Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330005 > unrolled thread

Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-31 18:48 -0500
    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 02:45 +0000
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 03:10 -0600
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 04:17 +0000
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 21:34 -0700
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:45 -0600
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:47 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:16 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:53 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:48 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 08:52 +0100
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 08:50 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:37 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:55 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:27 +0000
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:05 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:46 -0700
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:37 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:04 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:06 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 00:34 +0100
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:09 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:41 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:54 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:07 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:24 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:38 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:49 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:46 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:16 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:51 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:49 -0600
    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:44 -0600
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:39 +0000
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 14:49 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:13 -0600
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:07 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:52 -0600
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:37 +0000
              @ronb is fucked in the head, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-03 03:14 -0800
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:27 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:23 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:58 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:16 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:33 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:31 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:40 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:21 +0000
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:54 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 09:56 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:16 -0800
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:14 -0600
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:36 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:32 -0600
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:50 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 10:04 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:24 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:31 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-05 00:24 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 19:29 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 19:47 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:45 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:02 -0800
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:52 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:39 -0500
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:58 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:46 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:39 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:59 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:32 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:06 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:39 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0700
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:28 -0700
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:35 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:44 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:02 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 10:50 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:06 -0800
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:09 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:34 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 10:15 -0800
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-04 09:40 -0800
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:44 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 13:38 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-04 09:19 -0700
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-04 16:40 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "vallor" <vallor@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:57 +0100
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 18:15 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:48 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-03 06:26 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:24 +0000
          Women need choices, not enslavement. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-02 17:39 -0800
            Re: Women need choices, not enslavement. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:56 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:14 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 06:45 -0600
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:07 +0000
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "JEDIDIAH" <nomad@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 06:47 +0100
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-04 06:45 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:01 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:42 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:00 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 10:11 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 18:55 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:46 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:42 -0800
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:19 -0600
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:35 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 00:26 +0100
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:35 +0000
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:34 -0600
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:51 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:17 -0600
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-05 09:23 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:45 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:37 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 21:25 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 12:58 -0700
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:39 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:38 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:37 +0000
                        Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:23 +0000
                          Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:30 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 19:47 -0500
                          Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 04:15 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 04:36 +0000
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:04 -0500
                                Re: Evolution and the RC church chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-06 07:05 -0600
                                  Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 08:14 -0500
                                    Re: Evolution and the RC church Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 10:57 -0500
                                      Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 11:06 -0500
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 01:16 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:14 -0700
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 16:47 -0700
                                Re: Evolution and the RC church Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:53 -0800
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-06 01:34 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 20:37 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 09:13 +0100
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 09:39 -0600
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 09:19 -0700
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:02 -0500
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:06 +0000

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#330642

On 2015-11-03 2:52 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> ronb wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be
>>>>>>> it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put
>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>>
>>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>>>> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to
>>>> be
>>>
>>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>>     wars
>>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all
>>> of the family resources.
>>>
>>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>>     attitude that
>>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>>>
>>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>>     never
>>> would have existed.
>>
>> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by your
>> insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and, instead,
>> fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic crank who
>> won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with most cranks who
>> try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what you're talking
>> about.
>>
> 
> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile

The only constants in this newsgroup is that Snit will turn any topic
into a circus and that just about everything you say is incorrect.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330644

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:06:55 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote:

> On 2015-11-03 2:52 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be
>>>>>>>> it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put
>>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>>>>> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>>>     wars
>>>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>>>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all
>>>> of the family resources.
>>>>
>>>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>>>     attitude that
>>>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>>>>
>>>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>>>     never
>>>> would have existed.
>>>
>>> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by your
>>> insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and, instead,
>>> fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic crank who
>>> won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with most cranks who
>>> try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what you're talking
>>> about.
>>>
>> 
>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
> 
> The only constants in this newsgroup is that Snit will turn any topic
> into a circus and that just about everything you say is incorrect.

+1
Both true statements.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330797

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:52:12 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile

Deep, hip-wader deep.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330521

ronb wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>>>> procreation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>> 
>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it
>>>> from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
>>>
>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>
>>>
>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>> 
>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
> 
> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
> Catholicism. 

Rightly so. The catholic church is the most murderous sect ever to come into 
existance. 
It is also the most intolerant bunch of cretins next to Snit

> If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to be
> "protestants." It's in the very meaning of the term. Almost any
> Protestant will repeat (ignorantly and by rote) the same old BS about
> Catholics. 

You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists they 
really are?
If there was ever a cult of child molesters and pedophiles boy rapers it 
woulde be the catholic priests. Is there even one among those who should not 
be treated as a pedophile? After all, it seems that most of those criminals 
are protected by their bishops

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330553

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
> they really are?

Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to 
your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?

So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the 
Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it 
should be treated as a terrorist organization?

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330560

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>> they really are?
>> 
>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>> 
>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
> 
> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
> 

Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.  They are
terrorists.  The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the earth, the
better.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330567

On 2015-11-02 8:41 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>>> they really are?
>>>
>>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>>>
>>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
>>
>> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
>>
> 
> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.  They are
> terrorists.  The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the earth, the
> better.

Agreed.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330586

On 2015-11-02 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:54 PM, in article n19410$a62$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 8:41 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>>>>> they really are?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>>>>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>>>>>
>>>>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>>>>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>>>>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
>>>>
>>>> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.  They are
>>> terrorists.  The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the earth, the
>>> better.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
> 
> So when are my Muslim friends going to threaten me? What has taken them so
> long to do so?

When did I state that your friends would do such a thing?


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330574

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:41 PM, in article fhabv83.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>>>> they really are?
>>>> 
>>>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>>>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>>>> 
>>>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>>>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>>>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
>>> 
>>> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
>> 
>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.
> 
> My Muslim friends have NEVER even suggested that to me. Not saying some do
> not, but no reason to think some Christians do not.
>

You don't have any Muslim friends.
 
>> They are terrorists.
> 
> Gee, just earlier today you got all bent out of shape when someone suggested
> Catholics were terrorists - but now you show you have the same mentality.
> You are a hypocrite.
> 

Funny, I don't remember that.  Are you confused again?

>> The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the
>> earth, the better.
> 
> All religions or just the ones which are not yours?
> 

Just Muslims.  The rest seem to be peaceful enough.  But if any of them
start acting out, then they need to go too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330577

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:07 PM, in article sfdheju03a.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.
>>> 
>>> My Muslim friends have NEVER even suggested that to me. Not saying some do
>>> not, but no reason to think some Christians do not.
>> 
>> You don't have any Muslim friends.
> 
> Not even slightly interested in your fantasies about my life. You are the
> one saying they will tell me to covert or die.
> 
> WHEN?
> 

Some time after you get some Muslim friends.

> You have no answer. You made it up. You are simply wrong.
> 
>>>> They are terrorists.
>>> 
>>> Gee, just earlier today you got all bent out of shape when someone suggested
>>> Catholics were terrorists - but now you show you have the same mentality.
>>> You are a hypocrite.
>> 
>> Funny, I don't remember that.  Are you confused again?
> 
> Would have to dig it up - though Peter said it to you and you objected but I
> could be wrong. Maybe you can clear it up - are you OK with Catholics being
> called terrorists?
> 

No.


>>>> The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the
>>>> earth, the better.
>>> 
>>> All religions or just the ones which are not yours?
>> 
>> Just Muslims.  The rest seem to be peaceful enough.  But if any of them
>> start acting out, then they need to go too.
> 
> So you are bigoted against Muslims... by the very definition of the word
> bigot. We already know this. OK.
> 

I guess I'm bigoted against murderous drug gangs too?  Am I bigoted
if I paint all Bloods and Crips and MS13 and whatever the hell else
with the same brush?
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330580

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:24 PM, in article sdfhe8043a.k@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 7:07 PM, in article sfdheju03a.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My Muslim friends have NEVER even suggested that to me. Not saying some do
>>>>> not, but no reason to think some Christians do not.
>>>> 
>>>> You don't have any Muslim friends.
>>> 
>>> Not even slightly interested in your fantasies about my life. You are the
>>> one saying they will tell me to covert or die.
>>> 
>>> WHEN?
>> 
>> Some time after you get some Muslim friends.
> 
> So at some time they will do this. Heck, my brother's first wife is a
> Muslim. Knew the family for years - they never made any such threats. Why do
> you think that is? Maybe they forgot?
> 
> Now I will not say his wife was great - but she never threatened to kill me.
> Nor did her family. Why do you think that is?
>  

Try insulting Islam around her.


>>> You have no answer. You made it up. You are simply wrong.
>>> 
>>>>>> They are terrorists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gee, just earlier today you got all bent out of shape when someone
>>>>> suggested
>>>>> Catholics were terrorists - but now you show you have the same mentality.
>>>>> You are a hypocrite.
>>>> 
>>>> Funny, I don't remember that.  Are you confused again?
>>> 
>>> Would have to dig it up - though Peter said it to you and you objected but I
>>> could be wrong. Maybe you can clear it up - are you OK with Catholics being
>>> called terrorists?
>> 
>> No.
> 
> So you think your group deserves special entitlements Muslims do not. Got
> it.

What is this "my group" shit?  I'm not Catholic.  I just don't think they
should be called terrorists because they are not terrorists.  Unlike Muslims,
who are all either terrorists themselves or terrorist sympathizers, appeasers,
or supporters.


> What is it with conservatives and special entitlements? Again, not
> saying all push for it but many do. You are. I do not get it. I say equal
> rights for all.
> 

No, you say equal rights for those on the Democrat Party approved list.

>> 
>>>>>> The sooner they are all wiped from the face of the
>>>>>> earth, the better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All religions or just the ones which are not yours?
>>>> 
>>>> Just Muslims.  The rest seem to be peaceful enough.  But if any of them
>>>> start acting out, then they need to go too.
>>> 
>>> So you are bigoted against Muslims... by the very definition of the word
>>> bigot. We already know this. OK.
>> 
>> I guess I'm bigoted against murderous drug gangs too?  Am I bigoted
>> if I paint all Bloods and Crips and MS13 and whatever the hell else
>> with the same brush?
> 
> You are saying all Muslims are something bad they are not. This is, by
> definition, a bigoted claim from you.
> 
> It is not a debate: you simply are doing this.
> 

Nope.  That's just your opinion.  I think *you* are a bigot based on your
broad generalizations about white male conservatives.  See how that works?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330582

On 2015-11-02 8:59 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:41 PM, in article fhabv83.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>>>> they really are?
>>>>
>>>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>>>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>>>>
>>>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>>>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>>>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
>>>
>>> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
>>
>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.
> 
> My Muslim friends have NEVER even suggested that to me. Not saying some do
> not, but no reason to think some Christians do not.

The mere suggestion that Christians spread their religion by the sword
is complete idiocy on your part. Islamic leaders send soldiers into
countries and demand that people either convert or die; Christian
leaders send MISSIONARIES into pagan nations and attempt conversions,
knowing very well that they might be killed in the process.

< snip >

-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330633

On 2015-11-02 10:16 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:49 PM, in article n1977v$ds5$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 8:59 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 6:41 PM, in article fhabv83.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:09 PM, in article n191gu$vr3$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>>>>>>> they really are?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to
>>>>>> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So ... just to test your "logic," what exactly is there about the
>>>>>> Catholic Church, in your addled and bigoted brain, makes you think the it
>>>>>> should be treated as a terrorist organization?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same reason the Muslim religion should be seen as one.
>>>>
>>>> Islam is being spread by the sword even today.  Convert or die.
>>>
>>> My Muslim friends have NEVER even suggested that to me. Not saying some do
>>> not, but no reason to think some Christians do not.
>>
>> The mere suggestion that Christians spread their religion by the sword
>> is complete idiocy on your part.
> 
> At the very least there are accusations about it in Rwanda, but read THIS
> group where people are calling for the death of Muslims. If they converted
> to Christianity would that change the tone? Would they no longer be deemed
> worthy of being killed?

Anyone who actually PRACTISES and BELIEVES the Christian religion
understands that it is their duty to turn the other cheek and to teach
about Christ without forcing anyone to adopt the religion. By converting
to Christianity and adopting its principles, these Muslims indeed stop
being a threat. However, there is no reason to believe that they would
really adopt the religion.

> But I accept it is more common with Islam right now. Does not excuse the
> other atrocities done in the name of Christianity, nor mean all Muslims
> believe it is OK (though even with that I have talked about how the polls on
> that are disturbing).

I've read a lot about the "Christian atrocities" over the years and it
has become increasingly clear to me that whatever bad things that has
been associated to them either didn't happen as was claimed, was never
done in the name of the religion or was a response to aggression by
another party. I'm very curious what "atrocities" you're referring to.

>> Islamic leaders send soldiers into countries and demand that people either
>> convert or die; Christian leaders send MISSIONARIES into pagan nations and
>> attempt conversions, knowing very well that they might be killed in the
>> process.
> 
> Christians tend to use other methods to push conversion - and they are less
> offensive but still immoral methods. But, sure, that does not make them as
> bad. But, again, not all Muslims are doing this.

It's called teaching, there's nothing immoral about it. It is
essentially what you do on a daily basis. Those who want to learn will
adopt the religion and those who don't will leave. At no point do
Christian missionaries threaten to behead anyone if they don't suddenly
believe that Jesus is their best friend.

> That is where I think we keep getting stuck: you point to a small minority
> of Muslims and note their poor behavior and then condemn all Muslims for it,
> I note that is not reasonable, then you pretend I am defending the poor
> behavior. 

I quoted lines from the Qu'ran which permitted and advocated the
enslavement and sexual abuse of infidel women. Minorities and majorities
no longer have anything to do with it. If you see yourself as a Muslim
and want to follow the religion, you have an obligation to behead or tax
anyone who doesn't believe what you do and you have a right to enslave
and rape any women who don't either. The fact that you have a few
friends who don't do any of these things doesn't mean that Muslims in
general don't, it means that the minority (THAT'S WHAT YOUR FRIENDS ARE)
don't.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330690

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 6:46 AM, in article n1ado5$hh3$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
> >>> The mere suggestion that Christians spread their religion by the sword
> >>> is complete idiocy on your part.
> >> 
> >> At the very least there are accusations about it in Rwanda, but read THIS
> >> group where people are calling for the death of Muslims. If they converted
> >> to Christianity would that change the tone? Would they no longer be deemed
> >> worthy of being killed?
> > 
> > Anyone who actually PRACTISES and BELIEVES the Christian religion
> > understands that it is their duty to turn the other cheek and to teach
> > about Christ without forcing anyone to adopt the religion. By converting
> > to Christianity and adopting its principles, these Muslims indeed stop
> > being a threat. However, there is no reason to believe that they would
> > really adopt the religion.
> 
> Read this and see if you find it bigoted:
>     -----
>     Anyone who actually PRACTISES and BELIEVES the Muslim religion
>     understands that it is their duty to turn the other cheek and to
>     teach about Islam without forcing anyone to adopt the religion. By
>     converting to Islam and adopting its principles, these Christians
>     indeed stop being a threat. However, there is no reason to believe
>     that they would really adopt the religion.
>     -----
> 
> This is EXACTLY how you sound to an outsider of the religions.
> 
> >> But I accept it is more common with Islam right now. Does not excuse the
> >> other atrocities done in the name of Christianity, nor mean all Muslims
> >> believe it is OK (though even with that I have talked about how the polls on
> >> that are disturbing).
> > 
> > I've read a lot about the "Christian atrocities" over the years and it
> > has become increasingly clear to me that whatever bad things that has
> > been associated to them either didn't happen as was claimed, was never
> > done in the name of the religion or was a response to aggression by
> > another party. I'm very curious what "atrocities" you're referring to.
> 
> And this:
>     -----
>     I've read a lot about the "Muslim atrocities" over the years and
>     it has become increasingly clear to me that whatever bad things
>     that has been associated to them either didn't happen as was
>     claimed, was never done in the name of the religion or was a
>     response to aggression by another party. I'm very curious what
>     "atrocities" you're referring to.
>     -----
> 
> I mean, really, it was largely Christians who enslaved blacks in America

Everyone did it. But the key term here is... wait for it... "was". 

>  and
> wiped out the native people. It is mostly Christians now insisting Muslims
> should die when they seek asylum.

This unsupported allegation says nothing of how pervasive it is (i.e percentage of Christians "insisting" this). I'm sure the numbers will be along the lines of what I showed with the PEW report, right <eyeroll>? 

> >>> Islamic leaders send soldiers into countries and demand that people either
> >>> convert or die; Christian leaders send MISSIONARIES into pagan nations and
> >>> attempt conversions, knowing very well that they might be killed in the
> >>> process.
> >> 
> >> Christians tend to use other methods to push conversion - and they are less
> >> offensive but still immoral methods. But, sure, that does not make them as
> >> bad. But, again, not all Muslims are doing this.
> > 
> > It's called teaching, there's nothing immoral about it. It is
> > essentially what you do on a daily basis. Those who want to learn will
> > adopt the religion and those who don't will leave. At no point do
> > Christian missionaries threaten to behead anyone if they don't suddenly
> > believe that Jesus is their best friend.
> 
> As I have noted, I personally have seen the violence.

That I've seen, all of your "evidence" is anecdotal. I have an idea... ask all your female "friends" if they'd like to do a wife swap with their MidEastern counterparts. Then ask all your gay and lesbian "friends" if they'd like to move to Muslims countries that are not only societally against homosexuality but where it's illegal (and some impose a death sentence). Then ask all your criminal "friends" if they'd rather be tried in a place like the U.S. on their next charge or in a country where they might stand to lose a limb. Let me know how many takers you get.

(snip more NOTHING)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330566

On 2015-11-02 8:09 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists
>> they really are?
> 
> Do you suffer from Turret's Syndrome? Whatever stupid things comes to 
> your mind do you just let it fly out of your mouth?

Tourette's. It's a man's last name. I'm just glad someone else noticed
how much of a moronic asshole Peter is.

< snip >

-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330568

On 2015-11-02, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> ronb wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>>>>> procreation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it
>>>>> from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
>>>>
>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>> 
>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>> 
>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>> Catholicism. 
>
> Rightly so. The catholic church is the most murderous sect ever to come into 
> existance. 
> It is also the most intolerant bunch of cretins next to Snit
>
>> If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to be
>> "protestants." It's in the very meaning of the term. Almost any
>> Protestant will repeat (ignorantly and by rote) the same old BS about
>> Catholics. 
>
> You mean the catholic church needs to be treated like the terrorists they 
> really are?
> If there was ever a cult of child molesters and pedophiles boy rapers it 
> woulde be the catholic priests. Is there even one among those who should not 
> be treated as a pedophile? After all, it seems that most of those criminals 
> are protected by their bishops

    ...and to think, I had completely forgotten about that.

    The Catholic church continues to be the world's oldest corporation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330372

On 2015-10-31, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2015 3:21 PM, vallor wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:05:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2015 8:49 AM, ronb wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 02:22:18 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2015 6:44 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:07:40 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:

[deletia]

>> I can't believe this conversation is coming up in 2015.  Polemics against
>> Martin Luther?  Really?
>>
>> It's almost as bad as the regressions in extremist protestantism where
>> birth control is considered "sinful".
>
> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes 
> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for procreation.

    He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.

>
>> It is a fact that extremists don't consider themselves such, but instead,
>> will consider everybody else -- including right-of-center moderates --
>> "too liberal".
>
> Lutherans aren't "extremists."  They have no ban on birth control that 
> I'm aware of.

   I don't think anyone meant to imply that.

   However, there are Evangelical branches of Lutheranism but they aren't 
too extreme. However, those congregations do attract their share of wingnuts.
It can be so bad that a person might be asked to leave their post to what
is basically heresty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330469

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.

It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer 
kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two murders. But when the mother 
and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly fine and acceptable.

Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's 
egg, but perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind 
of stupidity that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back 
to paganism.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330472

On 11/2/15, 2:39 PM, in article n18l7d$cl1$7@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
> 
> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life?

Nobody is anti-life here. It is about choice and who do you value more: the
woman or the fetus. To me it makes NO sense to say the woman has fewer
rights than the fetus, and even fewer rights than a dead body!

It is nonsense. And for those who make exceptions for rape or incest this
shows it is NOT about the rights of the fetus because its rights do not
change at all in those cases.

Anti-choice is about controlling women and their bodies.

> Strangely enough, if a murderer kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two
> murders. 

I agree that is wrong.

> But when the mother and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly
> fine and acceptable.

That is a direct lie. If *anyone* kills a baby this is murder.

> Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's egg, but
> perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind of stupidity
> that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back to paganism.

Comes back you wanting to push your mythology onto others. You have no right
to do so.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330482

On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>
> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer 

    Yup. Oddly enough a Catholic Nun has some nice things to say in this
area. It basically boils down to "you only care about life if it's a fetus".

[deletia]

    Unfortunately, there is an unfortunate correlation between those that
merely want to make women a subservient class and those that choose to "value
life". They have no interest in actually solving this problem beyond telling
women to close their legs. They actively fight against attempts to prevent
unwanted pregnancies. Then they do all they can to sabotage the result both
in the womb and outside.

    They wage war on those that would render medical care to both mother and
fetus.

    If you want to try and act morally superior, don't even go there.

    The humanity of a fetus is disputable. Although the real arbiter is not
what you or I think, but what the mother thinks. It's a non-delegable task 
that can be handed off to no mere man, and really something that no one else 
has any business interfering with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web