It's on par with a racist denying service to a black over the mark of Cain nonsense that some racists paraded back in the day.

4. The liberal cry of "do your job or resign" implies that there are some jobs which should be closed to faithful Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Wrong on both counts. First, it isn't a liberal thing to believe an officer of the court shouldn't obstruct justice and must perform the duties of her office. Many a conservative has said as much about others, including the President. Second, no one is suggesting a person of faith can't hold any position, elected or otherwise. Rather, if they hold that position they are as obligated as anyone else to do their job.

...To which I'll answer that this is a contradiction: if I am a faithful Jew, Muslim or Christian, I cannot in good conscience "do my job" in the precise sense that the liberal insists.

Then the same answer meets you that would meet a man to whom racism was a religious creed. Your right to believe is not an instrument to abridge or deny any contrary holder of moral or other view their rights.

Things heated up with meshak...

...if I want high reps, I will join one of the popular group.

And if you want to play in the NBA you'll grow, right?

...Jesus says His followers are not of the world.

Well, you're out there, but I don't think that's what he had in mind.

And...

...I know you don't like it but I am not here to cheer you up.

Spoiler

You already have tons of supporters.

I don't think it's very nice of you bringing up their weight.

Spoiler

Had a word with some 1 and ebenz...

...The 4 dissenting judges including the Chief Justice realized this action was a stepping out of bounds.

A sad thing, to see Justices who should know better than that suggest that right is a show of hands. But then, the majority also confused money with speech and the ability to get more tax money sufficient reason to take your land, so that's life for you.

I know that at least one of those homosexual couples that Kim Davis refused to give the license to...brought the news crew with them to try to force Kim to give them a marriage license.

She didn't have a legal right to deny them. Like saying someone tried to force a fireman to fight a fire.

While chrys kept taking the rep thread into peculiar waters...

it has been reported repeatedly that she will allow others to issue and sign the license once her name has been removed

Then when they did that she cried "It's not legal!" through her lawyer, so maybe they should consider issuing her flame retardant pants.

This is coming out of her rep.

Recapped the factually problematic of the Kentucky fiasco...

Spoiler

To recap:

Kentucky clerk refuses to follow a lawful order in keeping with the S.Ct. ruling.

Judge gives clerk a choice to avoid conflict of conscience.

Clerk refuses. Judge holds her in contempt and puts her behind bars until she complies.

Clerk states she couldn't in good conscience allow her name to be affixed to the licenses.

In her absence clerks begin issuing licenses without her name affixed.

Clerk declares the licenses invalid because they lack her name.



Previously there was some debate around here about a level of hypocrisy attaching to someone torn by religious beliefs who was working on her fourth marriage and the defense was a recent conversion, which would seem reasonable.

But when asked about her decision to deny the licenses she didn't cite her recent embrace of the faith. No, she said, "I'm a preacher's daughter, and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life." That would appear to be resting on a less honest impression. She presumably was a preacher's daughter during the activity prior to her conversion as well.

What I'm suggesting is that appearance appears to be very important to her, even to the point of misleading people with her selection of reveals.

Davis has said she hopes the Kentucky legislature will change the law in such a way as to allow her to remain Clerk without violating her conscience...for those following along that's a tacit admission that she's not performing the duties of her office. Worse, before being held in contempt she had said she would actively forbid her deputies from following their duty and, presumably, exercising their own consciences.

:think:

Took meshak's suggestion literarily...

What we eat controls our mind, says the author of the book.

Maybe we should eat the book. :think:

Eeset went corky...

I drink wine. I do not like drunks. AA is a wonderful program.

That said, I think many people enjoy alcohol without becoming a slave to it.

Didn't you already start a wine thread? :think:

Sorry, I was thinking of Dulcinea del Toboso's diary....darn you Hooked on Foniks, again. :mmph:

And Kat had me wondering...

...With this approach, people with trichotillomania first learn to identify when and where they have the urge to pull hair. They also learn to relax and do something else, that doesn't hurt them, as a way to help ease tension when they feel the urge to pull their hair.

What do you call it when you read a particular poster and feel the urge to pull their hair out?

Tomorrow? Another glorious weekend to....what? lain: Okay then, tomorrow I update my Windows 4 calendar.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Friday Night Gazette
​

CW tried to lean on tradition in lieu of arguement...

...When it comes to our founding documents, including that of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers are very clear; all that a person has to do is look at their "original intent".

Which brings up an interesting question, how many slaves is too many slaves?

GF argued...

...Marriage was always about bringing the complementary sexes together for procreation; that we allow infertile couples to marry doesn't alter this.

A nice try but...marriage has typically involved children and certainly there can be a societal interest attached to that, which is why we reward people who have kids, give them tax breaks, by way of. But were marriage predicated on that we'd require it or at least ask. We do neither.

While Deets caught chrys twisting on his own petard...

I'd really like to see you respond to TomO's point about Kim Davis being a democrat. I'd always thought you leaned a little towards the Grand Old Party... :idunno:

He calls all dems baby killers and now he supports one....chrys, you got some splainin to do. lain:

Which led to...

You really have no idea how politics works in Kentucky.

I've been watching the news. I wouldn't say it works in Kentucky.

Then...

what is the issue at hand?
religious freedom and judicial tyranny

So if the Court had ruled to exclude homosexuals you'd have called it a victory for liberty. lain:

No one has a right to use their faith to deny anyone else their rights. Doing that isn't an exercise of religious freedom, it's actual tyranny.

Speaking of or in this case to Letsargue, GM said...

Are you gonna have an "Asteroid" hit me in the top of the head?

Can he do that? :think: Sweet.

I mean, not for you, of course. For you it'd be horrible. But, you know, in general then....sweet.

But to stay on topic...HOW

Seriously? I mean, haven't we done enough to those people? lain:

Said to Tam...well, of, since she likes me but is neither speaking to or repping me...which is a funny sort of affection, but I digress...in the sense that ham is a funny sort of cheese...

Speaking of rep, did you know Tam (and I'm 6 - 0 up on you) has over a million rep points. lain:

It's true. What happens when you guys get to ten million?

Don't tell me, let's just wait and see. Should happen about, oooh, Tuesday.

Had a difference of opinion with Trad...

Sheer equivocation Not what I mean by "nature." I mean "nature" in the Aristotelian sense. Nature = quiddity = form = essence.

Oh, I understood you, but (rude horn noise) why should that control the price of squid in Athens?

...The reason that you deny that sodomy is a crime is because it does not violate the law of the State. In this, you betray your practical assumption, i.e., that there is no superior law, no superior court, no superior justice...

Rather, in that way I give the appropriate context for the discussion of the law that Mrs. Kentucky is having a conniption about.

already a temptation in protestant thought in general,

No, one of my best friends and a great lawyer I know is Catholic. He also understands what we're talking about. You should too, at some point.

But for all that, there is a natural law, i.e., a law which is written into the very heart, the very nature of the human being as a rational substance. The lawgiver and judge of the natural law is God. Sodomy violates that law.

So do any number of things we routinely do as human beings (not that most of us routinely sodomize anyone, but I'd bet we all have sins we struggle with) from exercising our vanity to a want of compassion or application of love. Omission, commission, it's in our nature. No sin is tiny given what the pay out is for it absent grace. And thank God for grace given all of that.

...Why do I say this? Because crime has no rights. Error has no rights.

But people do. And among those rights, often enough, is the integral freedom to err, to make poor moral choices. To sin. Our courts aren't sitting in judgment on your soul or your sin. That rests between you and God.

And when I noted it was unusual to rebut a point no one was contesting...

Not around here.

You may have a point. Be careful not to put your eye out with it though.

...I don't believe I was defending that but rather Meshak's point regarding rep at TOL not being representative of ones Christian behavior. Human nature being what it is, however, folks under the gun (so to speak) for their doctrine, be it right or wrong or just different, tend to dig their heels in in one way shape or form.

I'd go farther or further than that (or both) and say it's not representative of much of anything. Though it is pretty.

Then Trad was back with...

...I make absolutely no claims about individual sodomites. I echo Pope Francis: "Who am I to judge?"

But you've done little except that and if you deny all you deny the individual, if you condemn all you condemn the individual.

...I make absolutely no claims about my own moral status before God. I fully consider my own sins much worse than those of the sodomite, of the murderer, of the drug dealer, etc.

So you think sin is a matter of degree and hold yourself lower than a murderer or sodomite? Then who in God's name are you to lecture anyone about morality and what the devil have you done?

Or didn't your mean it?

It is entirely appropriate to echo St. Paul and understand that my sins are the worst and that I am the worst sinner. Why? Because they are my sins. They are ways in which I have offended God.

I don't know...that sounds like a proud way to humility and invites only admiration on the face of it, while you heap coals on the heads of those you actually, demonstrably despise.

Tried to help rpchk out with statistics...

The lovely legacy of the Supreme Court: Dred Scott.. Roe v Wade

Like suggesting the legacy of Babe Ruth is an ungodly number of strike outs. lain:

Tomorrow...the beach, if it isn't too cold. Going to save a few star fish...that Jack misunderstood to be "starved fish"...and more "fun with philosophy". lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Sunday Morning Gazette​

Things were getting personal in the NFL thread...

I could dunk a baseball. My hands weren't big enough to palm a basketball.

:mock: STP

Speaking as a tall person, I can dunk an Oreo. And that's about it.

I dunked my brother in a pool once. But he was five years older and, well, the once seemed enough. That's all I'm saying. lain:

Had a momentary discussion on the nature of sin...

...You are entirely correct, of course, in saying that, in a certain sense, "all sins are equal," but only in the sense that we are equally unable to justify ourselves of any mortal sin. The fornicator is no more able to justify himself than the serial murderer.

I think you conflate difference with degree. Sins are demonstrably different and those differences can have disproportionately evil/harmful consequences for others, but the thing itself, the consequence of sin for the sinner remains constant. So kill a hundred men or twenty, your consequence for one is the same as the consequence for all.

I think men have a hard time with that, which is why some invented levels of hell, as if an eternity separated from every good could be experienced in any meaningful sense by degree...people.

b1. If they receive equal punishment, this just seems unreasonable.

Then Hell itself is unreasonable, given you suffer an eternal consequence for a finite act or series of acts. Of course, the problem is in the consideration. We don't suffer for the particular sin, but suffer the consequence that any sin visits, absent grace, a separation from the good, from it's source, God.

Then, somewhere, Stripe said...

Hitting a home run is not commendable when achieved by a murderer.

That's what you think.

Spoiler

Which led to...

It certainly is. :thumb:

And that's why you people think soccer is a sport worth watching sober. lain:

Summing with Trad an important distinction in the life of our Republic...

...The State is morally prohibited from making or recognizing such a law.

At this point you're veering into a subjective value system and there's no point in arguing those. Every man has his own best understanding and so many of those differ. I say follow your conscience and that best understanding. You're free to do so, right up to the point where your understanding insists on taking my own from me (without an argument that rises to standard within the compact's law and framing).

You'll say: "But it's the law. It's a necessary consequence of our compact."

No...I'd say and have said that our compact avoided the horrors perpetrated by the last incarnations of Christendom with political power to do more than argue differing exegesis.

As St. Thomas says, even an erring conscience doesn't excuse.

Then I'd say he's a gasbag on the point and had better hope he's lucky enough to be right, following his own charge.

...Anything else wouldn't instantiate perfect justice.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess which of us gets to define the thing we've never seen and can only speculate as to.

Then he said to another friend of mine...

I have a sneaking suspicion that you [anna] don't understand what I am saying.

I have a name for that sneaking suspicion. I've differed and agreed with anna for years and never had the least suspicion there was something anyone around here could say that would mystify her. Or are you suggesting that you're not putting your case clearly?

How would you paraphrase the argument/statement that I've made?

I can't speak for her, but my hope is that she'd do it with an outrageous French accent. :french:

And back on point...

Probably, formal cooperation in sin, or, if not, at the very least, immediate material cooperation in sin.

Then you need to move to the Holy See, because once you start talking about facilitation of moral choice as sin you're by and large up to your neck in it given your material participation in the Republic.

As to the rest of your post, I either have nothing really new to add, or else, it's just too tangential to the main point. The thread's not really about Hell. :idunno:

Could depend on your vantage.

Tomorrow? Tobacco and gay marriage...so smoke if you have them. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Hump Day Gazette (late edition)​

So Trad said of contraceptives...

1. In principle, you could use them for other things.

In principal you could try to clean your ears out with a loaded gun.

One could, e.g., poke holes in a condom

Or an argument.

]Then we continued arguing about smoking on moral grounds...

...So it offends God if I smoke a cigar once a month?

I've never thought of it in those terms. Why not ask if a white lie outrages God? Else, I believe that knowingly harming yourself is contrary to His will and that seems sinful to me, however you couch the harm and God's reaction.

That just leads me to think that by "harm" you mean "physical harm," at which point I'll just start listing sins which don't involve physical harm, and then I'll start listing actions which do involve physical harm, but are not sinful.

Which wouldn't address the point that this act is both harmful and without any redeeming or offsetting moral value. You could die saving a busload of nuns and count it virtuous. But we aren't talking about that.

I have severe doubts that smoking a single cigar less than once a month constitutes abuse.

Any inhalation of the substances in a cigarette is harmful. The harm may not be lasting, but then neither are any number of sinful acts lastingly harmful outside of the moral impact and perhaps the quantitative impact on the choices we make and what we excuse.

In cases of temperance, degree actually does count. One piece of pie is fine. The entire pie? Probably not. 2 beers are fine. 12 are not.

A piece of pie has nutritional value. So does beer. Most things in sufficient moderation can be beneficial. Tobacco isn't one of them. There's nothing in tobacco that is of benefit to the human body and much in it that is harmful and may be fatal, before we address the willful intent and focus on addicting the user.

I don't think that a single cigar less than once a month will destroy your health.

A lie may not destroy your character, but it's still a harm.

Had a thought on America's greatness...

Spoiler

America is a great experiment in self rule, but greatness isn't something that I believe can be found as a persistent and defining trait of a country or people; greatness is instead found in moments when a country and its people rise to some particular need and at cost.

We've had a few great moments as a people, often necessitated by the conduct of a previous generation. We began our place in the world by espousing noble principles, but mostly as a power playground for the privileged few who felt only a philosophical obligation to their lesser but likened neighbors and none at all, more practically speaking, to those who weren't sufficiently like them to be truly counted as participants.

We found greatness in the overthrow of an evil institution, at real and bloody cost to ourselves. We found it again fighting against the domination of the Nazi and again in addressing the ongoing resistance to civil rights for those we'd freed generations earlier. But mostly we've been a bit of a narcissistic mess and still are.

Almost every generation has carried a great moral failure with it, from slavery to racism to abortion. And when we rid ourselves of the latter I have little doubt that we'll find or create another failing in need of combating. In the meantime we'll have to be content with the knowledge that whatever our many and serious flaws we've had a way of working toward mending them and that we remain a free people hammering out the meaning and responsibility that entails.

Said of Kentucky's latest media darling...

What difference did it make? Her deputy clerks are issuing the licenses and she's not interfering, something she should have allowed from the beginning (without all the drama).

I was especially moved by the press conference she just held to say she doesn't want to be the center of attention. lain: I thought it had real panache.

And given the cynical hackles raised, made a suggestion in the America thread...

Maybe a multiple choice poll would have been the way to go here.

Is America:

a) Super Great!
b) Great!
c) Pretty Darn Good.
d) Well, it mostly beats Cleveland...
e) I've seen better.
f) Pfffft.
g) Stinks like week old fish in the sun on wheat toast...
h) (g) but with mayo.

While a couple of characters had me wondering...

Muslims have no place in Western civilization. You cannot be a good Muslim and a good Westerner. That's just a fact. It was true at the advent of Islam. It was true in the Middle Ages. It's true now.

Says the yesuit.

Seems Christianity is moving in a similar direction. :wave2:

Are you sure you're not a Boohdist? :mmph:

Then someone said...

did you come here for rep?

Maybe I wanted to take some lessons from you? :idunno:

Like taking elocution lessons from a mime. lain:

Tomorrow? Off to school to clear figure out which service doesn't have my ss# listed correctly. That should be quick... lain: Yeah.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Blue Moon Gazette​

I've been a bit confused lately...

Happy Birthday, Mr. Deets.

I love that movie...lain: what?

Feels like lately...late-ish...

Gerry (with a G), how can we believe anything you say when you obviously can't read or spell - :yawn:

Be nice! I can't spell either.

Don't be silly. That's exactly how you spell either. lain: what?

Summed a tempest...

So a kid took something he made to school and a teacher told him he should keep a lid on it because someone might get the wrong idea. And guess what a child did. He kept showing it to people because he was proud of it, is a kid, and knew it wasn't a bomb.


Here's what the police concluded: “The follow-up investigation revealed the device apparently was a homemade experiment, and there’s no evidence to support the perception he intended to create alarm.” Irving ISD, Chief Larry Boyd

If some genius hadn't decided to cuff him when anyone with a high school education could see with a cursory examination that it isn't a bomb we'd likely never have heard about any of this.

Then someone got flattery...

-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.

Well, you know what they say, those who do not learn from a lawyer are doomed to repeat him.

Got involved in the word game thread...

acclaimed author

king author

...darn you hooked on foniks. :IA:

unique boutique

Unique corn

I know, I know, that should be one word. lain:

While in the college football thread...

did alabama lose?

On now you're chatty Kathy. lain:

And, back on the clock...

do you think the kid is innocent?

No, he's guilty...of making a clock.

do you think his parents were ignorant of what was going on?

No. I think they probably funded...the clock.

Darn Muslims and their dangerous...time pieces.


And don't even start with me on my NFL predictions...

12. Bal @ Oak: The Line: Bal +6.5 The Split: 80/20 Bal
My Pick: another big line, but no reason to think the Ravens should struggle to cover it. Oakland couldn't stop the pass or the run in their loss and there's not a chance Flacco will follow a disastrous opening performance (30th qbr) against Denver without a rally against this defense. Give me Bal.

This is how I know professional football is rigged. lain:

13. Mia @ Jac: The Line: Mia +6.5 The Split: 78/22 Mia
My Pick: the only thing worth noting is that Jacksonville has 22% of the suckers thinking they'll contest a td margin of victory. Not me. I'm taking Mia.

I mean THIS is how I know professional football is rigged.

I may not get over this Jacksonville victory...and how often have those words been used in the same sentence?

14. Dal @ Phi: The Line: Phi +4.5 The Split: 56/44 Philly
My Pick: not a lot of confidence in that line...I'm not a fan either. Philly on a hunch.

And hunches belong in crap games...which is just one word too many to describe my luck today.

Tomorrow? Busy. You? lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Hump Day Reprise Gazette​

So Kat told chrys...

Behave yourself

you are the one who must behave

Did you point a finger as you typed that out and say it aloud in a spooky voice?

And in the word game thread...

mythical bird

Larry Bird (or is he a synonym?) :think:

While elsewhere father time was busy nudging me toward the optometrist....

Arthur Brain? Oh wait, he's an "Other." Shows what I know.

Really? That's just great. I love the little guys. :think: Those are the ones that build dams, right?

I'd rep the stew out of one of those, cute little buggers with their claws scrambling across the keyboard. Makes me smile just thinking about it...unless it's my keyboard, because, you know, the last thing I need is a banged up keyboard.

Then...I don't know...

Those are the ones that build dams, right?

Actually, no.

Well, if they won't build one I'm not going to give one...to them. lain:

Dam socialists. :think:

If you riled them enough I'd worry less about your keyboard and more about your fingers.

Few things more objectionable and disconcerting than irate aquatic rodents.

And chrys was riding tangents in the gay marriage thread...

see what happens when you think

Maybe, try modeling it and let's see.

the state knows they will have to take care of the kids if you don't

What percentage of homosexual couples vs heterosexual couples abandon children these days?

Then IMJ said...

... It's very hard to understand how a Christian can find same sex marriage a necessary evil legally speaking while finding it morally objectionable.

It's hard for me to understand how it's in any way hard to understand. I can understand the law because I'm trained in it and I'm approaching it rationally. The state does any number of things, legally, that can be considered morally objectionable. It sells licenses and facilitates industries that essentially addict and kill people.

With me it's always been this simple: we have a right to contract. One of those contracts is marriage. Marriage isn't a religious pact so far as the state is involved, which is why the state doesn't object to two atheists getting married in a judge's chambers without a hint of religious trappings. And there's no more reason to deny the homosexual that contract than there is the atheist as both are secular contracts and both outside of the blessing and intent of God where the institution is concerned.

Scripture doesn't support dual-sided attitudes toward sin.

Good, because anyone who says I have a dual attitude toward sin would be as confused as meshak was, assuming the best.

Chrys came roaring back with...something...

what more can you do to protect two guys living together?

As much as my supporting free speech does for the Klan or you, I suppose.

you do understand how many don't really care

Well, just wait until it's your rights. That ought to move you a little. lain:

On my: here is the law and here is my moral compass and they don't always agree...

...not for someone who is holding solely with a Christian perspective.

No, having a Christian perspective doesn't alter or shouldn't alter the ability to recognize and speak to an objective truth, which is what I do when it comes to the law.

No, you're approaching it secularly.

That's what the law of our land is. You can't approach it, rationally, any other way. The moment you start talking about your moral judgment of how it should be or is in relation to God you're talking about something else.

If we don't live it, Town, what good is our moral objection? We can't straddle the fence and consider ourselves faithful.

You think living the Christian conviction requires us to bend unwilling knees to a law fashioned to resemble our conscience and faith? I think you have the sort of mindset that burned a great deal of Europe to the ground the last time it had power. A lot of it well intentioned. I live out my faith every day. I hope most people who love God live in gratitude for the joy of relation and grace.

You're making excuses.

No, I'm not, but the problem with explaining yourself with someone who bears a grudge...

It wouldn't be the first time you've declared me confused.

See what I mean?

You do have a dual attitude toward sin.

You're a serial killer. :idunno: The Adriatic Sea is a cheese.

You're serving two masters.

No, but on the plus side you finally found a better insult. Way to go with that one. :thumb:

I don't mean that to be insulting.

Of course not. I imagine you put it on your Christmas cards.

Then Granite pushed my A Few Good Men button and I was off to the racists...

This is tricky "Why did you order Santiago off the base if you knew he was in no danger?" territory for the school. They can't outright admit they thought the kid was some kind of terrorist--which would make them look equal parts stupid and xenophobic--but they can't also admit their handling of the situation wasn't strident because they knew there was no danger. They really stepped in it.

Spoiler

Son, we live in a world that has Muslim kids, and those Muslim kids (and their parents and maybe their friends and their friends' parents) have to be watched by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant chrysberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for 14 year old Muslims and you curse the morons who cuffed him. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that this kid's science project, while tragic to look at, probably scared teachers. And the protocol that blew this bomb hoax up, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves time!

We don't want the truth, because deep down in places we don't talk about at parties, we want them against the wall. We need them against that wall. We use words like "Western values", "terrorism", and "recess". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending ourselves against threats, real and imaginary. You use a dictionary. I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend the indefensible without a press conference to people who rose and slept under the blanket of the very freedom I'm willing to trade for the appearance of vigilance and then question the method in which I dismantle it! I would rather you just said "thank you", or something that sounds like thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you hire a lawyer and file a brief. Either way, I'm going to turn this into something about entitlements!...and maybe the President. lain:

Wrapping up with a monumental discourse with chrys...

I have no rights

Of course you don't. You're part of the persecuted majority.

I am just an old white male catholic republican

I think there's even a monument in Washington to the suffering and historic inequities faced by old white men in this country.

They call it Congress. lain:

but
I do have principles that can be presented in plain english

By whom? :think:

Tomorrow? Clocks and clerks and the value we bring to tradition... :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

moved

 

[ok doser]

Answered an old refrain...

so you're back to responding to me?

oh joy

 

[Eeset]

Watch out Mr Doser You are going to get this thread locked again.

 

[Town Heretic]

moved.

 

[Town Heretic]

Gazette Graphic Bonus

Spoiler

 

[Town Heretic]

Children...gotta...no, you really don't. Okay, then troll proofing again for the next few and here is the:

The Friday Afternoon Gazette​

Had a talk with bybee about...

But of course the fulminating liberals didn't have a word of praise for the kid who ate a pop tart into the shape of a toy gun and got the book thrown at him?

Hadn't heard about that one, but I think we can all agree there's a difference between something made to look like a weapon and something made to be a clock.

Unless it's a clock with a gun sight, of course. But that's only common sense. lain:

Answered an old refrain...

what about my right to live in and raise my children in a society that isn't saturated with perversion and immorality?

You don't have a right to the world you want. So I'm sorry, Amish man, but people are going to wear buttons and loud clothes and dance and drink and smoke. You don't have to be one of them and you are free to tell everyone what you think about their choices, but not to make those choices for them.

Related a conversation I had with a head scratcher...

A conversation I had with a friend. I'll call him "Bill".

Bill: Why are so many people determined to have something on this kid?

Me: Seems like his religion makes some people nervous.

Bill: Why? Don't they know most Muslims aren't any more violent then they are?

Me: Maybe that's what scares them. lain:

Had a more philosophical rumination about the state being involved in marriage and why people seem to like it...

...People will couple up or not. And they will be happy or not.

Sure, but happiness is comprised of any number of things. Why do we have and celebrate anniversaries? Why do we exchange rings? We like symbols. They mean things to us. And their use underscores and even contributes to our happiness. When you're legally bound you're as publicly tied to another human being as the compact can make you. You've added a powerful symbol and public recognition to your personal commitment.

And...

In what way do you think marriage laws keep mommy and daddy together?

it no longer does

Then it never really did. If your neighbor has to be an honorable man for you to maintain your honor then all you possessed of honor to begin with was the form. Or, if all your friends get divorced does that mean you have to?

Talked it all over with TomO...

The boy and his father knew exactly what they were doing.

Well, who doesn't understand a clock. At least twice a day. lain:

...Our country deserves whatever it gets. lain:

If any of us got what we deserved none of us would get what's coming to some of us.

Speaking of rep and farsightedness...

That's true.... the only problem we found was people getting fixated on repping or neg-repping a person over and over. Although a monthly reset might make that strategy less valuable.

For a second I thought your wrote "monkey reset" and I laughed until I realized I just need stronger reading glasses.

But it was pretty funny for a moment.

Then chrys asked, of the papal visit...

so why is the pope going to philadelphia?

I hope it isn't because he's an Eagles' fan.

And I can't say for sure what exactly happened here, only that I smelled pie when it did...

It's time, said the Pontiff, to talk of many things
of

...incense smoke, and candlewax...

of Catholics and kings...
and why the poor are always poor
and why the rich have things.

And before I came out of it...

marriage has lost its meaning
now
it is like a candy bar you hand out so others will like you
the ultimate trick or treat
sweet in the mouth
but
sour in the stomach

I never thought less of my Snickers bar
because the others had one.
I never thought it was less than sweet,
or an incomplete, or a bad one.

Before...

how did you feel when the others got a candy bar even though they didn't earn it?

Do I still have a candy bar or did they take it from me? Because I'm not envious by nature...you?

Tomorrow? Mostly funnies...God willing. lain: