Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 15:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jun 1, 2017 17:17:31 GMT -5
Background on Dinesh D'Souza - not a very nice guy. - Indicted by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney for laundering campaign contributions for a Republican Senate candidate. - Pleaded guilty to avoid a more serious charge that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. - Sentenced to 5 years of probation. During the sentencing hearing, a letter from his ex-wife was read in which she stated: "It is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day."
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 1, 2017 17:31:01 GMT -5
He's a fake liberal.  |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 1, 2017 18:51:32 GMT -5
WOW WALKER,
Looks like you really got a winner this time!
excerpts from wiki
D'Souza is a staunch neoconservative, and began his public career while still at Dartmouth College, writing for conservative publications like the Dartmouth Review, which became notorious for its racist and homophobic content under D'Souza's editorship.
In this period, he criticized Dartmouth's policy of Affirmative Action and used the publication to attack gay rights and gay students.
The Review also frequently "outed" gay students against their wishes.
His far-right slant on many subjects led others to nickname him "Distort D'Newsa."
emphasis are mine
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 1, 2017 18:59:21 GMT -5
Well then, hmmm would this be a good time to share a link I got today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 19:27:04 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy...
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 1, 2017 22:56:32 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy... You mean he can't be beat in his own monologue. That wasn't a debate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 0:07:04 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy... You mean he can't be beat in his own monologue. That wasn't a debate. no i am saying that i've never seen him lose a debate YET... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 2, 2017 0:38:28 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy... Have any atheists even bothered debating him? Based on that brief clip it doesn't seem worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 2, 2017 1:07:56 GMT -5
Hemant Mehta Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Pen name T he Friendly AtheistCitizenship United States Education M.S. in Math Education, Biology Alma mater University of Illinois at Chicago, DePaul University Notable works I Sold My Soul on eBay, Friendly Atheist blogWebsite www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/Hemant Mehta (born 1983) is an author, blogger, and atheist activist who gained fame for "selling his soul" on eBay.
Mehta is a regular speaker at atheist events and has sat on the boards of charitable organizations such as the Secular Student Alliance and the Foundation Beyond Belief.
He also runs a blog on Patheos, Friendly Atheist, in which he and his associates publish articles several times a day. from wiki
I had to watch it twice to get the hang of the "dialogue" that he was having with himself, but when I did I thought that he was very funny!
|
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Jun 2, 2017 1:59:38 GMT -5
Dmmich, my dear friend.
You talk about "homophobia"
You know of course that's just a fashionable word, a "social construct" (but liberals wouldn't use that term for that idea.)
So... when did YOU become homophilic?
I asked this of you many times (as I often do to people of my vintage who "support gays")...
Q - What year did you decide to stop being "homophobic"? 1980? 1985? 1990? 1995? 2000? 2005 or 2010?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 2, 2017 5:27:11 GMT -5
Dmmich, my dear friend. You talk about "homophobia" You know of course that's just a fashionable word, a "social construct" (but liberals wouldn't use that term for that idea.) So... when did YOU become homophilic? I asked this of you many times (as I often do to people of my vintage who "support gays")... Q - What year did you decide to stop being "homophobic"? 1980? 1985? 1990? 1995? 2000? 2005 or 2010?
Where is any empathy for your fellow beings?
It isn't OUR fault that the rest of us grew in our ability to understand that we were discriminating against others by NOT treating others as we would want to be treated, - but YOU, you were the one that allowed yourself to get left in the back wash!
Try growing up for a change!
|
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Jun 2, 2017 6:24:42 GMT -5
Okay. I suggest that Dmmichgood "came around" to "accepting gays", more specifically gay marriage,
somewhere around 2000-2005. And that's on the basis you are an average American gal/guy.
You won't address the issue of WHO decided this was an issue you should attend to. You think it's
because of "discrimination" which you think is "bad." BEFORE this time you discriminated, like anyone
else, because it was good and proper to do so. You most likely thought "marriage" was something important
between a man and a woman - not a man and a man, or man and a boy, or a woman and her dog.
And if someone says we should discriminate against religious people - well they have it coming. And if we
discriminate against men - it's a form of "positive discrimination.". And soon, it's back to those Jews again
for various reasons. Rednecks are stupid anyway and just the butt of jokes. And we shout people down who we
disagree with because we know better.
Others shifted your opinion. As for conservatives - they are stupid, stuck in a rut. Liberals go with the
flow. Curiously no-one seems to know who's idea it was to promote gay morals. Or even, where is all this taking
us? And why? And, what are the patterns to all this?
You are not free from discrimination, no-one is. You are just allowing people to shift who or what you discriminate
against.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 2, 2017 11:07:27 GMT -5
Okay. I suggest that Dmmichgood "came around" to "accepting gays", more specifically gay marriage, somewhere around 2000-2005. And that's on the basis you are an average American gal/guy. You won't address the issue of WHO decided this was an issue you should attend to. You think it's because of "discrimination" which you think is "bad." BEFORE this time you discriminated, like anyone else, because it was good and proper to do so. You most likely thought "marriage" was something important between a man and a woman - not a man and a man, or man and a boy, or a woman and her dog. And if someone says we should discriminate against religious people - well they have it coming. And if we discriminate against men - it's a form of "positive discrimination.". And soon, it's back to those Jews again for various reasons. Rednecks are stupid anyway and just the butt of jokes. And we shout people down who we disagree with because we know better. Others shifted your opinion. As for conservatives - they are stupid, stuck in a rut. Liberals go with the flow. Curiously no-one seems to know who's idea it was to promote gay morals. Or even, where is all this taking us? And why? And, what are the patterns to all this? You are not free from discrimination, no-one is. You are just allowing people to shift who or what you discriminate against. You mean she allowed herself to grow and learn? I would think that would be a good thing. I don't remember ever discriminating homosexuality because I never viewed it as my business. I don't understand what difference it makes to anyone what two consenting adults want to do. If two people love one another why not get married it that means anything to them? Marriage isn't important enough to have laws making it illegal for certain people. I have known people who never married but lived together for over 50 years. But some people seem to need to have a piece of paper. It should be the choice of the people involved not some stupid law based on the OT of one of the worlds religions. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 2, 2017 12:26:21 GMT -5
Curiously no-one seems to know who's idea it was to promote gay morals. For me it was my family. They promoted the idea that you looked at the people and didn't assign them to a group. Perhaps it is taking us to a place where people are treated as equals and not put into a box because of someone's judgment. No one is free from discrimination of one sort or another. But some try to discover what the reason is for the discrimination and address it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 2, 2017 17:21:17 GMT -5
<snip> Others shifted your opinion. As for conservatives - they are stupid, stuck in a rut. Liberals go with the flow. Curiously no-one seems to know who's idea it was to promote gay morals. Or even, where is all this taking us? And why? And, what are the patterns to all this? You are not free from discrimination, no-one is. You are just allowing people to shift who or what you discriminate against. I know! I know! Ask me!!! |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 2, 2017 22:39:38 GMT -5
You mean he can't be beat in his own monologue. That wasn't a debate. no i am saying that i've never seen him lose a debate YET... I realize what you said. I can say that too, because neither of us have seen him debate. You can't lose a debate if you haven't debated. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 2, 2017 22:44:55 GMT -5
Okay. I suggest that Dmmichgood "came around" to "accepting gays", more specifically gay marriage,
somewhere around 2000-2005. And that's on the basis you are an average American gal/guy .You won't address the issue of WHO decided this was an issue you should attend to. You think it's because of "discrimination" which you think is "bad." BEFORE this time you discriminated, like anyone else, because it was good and proper to do so. You most likely thought "marriage" was something important between a man and a woman - not a man and a man, or man and a boy, or a woman and her dog.
YOU say, "Dmmichgood "came around" to "accepting gays", more specifically gay marriage, somewhere around 2000-2005" and that "BEFORE this time you discriminated, like anyone else, because it was good and proper to do so." "
Your hubris knows no end!
You seem to think that not only are you the only moral person around but you also know the minds of everyone else.
YOU are an out-right liar when you say that I "discriminated against homosexuals!"
I am sick and tired of your naming me in your posts and telling me what I did and did not believe and why and when I did so! ![]()
Humanists, -(which obviously doesn't include yourself) are concerned about people and how they treat other people and therefore are ALWAYS re-evaluating what they think as to the how it may hurt other people!
Even the the American Psychiatric Association removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
So just stop telling me what I THOUGHT!
|
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Jun 2, 2017 23:12:44 GMT -5
Dmmich. I am working from the balance of probabilities.
Like most people you probably gave homosexuals no thought, either positive or negative.
But like most people you thought "gay marriage" was a bridge too far, until the bridge got here.
Sexualized children, euthanasia, pornography etc were all bridges too far when you and I were
growing up.
The problem with "humanism" IMO is that it seeks to be kind to be cruel, whereas traditional
values seek to be cruel to be kind. You take your pick - there's no third option.
|
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Jun 2, 2017 23:13:46 GMT -5
Quote Gene - "I know! I know! Ask me!!!" Frankly, I am scared to.  |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 3, 2017 0:26:07 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy... Having a way with words does not make you a smart guy... it makes you a smart arse. I am sure that one day, someone will take umbrage at what he says and how he says it and then he will have difficulty debating with his teeth down his throat. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 3, 2017 1:45:26 GMT -5
Dmmich. I am working from the balance of probabilities. Like most people you probably gave homosexuals no thought, either positive or negative. But like most people you thought "gay marriage" was a bridge too far, until the bridge got here.
Once again you say, "Like most people you probably gave homosexuals no thought."
You have NO IDEA what I thought!
And again, "like most people you thought "gay marriage" was a bridge too far,"
You haven't any idea what I or many other people "thought!"
Neither do you have ANY IDEA what constitutes being a "humanist!"
One thing I do know from your posts is that YOU aren't one!
One thing I do know about you from your posts is your total arrogance and lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't agree with you and your egotistical denial of anything that you don't want to believe.
One thing that is obvious from your posts is total disregard of the rights of other people and it is obvious that although you claim to be a "Christian" the words "treat others as you would want to be treated" is just not a part of how YOU act toward others. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 3, 2017 1:56:03 GMT -5
he can't be beat in a debate...smart guy... Having a way with words does not make you a smart guy... it makes you a smart arse. I am sure that one day, someone will take umbrage at what he says and how he says it and then he will have difficulty debating with his teeth down his throat.
I thought he was funny and right on target once you realize how he works the dialogue back & forth between a supposed Christian and himself as a atheist.
OOPS!... - I think I was talking about the other guy, -the one holding the banana, Hemant Mehta
|
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Jun 3, 2017 2:05:47 GMT -5
Quote me - "The problem with "humanism" IMO is that it seeks to be kind to be cruel, whereas traditional
values seek to be cruel to be kind. You take your pick - there's no third option."
This is humanist thinking - some teachers are rotten apples, abusing kids. Let's empower kids.
Later... kids aren't afraid of teachers, kids can call up their dads on their phones, kids can slander teachers
on the Internet. The balance of school room power shifts, to the detriment of students in general and teachers
(what's left of them) in particular.
This is humanist thinking - some people face agonizing terminal illnesses, with no way out. Let's legalize Euthanasia.
(we won't abuse the new laws, pretty, pinky promise)
Later... anyone can die, anyone can declare others too ill or mental to decide for themselves. Some children are just
a burden on the hospital system. Suicide kits are available for depressed kids. Whole attitude towards life changes,
to the detriment of everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jun 3, 2017 22:49:51 GMT -5
Quote me - "The problem with "humanism ...." What part do you have a problem with? Humanist Manifesto IIIHumanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance. This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life. Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views . We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner. Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 23:18:08 GMT -5
Quote me - "The problem with "humanism ...." What part do you have a problem with? Humanist Manifesto IIIHumanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance. This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life. Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views . We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner. Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. without God, Jesus and the Holy spirit humanism is a big waste of time and in vain...that said some humanist ideals may be noble but their methods of getting there are dangerous and quite horrible... |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 3, 2017 23:40:25 GMT -5
What part do you have a problem with? Humanist Manifesto IIIHumanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance. This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life. Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views . We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner. Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. without God, Jesus and the Holy spirit humanism is a big waste of time and in vain...that said some humanist ideals may be noble but their methods of getting there are dangerous and quite horrible...
Think of all the "Holy Wars" fought in their name .
I don't think that you will find any "Holy Humanist Wars "
Can you name any Humanists "methods" that have been "dangerous or horrible?"
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jun 3, 2017 23:49:59 GMT -5
without God, Jesus and the Holy spirit humanism is a big waste of time and in vain...that said some humanist ideals may be noble but their methods of getting there are dangerous and quite horrible... The time to believe is after you have a good reason. So far no one has demonstrated anything to be supernatural. Your believe is founded only on "faith". FAITH - "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" = " wishful thinking" Better to believe based on good evidence EVIDENCE - " the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." |
|
