If Scotti gives christians a bad name, then you’re giving them a whole new identity. Complete with bad reputation.
Oops. I erred. Never mind. He is an idiot.
quote: They’ll hang your sorry ass.
I actually know of a former skinhead. He was once proud of what he believed in, which was a cross between Klan and Nazi beliefs. I personally made him see that was he thought was wrong. Inside his tirades, I saw inside a decent man, and helped him let that aspect out. He now no longer believes in Klan/Nazi ‘philosophy’.
You, Sneevil, on the other hand, are hopeless, cope-less, and soapless. If women didn’t think about being lesbians, or suppressed those feelings, those feelings came to the surface after they meet you personally. You insult religion, then you insult probably one of the most decent persons I know in pepper. And you are crying why are people are picking on you? I won’t call you a ‘bitch’, because that will degrade the bitches.
I step on roaches bigger than you, Sneevil.
The most pitiful part is that I don’t believe in evolution from one species to another. (I defended myself in one of my first threads in Great Debates. However, you, a so-called Christian, almost made me think otherwise. Man, no, Sneevil, you are a terrible witness.
Jodi, Hammy, I see it took you a lil while to see what I saw right off the bat. But the more I think about it, the more I realized I didn’t even need to flame him. He would have hung himself with his own words eventually.
Compare:
and:
You, sir, are a hypocrite of almost mythic proportions. Please continue to coyly evade questions regarding your belief system. On the off-chance you consider yourself a Christian, your refusal to admit to it will save me a great deal of time I might otherwsie have to use to explain why most people who follow that faith are, fortunately, nothing like you.
Now Judge Jodi has spoken.
Surely a great legal mind like yours can do better than that weak grandstanding attempt. Your allegation of hypocristy on my part remains undemonstrated, and you know it. Comparison of two diverse quotes doth not hypocrisy make.
And why is it so important that I label/identify/quantify my belief(s)? You are unable to participate in the arena of ideas without labels? And why have entered this fray at all? What stake do you have in it? Just an attempt to foment turmoil and gain peer approval? Are you that lonely and dissatisfied with life? Is menopause that tough for you? And who are you anyway? Probably one of those sanctimonious BMW driving yuppie liberals who thinks Bill Maher is a great intellect!
ROFLMAO!!
Oh, I’m sure I can. But, you know, it’s late and I’ve had a long day, and I’m at this point almost positive that you’re not worth much more than the bare minimum in terms of effort.
Sure it does. Since the definition seems to have escaped you:
Hypocrisy: The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one’s real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.
Emphasis mine. And, of course, comparison of two “diverse,” (meaning contradictory) quotes, composed by the same individual is an excellent (and easy) way to illustrate that individual’s hypocrisy.
Please read my post again. As I’ve already said, it is of great importance to me that you not label or identify your beliefs, lest someone should associate mine with them. I appreciate the fact you have refused to be labeled; I encourage you to continue to do so.
Actually, I don’t think I or anyone could “foment” anymore turmoil than you’ve managed to “foment” on your own. And I also don’t think I owe anyone an explanation for why I post where and when I do; certainly I owe no such explanation to you.
You think you’re laughing? Oh, man. There’s so many people I’d like to share that with that I’m tempted to use it as my sig. You got me, Snee. Card-carrying yuppie liberal, that’s me. You know, your insults might carry more weight with your intended victims if you knew the first thing about them. As it is, they are so wide of the mark as to provoke laughter instead of irritation.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a question to ask my lesbian friend, Pepperlandgirl. After I polish my Beemer, of course.
Sneevil, go back to picking your nose. You can’t even pick on people right. Your flames burn out the instant you hit the “Submit Reply” button. Leave the BBQ pit for people who can really mix it up.
You still here? Thought you’d be halleeeeeeelujjaaaahhing or praisin’ or something by now. You’re such a good ‘witness’ and all…
Turn on the tv. Watch TBN. They’re YOUR kind of creeple.
So by your definition, a criminal defense attorney is unambiguously hypocritical. Jodi sez: Attorney=Hypocrite.
Your witness, counselor.
Sneevil – “I stand corrected.”
Get used to it.
Sneevil said, “… who look for (and make up as you go) every opportunity to trash anyone who dares profess any belief in any higher power.”
This from the poster who said to me “You really are fucked up. Are you one of those burned out 60’s hippie chicks with a ring on every finger who drives a '68 VW Bus?” after I posted my religious views.
I think this is a very blatant example of your hypocrisy.
Facies dicetur an ulcus?
Sneevil, please quit while both of your feet are in your anus. I say ‘anus’ because you talk through there. You have a smart ass, but it is being controlled by a dumb brain. I said I wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness. Now, add reading incomprehension to your good qualities.
SNEEVIL: If you can’t dazzle 'em with brilliance, confuse 'em with bullshit, huh? An old and venerated tactic. Not one of my personal favorites, but I recognize it when I see it.
We can play Perry Mason if you’d like. But the way this works is, first you make a point, then I make a point. But the catch is, you have to make a point first – and not just some conclusitory statement you’ve pulled from your ass, an actual, defensible argument. So since I never said attorney = hypocrite, it’s up to you to defend that statement of yours before I’m required to answer it. Or, in the alternative, you can explain how my post would lead anyone to reach that conclusion.
See, if we were in court, and you said “your witness, counselor,” and you had succeeded in making the same number of points off that witness that you’ve made here (i.e., none), I would simply stand up and say “No questions, your Honor,” and sit back down. Because I have no obligation to refute arguments you haven’t even successfully made.
If you want to try again, go ahead. I’ll wait here.
I have a moral standard and I live by it everyday of my life. However, my standard is clearly the result of being born in this era. I don’t believe in slavery. I don’t find it immoral that women wear pants and work. I don’t believe that it’s alright to assign immigrants to wage slavery. A hundred years ago, things were different. However, in another hundred years I may be judged immoral by future generations. Like it or not, our perception of right and wrong changes. Maybe it’s moral relativism, or maybe it’s just a difference of opinion.
Ah, but the Savior model hasn’t been proven either. Nor is the new age “new age”. The idea of reincarnation and enlightenment dates is as old as the idea of the Messiah. They also have the same amount of evidence as Chritianity, mainly sacred documents and purported prophets.
Man is fallible, but in my opinion, he doesn’t have to just lay there. I like to think man is “improvable”. He may never achieve perfection, but there’s no reason he shouldn’t strive for that goal.
**
Ok, you probably won’t like my answer because it’s going to be rather relativistic.
I got my degree in history and I spent most of my time studying communist China where a man could be sentenced to 20 years hard labor for openly disagreeing with Mao. So to me “the rule of law” is not always a good thing. Laws are created by man, and as you point out, man is prone to error, so I don’t naturally assume all laws are just.
I agree that laws are important. I don’t believe that a society could exist without laws and I do use the US laws (for the most part) as a point of reference. However, if I lived in the Taliban state of Afghantistan, I would be working to have the laws repealed. Actually, I wouldn’t, because I’m a woman and I’d be stoned before I could achieve any measure of change.
**
I can only follow my own standard, though I use my vote to try shape the US ito reflect that standard. No, I don’t think that majoirty opinion is the best way to determine what the standard, which is why I like the check and balances of our system. Majority opinion is not the final word. However, as I pointed out earlier, we don’t have an infallible source of absolute truths (since the Bible is so open to interpretation, it’s not infallible).
I don’t live as a relativist, but I can see how I might meet your definition of one.
Actually, I think the majority opinion is a perfectly good standard to use. Snivel, what’s your point? You think we should get rid of the seperation between church and state? Please, share more of your inbred insights with us.
The majority is right a mjority of the time, but not 100% of the time. That’s why we have the supreme court system. Sometimes, in a fervor, voters will put in place a law that conflicts with the constitution. The most notable examples I can think of are Jim Crows laws and “separate but equal”. Majority supported, but hardly just from a legal point of view.
You most assuredly DID NOT post YOUR “religious views”. What you said was THIS:
Which prompted me to say this:
[/quote]
I know you (and many others here) are absolutely, totally, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-theists who look for (and make up as you go) every opportunity to trash anyone who dares profess any belief in any higher power
[/quote]
You attack, I retaliate, and you’re the victim. Now that sounds like hypocrisy. I suppose you think we should feel guilty for nuking Nagasaki, you spineless leftist.
Sneevil says:
I have no obligation to refute arguments you haven’t even successfully made.
Two can play that game. Impasse.
therefore I am?
Please stop thinking, freak.
(note to self:why even bother with this walking afterbirth?)
Sneevil -
If you go FURTHER in that thread, Byz followed up with
Byz ALSO said:
Which pretty damn well destroys your claim of calling her an anti-theist.
You then said:
Nice comeback, Sparky. You complain we trash your religion. We’re all raving anti-theist loons. And when we SHOW you we’re not, you denigrate our religion to “prove” your points. You denigrate MY religion. For I believe in a Goddess too. And FTR, I drive a Chrysler and have short hair. So you’ll have to come up with a new slam for me.