Why no Gay Bashing this time?

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=the raindog]
Fortunately, I have little interest in arm wrestling over who can find the book of “Habbukuk” faster. I would encourage anyone interested to read the thread that Crotalus cited and see for yourself if a comprehensive, scholarly discussion took place.
[/QUOTE]

I just read the thread and no, it didn’t. Why? Mainly because you have zero scholarship to offer. Your entire contribution to that thread was appeals to authority. Other people tried very hard to have a scholarly discussion. You spit on it.

And no, I didn’t join the discussion. That’s why I can sit here now and say you got your ass handed to you, not by me but by others.

162

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I just read the thread and no, it didn’t. Why? Mainly because you have zero scholarship to offer. Your entire contribution to that thread was appeals to authority. Other people tried very hard to have a scholarly discussion. You spit on it.

And no, I didn’t join the discussion. That’s why I can sit here now and say you got your ass handed to you, not by me but by others.
[/QUOTE]

As long as your seat in the peanut gallery is comfortable, who am I to encourage you to join the discussion?

163

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
And 30 or 60 or 90 years after that, our culture will be displaced by some other culture which was not so foolish as to deconstruct one its most important and basic social institutions for fear of seeming prejudiced.

God damn it, do you people care absolutely nothing about the long term consequences of your loathsome ideology?
[/QUOTE]

Wow, you may just hate fags enough for FriarTed to call you “brother”! Now, I wonder if people like you argued hundreds of years ago about the “long term consequences of your loathsome ideology” in regards to slavery, or abolition?

I bet I can guess. Look at all the damage freeing all the niggers did! Damned abolitionists.

-Joe

164

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Wow, you may just hate fags enough for FriarTed to call you “brother”! Now, I wonder if people like you argued hundreds of years ago about the “long term consequences of your loathsome ideology” in regards to slavery, or abolition?

I bet I can guess. Look at all the damage freeing all the niggers did! Damned abolitionists.

-Joe
[/QUOTE]

Just more confirmation of what I told jtgain, thanks… brother! :smiley:

165

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Just more confirmation of what I told jtgain, thanks… brother! :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Is it difficult nailing yourself up there?

166

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Well, ok. But I meant head to toe purple–unless you’re Dumbledore. Oh, wait…
:smiley:
[/QUOTE]

On this message board we do NOT blaspheme against Arsenio Hall.

-Joe

167

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Just more confirmation of what I told jtgain, thanks… brother! :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

If the hood fits, sweetheart.

-Joe

168

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Because if he’s going to act like a snippy little faggot, I’m going to call him a snippy little faggot. Why should I show him respect when he shows no respect for me?
[/QUOTE]

Do you really wonder why you’re lonesome?

169

[QUOTE=the raindog]
As long as your seat in the peanut gallery is comfortable, who am I to encourage you to join the discussion?
[/QUOTE]

Join in what discussion? There is no existing discussion. There was a discussion a few years ago where you made an ass of yourself. I can’t join that conversation even if I wanted to.

And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t want to. I read that thread. I’ve seen your one trick, Mr. Ed.

170

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
LonesomePolecat is a curious specimen. He’s a die hard, outspoken atheist. The type who wants to stamp out religion. Yet he also hates the gays. Bwuh?

[/QUOTE]

There’s nothing unusual about that. For example, try being gay in the Soviet Union, circa 1950.

171

[QUOTE=Alessan]
There’s nothing unusual about that. For example, try being gay in the Soviet Union, circa 1950.
[/QUOTE]

Ugh. As if!

All that concrete… that’s so last century.

172

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Join in what discussion? There is no existing discussion. There was a discussion a few years ago where you made an ass of yourself. I can’t join that conversation even if I wanted to.

And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t want to. I read that thread. I’ve seen your one trick, Mr. Ed.
[/QUOTE]

Well, of COURSE he doesn’t believe there’s been an exhaustive discussion about religion and homosexuality. The conclusions reached in that thread didn’t agree with his mindset.

I admit, I was a bit nonplussed when I saw his post. I thought…"no exhaustive debate on religion and homosexuality? Holy crap, we’ve talked it into the ground; I can think of at least three threads in the past year.

173

[QUOTE=Maureen]
I admit, I was a bit nonplussed when I saw his post. I thought…"no exhaustive debate on religion and homosexuality? Holy crap, we’ve talked it into the ground; I can think of at least three threads in the past year.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. And let’s be real. Those who want to take part in a scholarly discussion need to bring some scholarship to the table. That linked thread was like watching a do-it-yourself vivisection.

174

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Join in what discussion? There is no existing discussion. There was a discussion a few years ago where you made an ass of yourself. I can’t join that conversation even if I wanted to.

And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t want to. I read that thread. I’ve seen your one trick, Mr. Ed.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

The board is full of Google Arm Chair Geniuses, and the fact is, you were never part of those discussions!

Thanks for putting it so succinctly!

Sometimes, when I see someone like you or Lightray pound your virtual chests, I like to invite them to put their keyboard where their mouth is. You know, put up or shut up.

Like a charm bracelet, I have collection of comments like,

“And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t want to.” ; and,

I’ve already seen enough tortured logic trying to get the Bible to mean what people think it should. So no thanks, k?

Given you’d criticized the scholarly nature of the discussion, I can only infer that you have some knowledge, some basis, to offer up such an opinion.

How about sharing it with us? I’ll make it easy. We’ll start with the assertion that I “appealed to authority.”

I have infinitely more respect for Liberal, Diogenes, Polycarp, cosmosdan and others who engage in spirited, informed, passionate discourse, and not coincidently have no need to hurl insults like the one you started with in post #158.

So what’s it going to be? We can start a discussion and you can correct me. Or, you can hurl insults from the [relative] safety of SDMB’s timeout room.

175

I don’t believe that I have engaged in such a debate either (at least that I recall), but my reason is that I just don’t care. If the word arsenokoietes means male prostitutes or is intended to cover all gay people, exactly what Romans 1 is talking about, if Leviticus 18 still applies, etc just doesn’t matter to me.

If others wish to have that conversation again, I will follow along and might participate as an intellectual exercise…but when it comes right down to it;the result just doesn’t affect my life in the slightest. I will continue to live my life following my conscience and doing what is right for me regardless. I really wish people would stop trying to force their religious beliefs on my life and my legal rights in my relationship.

176

[QUOTE=the raindog]
Exactly!

The board is full of Google Arm Chair Geniuses, and the fact is, you were never part of those discussions!

Thanks for putting it so succinctly!
[/quote]

Uh. And?

Your arguments were already trashed beyond recognition. If I had participated in the discussion, nothing at all would have changed. There would have been another person saying that you are completely unconvincing and deluded about your own scholarship, such as it is.

I can’t understand your point. If I didn’t participate I can’t now say that you were so outmatched that I am embarrassed for you? How would my participation in that massacre have made my opinion of your performance more valid?

Put up WHAT? I don’t see any reason ever again to read your know-nothing attempts to justify your silly ideas. You are the one who feels the conversations weren’t complete. I feel the conversations were so utterly complete that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in anyone ever broaching the subject with you again. How is this complicated? You were pwned. I can, and did, read the thread and see that you were destroyed. I don’t have to participate in the destruction to note it. If you are going to argue that I can’t know how utterly foolish your arguments are without actually having them directed at me specifically, well, that’s really really REALLY fucking stupid.

Dude, you were the first one to claim the discussion wasn’t scholarly. Christ on a cracker, are you stupid? Oh, never mind about that one.

I can’t even figure out what you think your point is. Have your opinions changed since that thread? If not, what the fuck would it be? You’ve already ignored the arguments of people with a hell of a lot more time and expertise than I’ve got. All I’ve got is three years of Greek, a concentration in ancient civ, and the patience of a botfly.

You have nothing that interests me in conversation. You have already said your piece and I found it laughable. If you want to start a thread, do so. Some people will no doubt engage with you. But I would find it about as interesting as the second read-through of a Harlequin romance. I already know the plot. I already know the dialog. I already know how it ends. So why would I read it?

I’ve never seen someone so desperate to be engaged in conversation as you are–the same damned conversation over and over and over. It’s as if you think earlier threads somehow disappear and those of us who didn’t actually get posts addressed to us can’t read your shining words.

177

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Uh. And?

Your arguments were already trashed beyond recognition. If I had participated in the discussion, nothing at all would have changed. There would have been another person saying that you are completely unconvincing and deluded about your own scholarship, such as it is.

I can’t understand your point. If I didn’t participate I can’t now say that you were so outmatched that I am embarrassed for you? How would my participation in that massacre have made my opinion of your performance more valid?

Put up WHAT? I don’t see any reason ever again to read your know-nothing attempts to justify your silly ideas. You are the one who feels the conversations weren’t complete. I feel the conversations were so utterly complete that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in anyone ever broaching the subject with you again. How is this complicated? You were pwned. I can, and did, read the thread and see that you were destroyed. I don’t have to participate in the destruction to note it. If you are going to argue that I can’t know how utterly foolish your arguments are without actually having them directed at me specifically, well, that’s really really REALLY fucking stupid.

Dude, you were the first one to claim the discussion wasn’t scholarly. Christ on a cracker, are you stupid? Oh, never mind about that one.

I can’t even figure out what you think your point is. Have your opinions changed since that thread? If not, what the fuck would it be? You’ve already ignored the arguments of people with a hell of a lot more time and expertise than I’ve got. All I’ve got is three years of Greek, a concentration in ancient civ, and the patience of a botfly.

You have nothing that interests me in conversation. You have already said your piece and I found it laughable. If you want to start a thread, do so. Some people will no doubt engage with you. But I would find it about as interesting as the second read-through of a Harlequin romance. I already know the plot. I already know the dialog. I already know how it ends. So why would I read it?

I’ve never seen someone so desperate to be engaged in conversation as you are–the same damned conversation over and over and over. It’s as if you think earlier threads somehow disappear and those of us who didn’t actually get posts addressed to us can’t read your shining words.
[/QUOTE]

That’s an awfully long winded, “I can’t”, isn’t it?

178

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
I don’t believe that I have engaged in such a debate either (at least that I recall), but my reason is that I just don’t care. If the word arsenokoietes means male prostitutes or is intended to cover all gay people, exactly what Romans 1 is talking about, if Leviticus 18 still applies, etc just doesn’t matter to me.

If others wish to have that conversation again, I will follow along and might participate as an intellectual exercise…but when it comes right down to it;the result just doesn’t affect my life in the slightest. I will continue to live my life following my conscience and doing what is right for me regardless. I really wish people would stop trying to force their religious beliefs on my life and my legal rights in my relationship.
[/QUOTE]

I have no quarrel.

I appreciate your thoughts and feelings about it.

And, I agree with your thoughts about people forcing “religious beliefs on my life.”

179

[QUOTE=the raindog]
That’s an awfully long winded, “I can’t”, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s an “I’m not going to bother, because your argument is fucking retarded”. Subtle difference there.

Eat hot death!,
Woody

180

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
If others wish to have that conversation again, I will follow along and might participate as an intellectual exercise…but when it comes right down to it;the result just doesn’t affect my life in the slightest.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, for me it’s like an evolution debate. I simply have no desire to wade into one of those, especially when there are other people with way more expertise than I have and when one side has been so effectively demolished.