I can only assume that in this thread you opened about your frustrations in debating Americans and American inability to perceive “truth,” that this (statement? argument?) is some kind of very meta joke.
Hey just look at the Vatican mess!
I was trying to see it from his point of view.
I’m sure it must confuse him to see gay rights marches in a so called Christian country.
It’s against the teachings of the bible isn’t it? or did I get that wrong:confused:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by Christians as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts.
Traditional Jewish sources view these verses as prohibitions against anal sex between males.
- The Old Testament and the New Testament are different works. Jesus’ teaching was that treating people kindly and believing in God are the only real rules.
- The US is a secular nation, not a Christian nation.
- Homosexuality is not encouraged by the government.
-
so do the 10 commandments not apply are they not the rules?
-
so in effect no religion?
-
but it passes laws to promote it. It certainly doesn’t discourage it.
-
They are religious rules, not secular rules.
-
The people may be religious, but the state isn’t.
-
Why should it discourage it?
Incidentally, Israel is more gay-friendly than even the U.S. - and we’re damn proud of it. There are gay people in every country. Primitive countries refuse to accept this fact.
And another question - are the Syrians Arabs? How about the Iraqis?
If I tell you to raise your right hand, and then later I tell you to raise both of your hands, has my second command somehow made you not still have your right hand up?
In terms of law making.
Allowing is not the same thing as promoting.
The issue seems to me a trifle more complex than that - certainly there exists a seperate ethnic group known as “Egyptians”, with a lengthy ancient history of its own, but whether or not members of that group self-identify as being “arab” or quite distinct from arab tends to vary from time to time and from person to person.
What appears to be the case is that Egypt’s leaders wanted, for reasons of their own, to have Egyptians self-identify as “arabs”, but the attempt has more or less failed and many actual Egyptians do not consider themselves “Arabs”.
It sounds like the subject is open to debate.
That’s like being in a fight against Yeti.
Oh no! The Yeti are…are…sitting in their hills hiding from us! We’re not even sure they exist! Help me brother!
Speaking of yetis, I’ve always found them to be extremely difficult to debate against. Always stubbornly ignoring the truth, fighting against any evidence that they don’t agree with (like whether or not they exist). Damn yetis.
To Marmite Lover: you probably will never change your tune, which is hilariously poetic considering your OP, but the truth is that you can change the word “Americans” in your quoted text and subsitute any race, nationality or religious group and it would be just as relevant. Humans are prone to believe what they want to believe, not just Americans. We’re all weak, brutish creatures.
Incidently, you call yourself Marmite Lover, and ask to be taken seriously? Isn’t marmite one of the biggest affronts to humanity ever invented?
Absolutely. There’s also a cheap and reliable fallback to the ‘bad American’ meme if you criticize something your interlocutor holds dear, such as gun ownership/crazy Republicans/WalMart. A few years ago my American Dad and I got into an argument that started with the fact that I don’t like processed cheese and ended up with him calling me a goddam liberal. :smack: Now in the UK I can propose the abolition of the monarchy and nobody bats an eye, much less suggests deporting me.
Incidentally, if you really want to talk to an American who’s impervious to argument, let me introduce my cousin. He is convinced that the set-top box that would bring him digital TV is really designed to spy on him on behalf of The Government. Don’t ask me why, I gave up listening, nor do I know what They would want with him. He’s laid in a 3 year supply of old videos of Walker: Texas Ranger to entertain him before he needs to rethink his strategy for evading surveillance.
It would probably be more accurate to view Egyptians as a separate ethnic sub-group, who are Egyptian Arabs. It is somewhat analogous to the broad category of ethnic Asian status, among which we find the Hmong.
You can pretend that if you’d like, but the official Iranian translaters are, in fact, translators. What’re the odds? It is handy for your argument if they weren’t who they are, but, ah well,.
Others who are fluent in both English and Farsi were quoted, as well, but you seem to have decided to throw some flimsy ad hom fallacies at them due to their parentage or where they went to college. What’s that premise you have about certain people being unable to deal with the truth?
I do like your dodge, though, that they can’t be a source of a quality translation if, allegedly, they have an American parent or studied in America. By that standard, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people the world over can no longer be trusted to speak their own languages anymore.
Despite your rather strange alternate-universe version of current events, I’ve already cited that fact that numerous Iranians, including those whose official job it is to translate from Farsi to English, say you’re wrong.
Obfuscatory nonsense. The phrase used was metaphorical and is translated at “map” and has been translated as “map” for decades before apologists tried to handwave it away this time. And as pointed out and you’re ignoring, “the occupying regime in Jerusalem” is code for Israel as they won’t even speak the country’s name. It wasn’t a call to elect Kadima. :rolleyes:
Maaaaajor rationalizations, eh? So they called themselves an Arab nation, but it was in the context of anti-Zionism, so let’s just ignore it. Reminds me of another poster who argued that Hamas’ conspiracy theories about the Jews being behind every modern war in history wasn’t racist because it was “in the context of anti-Zionism.”
To say nothing of the claim you’re making, which is that national identify for Egypt was so flimsy and ephemeral that they based it not on their own identity, but on who in the region they hated and who they would form a military alliance with in order to destroy those folks.
In the English language, if you are part of a nation that speaks Arabic, you are an Arab. You have used this same sort of argument before, when you claimed that all Jews and Christians are really Muslims, despite what the word “Muslim” means in English and that the other two religions are totally different from Islam. It’s not a very effective tactic for you to use.
Oh, and Masri? It’s Egyptian Arabic.
Nope. You can form military alliances quite easily without entering an ethnic alliance. Egypt also proposed the Arab League roughly half a decade before the nation of Israel even existed. Try again. When Nasser said “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight” he wasn’t talking about how Egypt’s basic goal was to destroy Israel but he didn’t really want to fight, it was all those damn Arabs.
And, funny, Iran has been doing more to attack Israel than all of the Arab nations on the planet put together. Surely, by your logic, Iran should be part of the Arab league. Or at least offered membership several times. I’m sure you can cite that.
The United States of America does not have an official language.
You are remarkably short of understanding for a country you started a thread to criticize.
Don’t interrupt his criticisms with facts! That’s rude!
I wouldn’t take anything this economist now turned moonlighting structural engineer seriously.
I.E.
There’s over 155 000 hits when you google his name with 911. By using his logic. Since I’m Canadian and disagree with the conspiracy theory as well with a lot of other Canadians. I guess Canadians have a problem with the truth as well.
Which laws are you referring to, if I may ask?
You know, National Suck Another Man’s Penis Day, for starters.