• 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!

Just Plain Wrong

Children disrespect their parents and teachers



"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." -
-- Socrates 435 BC
 
As a matter of fact the bibles of all three major religions

What would those be? And you're basing your views on the proclamations of books teeming with fairy tales?
 
As a matter of fact the bibles of all three major religions warn against homosexuality as well as beastiality.

Hindu and Buddhism(3 and 4th largest religions in the world), neither condemn homosexuality. Hinduism in particular has positive stories of homosexuality in their mythology. So in fact 2 of the 4 major religions in the world are ok with homosexuality. Facts, your arch nemesis.
 
You know what, my statement may have been a bit premature.

I probably should examine the facts a little closer before I jump to conclusions.

If you'll link me obamas academic records I'll review them and give you a definate answer.

How so very disingenuous of you. You made a bold faced claim that you were more educated than Obama. His education is in the public records. Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law. The academic record is a red herring just like the insane birther crap.. Honestly, put up or shut up. Seriously, like you would be presenting your academic records as proof?
 
How so very disingenuous of you. You made a bold faced claim that you were more educated than Obama. His education is in the public records. Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law. The academic record is a red herring just like the insane birther crap.. Honestly, put up or shut up. Seriously, like you would be presenting your academic records as proof?

So no link then? :cry:
 
Hindu and Buddhism(3 and 4th largest religions in the world), neither condemn homosexuality. Hinduism in particular has positive stories of homosexuality in their mythology. So in fact 2 of the 4 major religions in the world are ok with homosexuality. Facts, your arch nemesis.
None of them consider homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, on the other hand, to say the very least. To say they are okay with homosexuality would be a very controversial and questionable statement. These religions do not have the same focus on sin that the Abrahamic ones do, their focus tends to be on diminishing desires and one's attachment to worldliness, but treating this more as a impediment to one's self-realisation than a crime against God. You would therefore expect them to take a somewhat more low-key approach to such things, but this certainly does not equate to full acceptance.
 
Last edited:
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." -
-- Socrates 435 BC
That was a pretty decadent time, full of social upheaval, particularly in Athens and the Greek world. Just because people have often complained about the younger generations, doesn't mean they never can get worse than their forebears.
 
Last edited:
That was a pretty decadent time, full of social upheaval, particularly in Athens and the Greek world. Just because people have often complained about the younger generations, doesn't mean they never can get worse than their forebears.

There's a salient point to that quote. See if you can figure it out.
 
I have a huge sausage link. Will that work for you?

I have a huge pastrami --- I was thinking more of the type of link Empirica requested, but that's just not gonna happen is it?
 
There's a salient point to that quote. See if you can figure it out.
Presumably that he was a bisexual or pederast. Though again the situation is quite complex, Greeks never simply accepted homosexuality, particularly between two grown up men (or as they thought of it, men who were old enough to grow beards). Aristophanes is full of jokes against those with a particular predilection to homosexual behaviour, particularly the passive partner and doubly so if he is an adult. It is clear that an arch-traditionalist like Aristophanes was not completely tolerant of it and considered it part of the decadence of his age. And even their contemporaries, like the Romans, considered such practices decadent, Oriental customs.
 
Last edited:
Can you trust any others? Grimms Fairy Tales, now there is a book to live your life by.

I refuse to live my life by any book written by dead people. In fact, I attempt to decide myself what is right or wrong, and could care less what some old dead guys thought.
 
I have a huge pastrami --- I was thinking more of the type of link Empirica requested, but that's just not gonna happen is it?

Empirica made a baseless claim. We are still waiting for her to back it up. I suspect we won't live long enough.

Honestly, are you embarrassed to still cling to the birther BS? Really?
 
I refuse to live my life by any book written by dead people. In fact, I attempt to decide myself what is right or wrong, and could care less what some old dead guys thought.

So you'd consider living your life by a book written by people who are still alive? Why does their current state of "live" or "dead" have some causal reality either valid or invalid?
 
Empirica made a baseless claim. We are still waiting for her to back it up. I suspect we won't live long enough.

Honestly, are you embarrassed to still cling to the birther BS? Really?

I'm not interested in Empirica's claim, nor your waiting for something ... I want to know if you're going to provide a hyper link per the request.
 
So you'd consider living your life by a book written by people who are still alive? Why does their current state of "live" or "dead" have some causal reality either valid or invalid?

It doesn't. I believe in thinking for myself.
 
I refuse to live my life by any book written by dead people. In fact, I attempt to decide myself what is right or wrong, and could care less what some old dead guys thought.
I know, you prefer Hollywood movies to tell you what to think.

You're displaying what C.S Lewis called chronological snobbery, the arbitrary belief that the later someone lived the more profound and useful is their thought.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't. I believe in thinking for myself.

Can't you still think for yourself AND consider either dead or living people's books at the same time? Of course no one should live their lives according to some book, but certainly you'd agree that words either from the grave or otherwise have validity and can shape one's outlook on subjects without a person giving up their independent thought process, right?
 
It doesn't. I believe in thinking for myself.
The problem with free thought is that it tends to be the thought that is free and not ourselves.

If you'd known your scripture you would have known there was nothing new under the sun, and perhaps be better able to reflect that genius is centric and not eccentric; that there should be nothing dazzlingly novel in the basic ability to discern right and wrong.
 
I know, you prefer Hollywood movies to tell you what to think.

You're displaying what C.S Lewis called chronological snobbery, the arbitrary belief that the later one lived the more profound and useful is their thought.

Such snobbery works in both directions. For example, snobs who like to pretend things were so much better in years gone by because of MORALITY being present.

Morality such as prohibition ere gangsters and jim crow laws. Morality such as ostracizing pregnant teen daughters and not reporting date rape. Mortality such as institutionalizing any child who is handicapped.

Things were so much more moral in previous generations. I wonder how things could have possibly gotten so bad!
 
Such snobbery works in both directions. For example, snobs who like to pretend things were so much better in years gone by because of MORALITY being present.
That would only be snobbery if they were wrong, or wrong to think so. Lewis' obvious point is that what he is describing is bigotry or the unthinking acceptance of prejudice.

Morality such as prohibition ere gangsters and jim crow laws. Morality such as ostracizing pregnant teen daughters and not reporting date rape. Mortality such as institutionalizing any child who is handicapped.

Things were so much more moral in previous generations. I wonder how things could have possibly gotten so bad!
Those who love Fairy Tales always know that morality hangs by fragile threads. In the past men were often pessimistic about mankind's ability to be good and not bad, nowadays we are pessimistic about whether there is good or bad.
 
Last edited:
I'm not interested in Empirica's claim, nor your waiting for something ... I want to know if you're going to provide a hyper link per the request.

Nor am I interested in playing your inane birther game. Shouldn't you be watching Fake News about now?
 
Last edited:
Nor am I interested in playing your arcane birther game. Shouldn't you be watching Fake News about now?
It isn't actually a birther game. I believe Obama has not realised his full academic records. There is obvious speculation that this could be because he wrote some embarrassing things back then, this is particularly so when Gingrich has had some of his essays from university commented on negatively. Is it that unlikely that the Saul Alinsky influenced, community organiser wrote some things which might be considered somewhat, to use British parlance about the far-left, rat-bag.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom