• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

jallman said:
Call it until you turn blue, sport. Write it down, record the URL, take a screenshot. I don't give a ****. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not a problem. If you don't have the courage to answer all points just say so sport.

In the eyes of any law when you are dealing with criminal activity. So no, you're wrong. Again. As always.
Click to expand...

The belief in a criminal act is not a crime. If you are going to continue with this garbage answer, cite the law that says so.

Civil disobedience is breaking the law. So yes, if the group doesn't want an advocate of criminal activity associated with them, by all means, they have that right.
Click to expand...

Can you even pretend you are reading? If they support breaking the law they are no different than someone who believes in NAMBLA's position that breaks the law.

You wouldn't know the actual definition of "discrimination" if it came up and bit you on your NAMBLA card.
Click to expand...

LOL Are you always this pathetic when you loose you pretend someone is a pedo to make yourself feel better?

Hell, you just finally learned how to spell the damned word.
Click to expand...

Ah another Captain Spell check advocate. So you never misspell anything right? You can Catz must be taking the same class on what do to when you are getting your ass kicked in a debate. Result to petty attacks.

And here you are using it to advocate for the inclusion of NAMBLA on some fallacious attempt at interpreting law to your advantage rather than what it actually says. I could almost understand you doing this in a gay marriage debate but, damn...doing it in an effort to legitimize NAMBLA is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

While you duck the partial birth abortion example and the gay marriage example. Way to stay predictable in running away from the actual argument.
 
jallman said:
Well Tex seems to be all about the inclusion of NAMBLA if teh gays get any kind of rights so...does him cutting loose on that front count?
Click to expand...

I think he's worried about being descriminated against.
 
mac said:
Or kinda like how Skins and Nazis always end up in Tea Party thread, just sayin....
Click to expand...

I agree. Similar to using NAMBLA in an issue about homosexuality, it's a completely weak and absurd extreme example. It doesn't apply.

But, I agree. any group accepting federal funds has to accept federal rules. Like welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
jallman said:
Well Tex seems to be all about the inclusion of NAMBLA if teh gays get any kind of rights so...does him cutting loose on that front count?
Click to expand...

Are you going to stay this cowardly or are you going to actually address the two other examples I used?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Be careful folks. Let's not cross the line
 
texmaster said:
Good point.


Its always easier to avoid the question because you don't like the example used that's destroyed your argument.

NAMBLA can be replaced with any group that is unpopular. Traditional Mormons, incest, liberals..... any will do.

NAMBLA however is a great way to hit your point across that general arguments using discrimination as the only criteria for banning funding are just plain stupid since an extreme viewpoint can always be found that no one wants to tolerate.
Click to expand...

Using NAMBLA only gives more indication that you have NO argument... something we all are aware of, tex. It's Godwin's Law put in the homosexual argument and is nothing but a desperate attempt to save a destroyed position.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Why would someone be forbidden from joining a club because they believed that partial birth abortion should be legalized? Are you suggesting that people should be discriminated against on the basis of their ideas?
Click to expand...

LOL Thats EXACTLY what you are advocating. If Partial birth abortion is illegal in a state and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law and by your own defintion when it conscerns NAMBAL you want to ban them for the same thing.

In short Catz, you want to ban people who believe in things you do not. Check Mate.

Thanks for walking right into to Catz.
 
texmaster said:
The very fact you can't debate it is particularly telling.
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle. By using NAMBLA, all you are doing is accentuaing the weakness of your position.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Using NAMBLA only gives more indication that you have NO argument... something we all are aware of, tex. It's Godwin's Law put in the homosexual argument and is nothing but a desperate attempt to save a destroyed position.
Click to expand...

I know CC its hard for you to grasp reality but I have 2 other examples which predicably you are ignoring. How about addressing them?

If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law. How is that different from NABMLA when they advocate breaking the law?

The same thing applies to advocating gay marriage in states that have passed laws making it illegal.

Explain how you can be against one group for believeing in breaking a law but be for another group for also advocating in breaking the law?


Not so easy when you actually have to think about it is it CC?
 
texmaster said:
I know CC its hard for you to grasp reality but I have 2 other examples which predicably you are ignoring. How about addressing them?

If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law. How is that different from NABMLA when they advocate breaking the law?

The same thing applies to advocating gay marriage in states that have passed laws making it illegal.

Explain how you can be against one group for believeing in breaking a law but be for another group for also advocating in breaking the law?


Not so easy when you actually have to think about it is it CC?
Click to expand...

No you are not advocating breaking the law, you are advocating changing the law.
 
texmaster said:
Not a problem. If you don't have the courage to answer all points just say so sport.
Click to expand...

I answer all points. I don't answer every deranged rant. Learn the difference.

The belief in a criminal act is not a crime. If you are going to continue with this garbage answer, cite the law that says so.
Click to expand...

I never once stated belief in a criminal act is a crime. In fact, if you opened your ****ing eyes and read, you would see where I stated the exact opposite.

Can you even pretend you are reading?
Click to expand...

Can you pretend to hold an intelligent discourse?

If they support breaking the law they are no different than someone who believes in NAMBLA's position that breaks the law.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what you are trying to argue at this point?

Does anyone else here have any clue what texmaster is ranting about now?


LOL Are you always this pathetic when you loose you pretend someone is a pedo to make yourself feel better?
Click to expand...

One: I am not "loose". Two: I never pretended you were a pedo. Three: Your advocacy of NAMBLA in this thread isn't making anyone feel better. Four: I reported the ad hom, so enjoy.


Ah another Captain Spell check advocate. So you never misspell anything right?
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you that I have never repeatedly misspelled the word "discriminate" in a thread about "discrimination".

You can Catz must be taking the same class on what do to when you are getting your ass kicked in a debate. Result to petty attacks.
Click to expand...

I dunno, tex...we're not the ones running around calling people names and chest thumping to the tune of "Look at me, I won the internetz". :shrug:

While you duck the partial birth abortion example and the gay marriage example. Way to stay predictable in running away from the actual argument.
Click to expand...

I answered your partial birth abortion example. And the gay marriage example was spoken to also. Way to stay predictable in not ****ing reading a goddamned word that was actually written to you.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Not in the eyes of this law. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong as usual. In the eyes of the law, believing in something is perfectly legal as long as you do not act on it. This is such a basic concept, it amazes me that I even have to explain it ot you. Only demonstrates how far your dishonesty will go in your attempt to save your destroyed position.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Thats EXACTLY what you are advocating. If Partial birth abortion is illegal in a state and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law and by your own defintion when it conscerns NAMBAL you want to ban them for the same thing.

In short Catz, you want to ban people who believe in things you do not. Check Mate.

Thanks for walking right into to Catz.
Click to expand...

texmaster said:
I know CC its hard for you to grasp reality but I have 2 other examples which predicably you are ignoring. How about addressing them?

If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law. How is that different from NABMLA when they advocate breaking the law?

The same thing applies to advocating gay marriage in states that have passed laws making it illegal.

Explain how you can be against one group for believeing in breaking a law but be for another group for also advocating in breaking the law?


Not so easy when you actually have to think about it is it CC?
Click to expand...

Believing in something isn't advocating breaking the law. It may simply be advocating CHANGING the law. I believe in PB in certain instances, but I do not advocate breaking any laws. I advocate changing existing laws.
 
texmaster said:
Its not an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to logic. You cannot claim to support a law that says you cannot descriminate against people then turn around and do exactly that based on your own personal morality.
Click to expand...

You bringing in NAMBLA in relation to homosexuality is an appeal to emotion. This is the essence of Godwin's Law and why your argument is nothing but fail.
 
texmaster said:
The same thing applies to advocating gay marriage in states that have passed laws making it illegal.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage in and of itself is not illegal it happens every day in this nation and there are no penalties inflicted on the people participating in them. What is illegal is State recognition of these marriages not the marriages themeselves or various religious institutions recognizing gay marriage.
 
Redress said:
No you are not advocating breaking the law, you are advocating changing the law.
Click to expand...

LOL Now its just Semantics. Nambla members could claim the same thing.




Now that the mod warnings are predictably coming out, I'm outta here but I'll leave you with this.

You cannot understand how far this "discrimination" argument goes if you cannot understand that it goes far beyond the subject at hand.

Screaming ZOMG he's using NAMBLA! is not an argument. I've shown with multiple examples any group that advocates breaking the law would be subject to this claim that you can discriminate against a group based on their belief in an illegal act.

Discrimination does not say you can discriminate against people who have a belief that would be breaking the law if acted upon.

You can't claim its ok to discriminate against another group because it personally bothers you. There is no law that says the belief in an idea whatever it is, is illegal making any argument against any group that believes in breaking the law null and void.




Until you can understand that, there is nothing more to say.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
LOL Now its just Semantics. Nambla members could claim the same thing.




Now that the mod warnings are predictably coming out, I'll leave you with this.

You cannot understand how far this "discrimination" argument goes if you cannot understand that it goes far beyond the subject at hand.

Screaming ZOMG he's using NAMBLA! is not an argument. I've shown with multiple examples any group that advocates breaking the law would be subject to this law.


Until you can understand that, there is nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

Using NAMBLA to create a sense of outrage is not an argument either.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Now you are just ducking the issue. If you live in a state that says partial birth abortion is illegal and you believe in partial birth abortion you believe in breaking the law. Just like NAMLBA.


If you are going to claim otherwise, explain the difference.
Click to expand...

Again... this is such a basic concept. There is no "thought crime" in the US. You can believe what ever you want. You can even believe in something illegal. It is NOT illegal to do so. It is illegal to act on it. If you think that it is illegal to believe in something illegal, cite the statute. I'm not going to sit here and what you spew idiocy and not get challenged. Cite the statute that shows where it is illegal to believe in something illegal... and remember, actions do NOT come into this.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Now its just Semantics. Nambla members could claim the same thing.




Now that the mod warnings are predictably coming out, I'll leave you with this.

You cannot understand how far this "discrimination" argument goes if you cannot understand that it goes far beyond the subject at hand.

Screaming ZOMG he's using NAMBLA! is not an argument. I've shown with multiple examples any group that advocates breaking the law would be subject to this law.


Until you can understand that, there is nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

Oh yes...because it's EVERYONE else having the problem and only texmaster who is on point. EVERYONE else is an idiot except professor tex. :roll:
 
texmaster said:
I know CC its hard for you to grasp reality but I have 2 other examples which predicably you are ignoring. How about addressing them?

If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law. How is that different from NABMLA when they advocate breaking the law?

The same thing applies to advocating gay marriage in states that have passed laws making it illegal.

Explain how you can be against one group for believeing in breaking a law but be for another group for also advocating in breaking the law?


Not so easy when you actually have to think about it is it CC?
Click to expand...

Let me demonstrate how you are being dishonest. It is actually quite easy. Here is your sentence: "If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law." Look at the two words I placed in bold. You are using them as synomyms and they are NOT. One can believe in something and NOT advocate it, if we consider advocating to be acting on that belief. This is why your entire argument is nothing but a dishonest attempt to make a point. I can believe in anything that I want. That does NOT equal advocating it. It also does NOT equal acting on it. Murder is illegal in my state. I would like to murder pedophiles. Is my belief/desire illegal, tex? Does that equal advocating the murder of pedophiles? No to both questions. You are playing idiotic sematical games, nothing more, and that is why your argument is being met with such dismissal . Try to use an analogy that both makes sense and is a logical comparison, WITHOUT equivocating by using incorrect words.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Now its just Semantics. Nambla members could claim the same thing.




Now that the mod warnings are predictably coming out, I'm outta here but I'll leave you with this.

You cannot understand how far this "discrimination" argument goes if you cannot understand that it goes far beyond the subject at hand.

Screaming ZOMG he's using NAMBLA! is not an argument. I've shown with multiple examples any group that advocates breaking the law would be subject to this claim that you can discriminate against a group based on their belief in an illegal act.

Discrimination does not say you can discriminate against people who have a belief that would be breaking the law if acted upon.

You can't claim its ok to discriminate against another group because it personally bothers you. There is no law that says the belief in an idea whatever it is, is illegal making any argument against any group that believes in breaking the law null and void.




Until you can understand that, there is nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

You've done nothing of the sort. You do what you always do, play sematic games. And you got called on them. Again. And guess what. NAMBLA advocating to change the law ALSO is not illegal. If they are not acting in an illegal way, no matter how abhorrant they are, they are within their rights to have their beliefs. Or are you against the Constitution.
 
Moderator's Warning:
No more warnings. Do not insult or disparage other posters. Thread bans will happen.
 
tex, I will ask you again. Please cite the law that states that believing in something illegal (but not acting on it) is, in and of itself, illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom