It is you, Tirk. My opinions are my own. If you think I am plagiarising, then call me on it and be prepared to prove it. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air. When I copy from a site, I post a link. When I post a quote I put it in italics and quotations and cite the author if I know it. Look, I conduct research for a living. I know how to find data, assess it, and draw conclusions. I don't hesitate to to back up my assertations with some evidence from the net, Martin would demand it. But I speak my own mind. You shouldn't get intimidated by someone who happens to be well-spoken. You tease JS about his writing, but he's always been articulate. He once was bad about personally attacking people he disagreed with, but he has changed. I've quit ignoring him and I find his posts are valid, even when I think he's wrong. You rag TRA and myself all the time because you don't like something we've said. But rarely do you enter the debate with anything substantial to counter it. Instead you just point fingers and make snide remarks about people. You could learn from JS. I ignore you a lot Tirk, even though I think you often have something important to say, because I just don't want to get into pointless name-calling. It's a waste of bandwidth.
if we lived in a theocracy ruled by your religion, that would matter. but red and i and lots of others dont vote for leaders who think this way, so the laws do not reflect your opinion. see how laws governing right and wrong and your morality are different, and always will be? you should learn to deal with gray areas.
I think either somehow else needs to weigh in or we need to let this thread slip into the blissful night. 157 is rigidly in the right(eous) and is not open to friendly debate if the debate doesn't lean his way. The cheerleader thing is scary. And in Texas no less. Somebody better tell Debbie, and quick.
no not at all. I apologize if i implied that. I simply meant it often comes across rehearsed or something. Just not in your own words as if it was actually a strong opinion. intimidated? exactly the opposite. more like indifferent.
I already understand that. See my first post on this thread. Whether or not there are temporal laws against certain things doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the rightness/wrongness (morality) of actions. I can know and say something is wrong without demanding that there be laws on the books to legislate.
sometimes there are issues i cannot figure out very easily, like gun control and immigration. i wish god would give me some answers as to what is right and wrong on the hard ones. lucky for you god tells you what is right and wrong. thats awesome for you.
well, if i thought it was immoral to not allow me the freedom to own what i want, and i believed in black and white morality, i would say gun control laws were immoral. but i dont think that way, so i suppose you are right. similarly, some people think it is immoral to allow deny immigrants services and assistance, while others would be happy to let illegals die of thirst in the deserts. people like to cast issues as moral issues when they are absolutists. the point is, i guess god doesnt weigh in on everything like i thought he might. i am not wise to how this fella works. i guess he makes you figure out the gray areas (that dont exist).
