Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He said your debate tactic was loser, not you. See, we don't run down people personally like your side does like when you called me a liar.
As long as you continue to claim that I said you would like gays executed even though my original post actually asked the question if you could be calling for the execution of gays because the pastor did and I said my logic says NO. And I explained it to you 5 tines, as long as you keep lying about what I said I will call you a liar. At least I have a rationale behind that . Calling gays bullies and having a disgusting lifestyles is not putting down peooke?
If that wasn't the intended purpose, it's morphed into it. There is about 900 pages of off-topic posts and Christian bashing. This thread was way off course long long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Very true. It is sad to see Christians treated this way, but it still serves the purpose of exposing the anger and hypocrisy behind of the gay agenda. As long as they keep talking people can see they are not what they pretend to be.
You have both been corrected on this many, many times. But I understand that diminished capacity often requires repetition -- even with very simple concepts.
So, here goes:
This thread does NOT bash Christians. This thread bashes bigoted fundamentalists whose panties are in a permanent wad since SSM was made legal because they do not believe gays deserve equal rights.
I'll be happy to repeat this again, the next time you two fundies make the same mistake.
As long as you continue to claim that I said you would like gays executed even though my original post actually asked the question if you could be calling for the execution of gays because the pastor did and I said my logic says NO.
The new argument here is that you don't need to say it directly to mean it. Others will decide what you meant.
No worries though, such argument is too silly to be taken seriously.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 07-10-2019 at 08:58 AM..
No, I didn't. I said ad hominem attacks is a loser approach. Trust me, you don't want to look like Warden, trout dude or the Saintmark, who has revealed his true colors.
Same applies in Virginia.
Romeo and Juliet laws do not make it legal, but it can reduce, or eliminate the punishment. I gave you a link to legal definitions, which explains Romeo and Juliet laws. Why can't you just read it?
Romeo And Juliet Law Law and Legal Definition
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/romeo-and-juliet-law/
Teenage couples before either participant has reached the age of consent, or after one has but the other has not, may engage in consensual sexual conduct as part of an intimate relationship. In such cases, the older of the two participants is technically guilty of rape as any consent between partners, even if freely given, does not meet the standard of law as it is given by a minor. "Romeo and Juliet" laws, serve to reduce or eliminate the penalty of the crime in cases where the couple's age difference is minor and the sexual contact is only considered rape because of the lack of legally-recognized consent.
Both in Virginia and Canada the law is that as long as both parties consent to sex, the sex between two 15 year old's is lawful. It must be the Department of Justice that don't understand how laws work. Perhaps they should hire you to explain it to them. Or i could be wrong and think lawful does not mean illegal?
So if an act is lawful is it legal or illegal? Under Virginia law teenagers aged 15, 16, 17 are lawfully allowed to engage in sexual congress together... So does this mean that it is still illegal for them to do so? Guess I just don't understand the wording lawfully
The new argument here is that you don't need to need to say it directly to mean it. Others will decide what you meant.
No worries though, such argument is too silly to be taken seriously.
Well i did ask if folks such as yourself took my post to Jeff means that I claim that he would like gays executed because that is certainly not in any ways what i meant. Neither yourself nor any of Jeff's allies responded.
I am still positive my post showed how blaming every gay for the words of one gay is just as silly as saying that all Christians want gays executed because one Christian does. And 8 have explained myself 5 times to Jeff that my post does not say what he claims and that I certainly did not mean that either.
Both in Virginia and Canada the law is that as long as both parties consent to sex, the sex between two 15 year old's is lawful. It must be the Department of Justice that don't understand how laws work. Perhaps they should hire you to explain it to them. Or i could be wrong and think lawful does not mean illegal?
So if an act is lawful is it legal or illegal? Under Virginia law teenagers aged 15, 16, 17 are lawfully allowed to engage in sexual congress together... So does this mean that it is still illegal for them to do so? Guess I just don't understand the wording lawfully
We were talking about 13 ys olds, but you keep moving the goal posts. It does not make it legal, as I already explained with a link to Virginia law. It can make them immune from punishment (which 13 yr olds typically are anyway). Perhaps it is best to put it to rest, because repetition wont make it better. I believe we have both expressed out views on it.
Well i did ask if folks such as yourself took my post to Jeff means that I claim that he would like gays executed because that is certainly not in any ways what i meant. Neither yourself nor any of Jeff's allies responded.
I am still positive my post showed how blaming every gay for the words of one gay is just as silly as saying that all Christians want gays executed because one Christian does. And 8 have explained myself 5 times to Jeff that my post does not say what he claims and that I certainly did not mean that either.
I have not kept track of everything people say, but such thing has been said and attributed to Jeff. If it wasn't you, then it was someone else.
The new argument here is that you don't need to say it directly to mean it. Others will decide what you meant.
No worries though, such argument is too silly to be taken seriously.
This is not new to anyone but you, Mr. Wordgames. You and Jeff seem incapable of understanding this, even though multiple people have explained it to you. I think you likely do understand, but have no other leg to stand on.
Example (and this is not meant to be me saying this to be true, merely an example to Mr. Wordgames to take in), if someone says: Fundamentalists are idiots.
Okay, so what can you infer from someone saying the above? They didn't call "you" an idiot, but they did say fundamentalists are idiots. So, therefore, they have called you an idiot, even though they didn't explicitly say so.
See, it is so easy an elementary student can understand it, so why is it so hard for you and Jeffery?
I am sure there are many laws you reject, although the Bible certainly says you should respect the laws of the land. There are laws I do not necessarily like, but I obey them anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
What is more important, the law or the spirit of the law? And, are not the laws subjected to change as we grow and mature in our understanding? Or, should we continue to persecute and condemn the innocent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No, I do not think you should condemn and persecute anyone. You should give up that habit.
It is ok to disagree with people, but you should allow them to also disagree with you without accusing them of condemnation and discrimination when there is no proof of such.
So, the fundamentalist baker wasn't discriminating when he refused to sell a wedding cake?
This is not new to anyone but you, Mr. Wordgames. You and Jeff seem incapable of understanding this, even though multiple people have explained it to you. I think you likely do understand, but have no other leg to stand on.
Example (and this is not meant to be me saying this to be true, merely an example to Mr. Wordgames to take in), if someone says: Fundamentalists are idiots.
Okay, so what can you infer from someone saying the above? They didn't call "you" an idiot, but they did say fundamentalists are idiots. So, therefore, they have called you an idiot, even though they didn't explicitly say so.
See, it is so easy an elementary student can understand it, so why is it so hard for you and Jeffery?
Sure, like all the Nazi talk is designed to call Bible believing Christians Nazis. However, you do something different, because you re-word peoples posts to mean something completely different than what they said, sometimes the exact opposite of what they said, and you do it even after the actual view has been clarified to you in plain text. Keep at it, because readers see what you are trying to do, and it serves to expose the fakeness of the gay agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
