|
|
| Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday (960222) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 11 |
||
|
| (966202) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 13:19:53 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 12:53:20 2012. No, only the acts of the mainstream part of the major religions (without improper external influrnce) would only begin to qualify. Also the acts would have to not have been disavowed by the mainstream portion of said religion at any point after the fact. |
|
|
| (966210) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 13:35:03 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 13:19:53 2012. So, in other words, a religion can commit atrocities, and have morally clean hands, evrn if it takes hundreds of years to "disavow" such atrocities? |
|
|
| (966213) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 13:47:39 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 13:35:03 2012. No. Good job. |
|
|
| (966235) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 14:14:55 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 13:47:39 2012. "No"? Then what did you mean when you wrote the words, "at any point after the fact"? |
|
|
| (966268) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 15:21:27 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 14:14:55 2012. Exactly what I wrote. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Where are you getting lost? |
|
|
| (966278) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 15:33:51 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 15:21:27 2012. Does "at any time after the fact" have a specific time limit you failed to mention? Days? Years? Centuries?It was very clear that you wrote "at any time after the fact". What hidden meaning are you going to pull out of your magical word-humping kit now? |
|
|
| (966284) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 15:42:44 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 15:33:51 2012. Huh? List examples of acts by mainstream portions of a religion that were later disavowed. |
|
|
| (966286) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 15:45:46 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 15:42:44 2012. Stol deflecting, and answer my question. |
|
|
| (966305) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 16:06:09 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 15:45:46 2012. I am. I'm answering through an example. It seems you don't understand the theory so I'm trying to teach you via a practical example. Stop being an asshole and maybe you'll be able to finally grasp the concept I am teaching you. Now are you going to answer or not? |
|
|
| (966309) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 16:17:10 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 16:06:09 2012. You're not answering through "an example", you're answering with a deflection away from my question. Why can't you simply clarify what you wrote, "at any time after the fact", without resorting to obfuscation and "theory". Simple, direct English will do just fine, in the sane way you expect it of your own questions. |
|
|
| (966517) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Jul 31 21:43:11 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 16:17:10 2012. Yet he Still Has not answered the Question instead gave up gibberish and gobble-dee-gookVery pathetic, my point still Stands.. Maybe Tomorrow he will.. |
|
|
| (966518) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Jul 31 21:44:54 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Tue Jul 31 21:43:11 2012. Doubt it Rob. Hope springs eternal but we're moving at a turtle's pace here. |
|
|
| (966519) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Jul 31 21:49:39 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jul 31 21:44:54 2012. Hey a broken Clock is right twice a day No? |
|
|
| (966545) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 31 22:22:19 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 09:20:14 2012. How do you know that morals derive from religion? What makes your morality better than the morality of Hindus or Buddhists, or any number of unrelated religions? |
|
|
| (966548) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 31 22:26:10 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 31 22:22:19 2012. Aren't those religions too?Religion is a good thing. It gives people a morale compass, discipline and sense of family and community. America would not have emerged as a world leader if not for religion. |
|
|
| (966552) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 31 22:34:00 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 31 22:26:10 2012. Who said they weren't religions?I agree that religion is a good thing. Faith is not. |
|
|
| (966554) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 31 22:37:17 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 31 22:34:00 2012. I agree. That's why I like going to Church even though I'm an agnostic. It's people who take things too far(like those who attack abortion clinics), who give religion a bad name. |
|
|
| (966651) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:15:53 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Jul 31 16:17:10 2012. What did I just say? Do you realize how stupid you look? You asked a question. I am trying to explain it to you. And you're saying "no you're not". How immature are you? Need I remind you how many times I have shown you to be wrong on various topics? The logical conclusion is that I am more likely to be right in that I am trying to answer your question. Just because you don't yet understand the simple theory I am trying to explain to you doesn't mean I am not trying to explain it to you. SMDH. |
|
|
| (966655) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 06:18:10 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:15:53 2012. Oh wow ... daddy's home ... and he's pissed. :) |
|
|
| (966658) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:51:04 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 06:18:10 2012. Sometimes jayzeebmt needs a little smacking around. |
|
|
| (966665) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Aug 1 07:15:29 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 31 22:37:17 2012. even though I'm an agnostic.You can't be a Real American (or any kind of American) signed Republican National Committee  |
|
|
| (966666) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 07:16:36 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:15:53 2012. Somebody pissed in your cornflakes this morning! Why are you spouting all this indignant bullshit, instead of merely clarifying, in normal, clear English, what hidden meaning is in the words you wrote, ”at any time after the fact”. You seem to have a great degree of difficulty in performing this very simple thing.Are you so desperate to be seen as the all-knowing, intellectually superior Lord of Subchat, that you have to couch your replies in doublespeak and obfuscation? It's dishonest, childish, and transparent, and you need to stop it. |
|
|
| (966673) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed Aug 1 07:34:54 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jul 29 15:18:13 2012. No, go back and read what I posted. |
|
|
| (966677) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:06:21 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:15:53 2012. Shit..not only did you disrespect him..insult him..rub his nose in it..your brand of "teaching" leaves something to be desired[that something is hands around your neck chocking the life out of you slowly!]..but since That cannot be accommodated at the moment..Nat will just have to fantasize about,like we all do. |
|
|
| (966678) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:12:28 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 07:16:36 2012. Nah..hes our resident parrot..a warlock with stolen special attentions..wearing a watermelon helmet. |
|
|
| (966680) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:14:47 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 07:16:36 2012. Yet he still hasnt answered the question posed to him from the get go. Instead he used your question as a "out" becuase he got backed into a corner... I'm laughing at his "ivy league" education... |
|
|
| (966683) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:21:54 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 06:18:10 2012. Kevin that tough guy act fools no one you know that right? ;o) |
|
|
| (966684) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:28:03 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 06:15:53 2012. [HOWLS IN DELIGHT...!]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!EXCELLENT EXECUTION..! PERFECTED PUISSANT PROTRUSION..!CRIMINAL CRYBABY CUNNILINGUS! |
|
|
| (966685) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 08:29:12 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:14:47 2012. Yet he calls himself an educated man...educated in the ways of trollish behavior, perhaps... |
|
|
| (966687) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:33:27 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 08:29:12 2012. I'm still laughing at that gibberish of a rant.... |
|
|
| (966688) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:34:24 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:28:03 2012. Yep nothing "manly" at all about it! Somebody pass him some tissue... |
|
|
| (966691) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 09:04:45 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:33:27 2012. He is livid. |
|
|
| (966692) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 09:06:00 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 31 22:22:19 2012. I don't know and never said I did. It's just a possibility.Obviously a follower of a religion is going to believe that his religion's morals are the correct ones. |
|
|
| (966693) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 09:11:44 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 07:16:36 2012. None of the non haters couldn't figure out what I wrote. If you don't want to learn via a practical example then I can't help you. You're ignorant and/or a moron. What I wrote was very simple and very clear. I can't imagine how you can't understand it. Anyhow, my original point thus stands. |
|
|
| (966694) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 09:13:34 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:06:21 2012. You're obviously an idiot. Most of us know it. |
|
|
| (966695) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 09:15:09 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 09:20:14 2012. Bump. |
|
|
| (966696) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 09:17:05 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:34:24 2012. Bump for the whining |
|
|
| (966698) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 09:18:24 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 09:04:45 2012. Yep next time the boy demands somebody to answer his question he should remember this moment. If he don't we will make sure he does... |
|
|
| (966714) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 10:20:02 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 09:18:24 2012. Absolutely. |
|
|
| (966716) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 10:23:39 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 09:11:44 2012. What you have STILL failed to do, is explain how "at any time after the fact" means something outside the English-language definition and contextual meaning of that passage. Why can't you just admit you are wrong in your assertions here? Is it really such a psychological stumbling block?You |
|
|
| (966778) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 12:15:01 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 10:23:39 2012. You must not understand because it means exactly what the dictionary says it means. |
|
|
| (966788) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 12:24:39 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 12:15:01 2012. OK, if it "means exactly what the dictionary says it means", then "at any time after the fact" suggests no time limit on when a "mainstream religion" can disavow an earlier atrocity committed in its name. That means it could be centuries or millenia before such a disavowal is made. My question still stands.The Catholic Church, for example, has still not "disavowed" the horrors it perpetrated during the Spanish Inquisition, during the Middle Ages. |
|
|
| (966793) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 12:40:00 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 12:24:39 2012. Read my post. I said only those that have not been disavowed are even eligible for consideration. I didn't say they were automatically ok. I can't believe we had to go through all that, incl. you acting like a complete asshole, just because you can't read and or have reading comprehension issues. |
|
|
| (966837) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 13:42:01 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 12:40:00 2012. Such word-twisting. It staggers the imagination. |
|
|
| (966861) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed Aug 1 14:13:35 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 13:42:01 2012. No words were twisted. Your reading comprehension failures are epidemic. |
|
|
| (966889) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 1 14:35:41 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Tue Jul 31 21:49:39 2012. Broken digital clocks are always broken. |
|
|
| (967030) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 18:24:42 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Railman718 on Wed Aug 1 08:21:54 2012. Sure had ME completely "bamboozled." :) |
|
|
| (967032) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 18:25:57 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 1 08:12:28 2012. Racist post! :) |
|
|
| (967047) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Wed Aug 1 19:10:45 2012, in response to Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 1 07:16:36 2012. In short the turtle has a skull full of feces. |
|
|
| (967067) | |
Re: NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Aug 1 20:23:10 2012, in response to NO GAYS in the Boy Scouts was confirmed this past Tuesday, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jul 18 11:10:25 2012. the boy scouts are a private orginization. They fall under the "right of free assocation" clause of the first amendment, end of discussion. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 11 |
||