Falwell Dead

[68Hawk]

indy

You're not the sandwich

Hes better characterized as the sandwich than a giant sweetheart.

No name, you bring a logical fallacy.

If its ok by general logic then obviously its just ok, but the problem lies when people think things are ok just because of the bible.  Doesn't matter who said it first, but if it doesn't have any other 'justification' than an old book then its not logically a good idea.

[Chairboy]

Ms. Coulter has posted an interesting Eulogy:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20753

[Elfie]

Doesn't matter who said it first, but if it doesn't have any other 'justification' than an old book then its not logically a good idea

That would depend on your own personal belief system wouldn't it?

[Elfie]

For those that bashed Falwell about his Teletubies comments, I guess you have some more bashing to do on some other folks.

Beginning in early 1998, the news was bristling with stories about a children's cartoon PBS was importing from Britain that featured a gay cartoon character, Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubbie with a male voice and a red handbag.

People magazine gleefully reported that Teletubbies was "aimed at Telebabies as young as one year. But teenage club kids love the products' kitsch value, and gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon."

In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay -- in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice).

In its Jan. 8, 1999, issue, USA Today accused The Washington Post of "outing" Tinky Winky, with a "recent Washington Post In/Out list putting T.W. opposite Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, essentially 'outing' the kids' show character."

Michael Musto of The Village Voice boasted that Tinky Winky was "out and proud," noting that it was "a great message to kids -- not only that it's OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized."

All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky.

After one year of the mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay.

This from Chairboy's link.

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Elfie
That would depend on your own personal belief system wouldn't it?

No, because it doesn't matter what book one tries to cite, if that book itself has no logical point then the justification is mute.

One could say, "you shouldn't kill", and we can find a number of practical reasons why this is so.  It is so for those practical reasons, not because a deity said not to.  If the only justification is the words of a deity, then there's a problem.  If there is a good, logical reason for something to be made a law and a deity -or more accurately religious doctrine- says its not a good idea because of a book, well maybe that religious doctrine needs to be questioned.  Question also when they tell you a law is needed that makes no other sense, besides in their book.

Such is the principle of a secular society.

[68Hawk]

Chairboy,

Looks like you've found the real Giant sweetheart!

Good eyes, you can fly my wing any day!

[Elfie]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
No, because it doesn't matter what book one tries to cite, if that book itself has no logical point then the justification is mute.

One could say, "you shouldn't kill", and we can find a number of practical reasons why this is so.  It is so for those practical reasons, not because a deity said not to.  If the only justification is the words of a deity, then there's a problem.  If there is a good, logical reason for something to be made a law and a deity -or more accurately religious doctrine- says its not a good idea because of a book, well maybe that religious doctrine needs to be questioned.  Question also when they tell you a law is needed that makes no other sense, besides in their book.

Such is the principle of a secular society.

Your belief system is completely the opposite of mine. In my belief system the old book you refer to, is actually the Word of God, so logically according to my beliefs I would need to follow what is written there.

It really does depend on what your own personal belief system is.

[RELIC]

Well it's been three days now since his death.  Shouldn't he be back up and walking around?

[BTW]

Originally posted by RELIC
Well it's been three days now since his death.  Shouldn't he be back up and walking around?

No, I think you'll have to wait to November of 08 for that. There is no way the nutty left is going to get this savage hate back in the box. There wasn't this much glee after the execution of Saddam or the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer. All this hate directed at a man who was never accused of any crimes and by most objective standards, simply seemed to be following his convictions.

For people so worried about speech offending people, they are definitely NOT worried about offending people who followed Falwell. The disgusting things being said about Falwell cant hurt Falwell. The hate is directed at his followers. This unbridled hate will follow the extremist left well past the 08 election. Congratulations. No one could have convinced middle America how hateful the Democrats are, except the Democrats.

[-dead-]

Awesome week!
Blair resigns, wolfie resigns, and I'll be damned if -- ding dong -- the wicked witch isn't dead (no relation).

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by -dead-
Awesome week!
Blair resigns, wolfie resigns, and I'll be damned if -- ding dong -- the wicked witch isn't dead (no relation).

Blair will still be PM for more than a month...  and has been mentioned as a sucessor to Wolfowitz.

Looks like you may have to delay your celebration.

[68Hawk]

Elfie,

You can believe whatever you want, and I'll defend to the death your right to do so, but if you want to start passing laws you've got to have better reasons.  We all have to live with the laws that are passed, and not everyone believes in that book.

If you want to pass laws solely because of a religious text then you are arguing for a theocratic government, and can have it over my dead body.  Or you can move to Iran where they go in for that sort of thing.  China operates in much the same way, though I doubt you would see their doctrinal orthodoxy as anything religious.  An Atheocracy is just as dangerous.

Secularism means we can all try to live together, respect each others beliefs, and have enough respect for our fellow citizens that we can amply justify any new legal measure that is thought to be needed.  You may base your personal beliefs on anything you want, but if you want to legislate them there should be something else you can point to as a reason.

Jesus told us to do things for reasons, supposedly good reasons.  Just because God or Jesus said so doesn't necessarily make it right.  We should look at their reasoning, or God wouldn't have bestowed that ability.

The planet is approaching population levels beyond its capacity to sustain.  Is it right that the Pope insists on preaching against condoms and telling Catholics to have as many babies as they can?  No it isn't.  He's not thinking with reason, he's reverting to an old book.  Would God want his children to overpopulate and starve themselves out?

Falwell was ignorant of the principles of secularism, and thus he was a T**D Sandwich.  

Good Riddance, the world is now a more beautiful place.

[storch]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Elfie,

You can believe whatever you want, and I'll defend to the death your right to do so, but if you want to start passing laws you've got to have better reasons.  We all have to live with the laws that are passed, and not everyone believes in that book.

If you want to pass laws solely because of a religious text then you are arguing for a theocratic government, and can have it over my dead body.  Or you can move to Iran where they go in for that sort of thing.  China operates in much the same way, though I doubt you would see their doctrinal orthodoxy as anything religious.  An Atheocracy is just as dangerous.

Secularism means we can all try to live together, respect each others beliefs, and have enough respect for our fellow citizens that we can amply justify any new legal measure that is thought to be needed.  You may base your personal beliefs on anything you want, but if you want to legislate them there should be something else you can point to as a reason.

Jesus told us to do things for reasons, supposedly good reasons.  Just because God or Jesus said so doesn't necessarily make it right.  We should look at their reasoning, or God wouldn't have bestowed that ability.

The planet is approaching population levels beyond its capacity to sustain.  Is it right that the Pope insists on preaching against condoms and telling Catholics to have as many babies as they can?  No it isn't.  He's not thinking with reason, he's reverting to an old book.  Would God want his children to overpopulate and starve themselves out?

Falwell was ignorant of the principles of secularism, and thus he was a T**D Sandwich.  

Good Riddance, the world is now a more beautiful place.

oh lord.   do you live in the NE or california?

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by storch
oh lord.   do you live in the NE or california?

Considering the level of care that went into his post, your reply seems to be a bit lacking.  I'd like to hear a serious rebuttal to his points, if you can offer it.

[68Hawk]

Considering my thingy to the left says Denver, CO, its just a stupid question.

Or a lame crack, either way its nothing new.

To answer directly:

No my son, I live in Colorado!