If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 76

darth_ender said:

I understand what you are saying in your last sentence, and I am not equating.  I am pointing out how we have to judge the actions of people as right or wrong, not the people as hell- or heaven-bound.  I don't hold you or other non-Christians to the same standards as a Christian anyway.  But you must understand, as a non-Christian you are not bound to live by Christian commandments, but neither are you really in much of a position to interpret them any more correctly than I.

Am I wrong to believe that homosexual acts are wrong?  For you to make such a call is, in fact, judging my "sin" (even if you don't believe it's a sin per se).  But are you judging me as a person because of that?  Well, if you are using merely a moral view to justify calling me a hateful person (*cough*hairy_hen*cough*), then yes you are.  But if you are merely thinking, "Wow, he sure is ignorant on this topic, and thinking that a sexual act between consenting adults is sinful is a sure sign of his ignorance," then I think you are merely "hating the sin" (of opposing homosexual behavior) without hating the sinner.

Sin as I say is a goal orientated word.

If your target is to be a good Christian/Mormon you should follow your own ethical code. That is apply a nuanced judgement of your actions within the commitments you make to your faith and not wag the finger at outsiders.

If your target is just to be yourself your goal is not achieved when others throw obstacles in your way.

I as a non-Christian am not bound by any of the codes of the Bible or the Book of Mormon or the Torah or the Koran. I may learn lessons from some passages in those books but as I can't equate their testimony with how I rationalise the world before me I can not commit myself to one doctrine fully. Only fragments of some.

The message of Christ is of relevance to non-Christians. Like the Lotus Sutra it's message of peace and tolerance, something we always need more of.

I can't really see how the borrowed tale of Noah helps me though beyond the entertainment value of playing Wisdom Tree games and the linguistic heritage value it shares with something like Chaucer or Shakespeare (many sayings in the language we share have a Biblical origin so it has that value too).

Something like opposing what other consenting adults choose to do inside the privacy of their homes and outside the confines of your faith requires a bit more go-go juice than ancient texts. Some of which are on the fairy-tale/witch burning side of the contemporary relevance scale. 

I doubt if you will be moved to change your mind by my testimony but I do wish you would or at the very least leave other people be.

I don't think you are acting out of hate when you make these sorts of judgements but you aren't saving our souls you are just adding to our Earthly discomfort. If anything anyone else does isn't for you don't do it. If you feel it's a barrier to you reaching your goals negotiate by all means but calling it wrong for everyone because you believe it's wrong for you isn't going to win anyone over to your perspective.

RicII you may have moved on from all those things but much of the rest of the world hasn't due to all that legacy scripture you have clinging to Christ's teachings like barnacles to a humpbacked gay.

TV's Frink said:

I'm too tired to get up from the couch.

 Can I get you a coffee? The kettle has just boiled..maybe I should have put some water in...it's okay I have another kettle (must remember to boil water not kettle).

No, it's cool, I just felt like b*tching for a b*t.

Bingowings said:

I don't think you are acting out of hate when you make these sorts of judgements

I am glad to read this because that has been my whole point.  I have hardly actually touched on the topic of homosexuality in and of itself, but rather a defense of morally opposing it.

but you aren't saving our souls you are just adding to our Earthly discomfort.

And because of what I wrote above, I feel like I shouldn't be contributing to your discomfort.  If we knew each other in person, I think you'd feel perfectly comfortable with me, as I would with you.  As a non-hateful person, I believe we could be friends as long as we seldom discussed politics.  You could introduce me to your better half (though from what I read, you are the better half), and I would be friends with him as well.

If anything anyone else does isn't for you don't do it. If you feel it's a barrier to you reaching your goals negotiate by all means but calling it wrong for everyone because you believe it's wrong for you isn't going to win anyone over to your perspective.

 I may call it wrong, but not try to impose my will upon you.  In the improbable event that we did meet, I probably wouldn't even bring it up.  If it came up, it would simply be a matter we could discuss as my belief, and I again would do nothing to interfere or belittle or condemn your sexuality.  I'd simply be a friend.  That's what I consider you, even now, thousands of miles apart.  I value my relationship with you.  You are a friend.

Hey, ender, since you have the time to post long posts here, I was wondering if you'd be interested in checking these two threads out:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-about-a-game-of-Japanese-Chess-ie-Shogi-darth-ender-and-RicOlie-2-ironing-out-rules-for-a-one-dimensional-variant-Ito-Shogi/topic/16176/page/54/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Who-d-like-to-try-a-chess-variant/topic/16332/page/2/

;)

P.S. If you're posting from work, then that's fine, though I can make diagrams for you if you want....

I am posting from work, and certainly taking way too long to do so.  I probably could have been home by now had I focused on work.  Of course, they did cut my hours, so I don't mind compensating a bit.  Don't worry.  I'll make a few moves tonight, and I should go home soon.

OK, sounds good. :)

I don't know if this was mentioned in another thread, but I'm sick of CNN's excessive coverage of Flight 370; they have talked about it to death for almost a month now!

Social experimentation....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/sailors-leaving-navy-over-stress-on-social-issues-/

Sailors leaving Navy over stress on social issues, Top Gun instructor says

A Navy F-18 fighter pilot and former Top Gun instructor is publicly warning admirals that retention is beginning to suffer from the military’s relentless social conditioning programs.

Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.

“Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines.

It is a remarkably frank assessment from an upwardly mobile fighter pilot who is due to become the executive officer of a F-18 unit in Japan.

He says one troubling sign already has emerged: a drop in applications to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis last year.

“The U.S. Navy has a looming officer retention problem,” Cmdr. Snodgrass writes, adding there is an “erosion of trust in senior leadership.”

He says retention racked up its “worst year in history” for the special warfare community, including Navy SEALs, with a record number of lieutenants declining to stay.

The aviation side had a goal of 45 percent “take rate” on retention bonuses, but got only 36 percent.

“Unfortunately,” Cmdr. Snodgrass says in his 24-page study, “the fact that a growing number of quality officers have already left the service or are planning to head for the doors seems to be going undetected by senior leadership.”

He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.

He also tackles a touchier issue, what some sailors have referred to as “political correctness,” such as the banning of uniform patches that might offend someone.

Cmdr. Snodgrass writes of “a recent shift within the Navy to eradicate behavior that is, by its every nature, ineradicable.”

“Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit,” he says. “Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated.”

Some of the pressure comes from Congress.

“The perception is that these efforts are not undertaken because they are incredibly effective, but rather because of significant political and public oversight,” the commander says.

Vice Adm. William Moran, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training and education, told The Washington Times Tuesday that he applauds Cmdr.  Snodgrass for warning that retention problems may lie ahead.

“I share many of the concerns and have similar questions raised in the paper,” Adm. Moran said. “Many have heard me on the road talk about how the Bureau of Naval Personnel, historically ‘swings behind the pitch,’ unable to nimbly react to economic and early stage retention issues. It’s not neglect, good people here trying to do the best they can with limited tools, but the fact is it has cost us in both good people and money. We have to do better, and I must say that this discourse helps.”

He added: “Fostering an environment where our people feel empowered to share thoughts on important issues is a core responsibility of leadership — ideas, good and bad, have no rank.”

We should start allowing rapes again so we can get that retention rate back up another nine percent.

Ryan McAvoy said:

ferris209 said:

He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.

 ^ That's the condensed version ;-)

 Long wartime deployments are caused by retention issues. I guess you failed to understand that part.

Less soldiers = longer deployments for the soldiers left

I don't like water retention.

TV's Frink said:

I don't like water retention.

 It can make your clothes fit tighter.

Bingo: I have to decided to put you on ignore and this time really trully ignore you.  I don't know what else to do.   I don't know what you want from me.   I defend gay rights, including the right to serve in military openly and gay marriage.  Yet, you treat me like I am a bigot.  You continually drive me nuts about the stuff in the Bible that understandably offends you.  You say that you do not bring God up first in our arguments and complain about  the stuff in the Bible that offends gays.  But sometimes the first meantion about God and my religion and the stuff in the Bible that you don't like comes from you.  Take our recent debate in the Conspiracy theory thread.  In that debate, the first meantion of God and my religon came from you.    Whenever I bring up my faith, it is not to defend the passages of the Bible that offend you.  Recently you attacked my relgious beliefs and again complained about the stuff in the Bible you don't like, merely because I used the word Creator in reference to a passage from the Declaration of Independence that I was using to DEFEND GAY RIGHTS. There is nothing I can do about the stuff in the Bible that offends you.  I don't have any control over what is and is not put in the Bible.  Do you want me to take all the Bibles in my house(including a few that are family heirlooms) and rip out the offending parts?  I am not going to do that sorry.  Saying this part of the Bible counts and this part doesn't is very difficult for me.  How can I say what should count and what shouldn't?  I am not God. I am not a theologian.  I don't feel that I am qualifed to decide what should count and what shouldn't.  You keep talking about live and let live.  That is exactly what I do.  Yes, I bring up God and Christ and my faith from time to time.  Yes, I think homosexuality is a sin.  But I don't interfer in the lives of homosexuals.  I do not attack you for your homosexuality.  I defend gay rights.  I have done so here repeatly and sometimes passionately.   I give you and the rest of the forum my word that I do not hate homosexuals.  But I reserve the right to believe what I want.   My heart goes out to you for all the oppression and discrimination that you and other homosexuals face throughout the world.   I wish I could wave a wand and make it go away.   Yes, I realize that the Bible is used to justify it.  But I don't do that and will always argue against it.  Yet somehow that is not good enough for you.  What else would you have me do?   Neither one of use is going to change our believes.   Since I can't see you stopping from driving me nuts about these issue,  I see only one solution, put you on ignore and really trully ignore you.  Sorry, but it isn't like I haven't tried to get along with you.  I have tried to no avail to avoid this.  Well, that's that.

Ferris:  comparing not be allowed to get drunk on duty to be oppressed for being gay?  really?!?!  come on!   I would think you are smart enough to realize how drinking would impare you ability to do you job.  I would also think it obvious that being gay does not interfer in one's ablity to perform the duties of a cop.  To comare the two things was really, really stupid.

As for your last post about social experimentation.  I find it hard to believe you are against trying to stop sexual harrassment and sexual assauts.  I would understand you believing that certain policies to do so would be unreasonable and/or wouldn't work.  But I remember you talking about how you hold doors open for women and stand at the table with they get up to leave and act like a gentleman.  That seems to be in opposition to sexually harrasing women or sexually assaulting them.  I have to believe that you think both are wrong and abhorant.  I can't believe you are against punishing both.  As for gays serving openly in military.  I continue to not understand your opposition.  I fail to see the problems you think it is causing or would cause.  I just don't see it.  As for women serving at the front,  I think it should be allowed IF the women and pass THE SAME requirements that the men have to pass.   Of course not as many women would able to so as the men, but I think some would.  I could easily find pictures of musclebound women that would clearly pass strength requirements.  I am not for making any requirement any easier for women.  If that is happening, I oppose it.  After all, the enemy isn't going to take it any easier on them just because they are women.  I also would not want to send any unqualifed soldiers to the front that would endanger other soldiers due to being unqualifed.  

I am really disappointed your totally unsimpathetic reaction to people being oppressed throughtout the world.  I just don't get it.   

I know present day Warb is officially not going to read this but here goes (for the future, for the unofficial).

While I appreciate the gesture of defending people like myself from prejudice much of that prejudice is coming from parts of the Bible that a large number of Jews, Christians and Muslims either don't take literally or believe no longer applies or never applied to everyone. It's like yeast. Those violent ideas are not always active but it breaks out and spreads often when you least expect it.

So what's to do? I appreciate your concern over family heirlooms and wouldn't want you to chuck them out or chop them up.

You are a Christian. Not a devotee of Ea or Vishnu so while the deluge has some connective tissue to the canonical mythos of Christ it doesn't really have much to do with the teaching of Jesus. Similarly some of the Old Testament sanctions don't chime with what the Savior of the Gospels has to say.

You don't have to physically rip out the pages of the Bible, you can edit them down in your mind.

Peel away the dead wood and leave only what you personally believe and if you don't believe that God wanted people to be stoned to death (Which I've never thought you have) leave that bit out of your personal canon.

You can say it is there in the Bible but I don't believe my God would do that.

Just as if you read someone accusing a beloved relative of doing something horrific you would say I read that but I don't believe it of him or her.

If God has changed and was cruel and sadistic but is now a God of peace and tolerance say that too but if you believe God is still so disgusted by my actions that he wants me violently killed (something you repeatedly say you do not believe and I believe you) don't mention him in defense of what He finds abominable.

It's too paradoxical it's like quoting war criminal to defend civil liberties.

Warbler said:

As for your last post about social experimentation.  I find it hard to believe you are against trying to stop sexual harrassment and sexual assauts.  I would understand you believing that certain policies to do so would be unreasonable and/or wouldn't work.  But I remember you talking about how you hold doors open for women and stand at the table with they get up to leave and act like a gentleman.  That seems to be in opposition to sexually harrasing women or sexually assaulting them.  I have to believe that you think both are wrong and abhorant.  I can't believe you are against punishing both.  As for gays serving openly in military.  I continue to not understand your opposition.  I fail to see the problems you think it is causing or would cause.  I just don't see it.  As for women serving at the front,  I think it should be allowed IF the women and pass THE SAME requirements that the men have to pass.   Of course not as many women would able to so as the men, but I think some would.  I could easily find pictures of musclebound women that would clearly pass strength requirements.  I am not for making any requirement any easier for women.  If that is happening, I oppose it.  After all, the enemy isn't going to take it any easier on them just because they are women.  I also would not want to send any unqualifed soldiers to the front that would endanger other soldiers due to being unqualifed.  

I am really disappointed your totally unsimpathetic reaction to people being oppressed throughtout the world.  I just don't get it.   

 

 Men on the front have to go for weeks without a shower, or even any working facilities. How can women, who have very stringent sanitary needs at least once a month, endure that?

Additionally, the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

As for your last post about social experimentation.  I find it hard to believe you are against trying to stop sexual harrassment and sexual assauts.  I would understand you believing that certain policies to do so would be unreasonable and/or wouldn't work.  But I remember you talking about how you hold doors open for women and stand at the table with they get up to leave and act like a gentleman.  That seems to be in opposition to sexually harrasing women or sexually assaulting them.  I have to believe that you think both are wrong and abhorant.  I can't believe you are against punishing both.  As for gays serving openly in military.  I continue to not understand your opposition.  I fail to see the problems you think it is causing or would cause.  I just don't see it.  As for women serving at the front,  I think it should be allowed IF the women and pass THE SAME requirements that the men have to pass.   Of course not as many women would able to so as the men, but I think some would.  I could easily find pictures of musclebound women that would clearly pass strength requirements.  I am not for making any requirement any easier for women.  If that is happening, I oppose it.  After all, the enemy isn't going to take it any easier on them just because they are women.  I also would not want to send any unqualifed soldiers to the front that would endanger other soldiers due to being unqualifed.  

I am really disappointed your totally unsimpathetic reaction to people being oppressed throughtout the world.  I just don't get it.   

 

 Men on the front have to go for weeks without a shower, or even any working facilities. How can women, who have very stringent sanitary needs at least once a month, endure that?

Additionally, the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

If you are talking about 'the CURSE OF MENSTROS' it's not like a woman sheds her skin and walks around like an open pustule once a month. Most women in positions of authority or in physically demanding situations manage to cope. Not all military positions require service personnel to live like dossers either and chances are the enemy have two genders as well.

As for genetic chivalry if service men are thus afflicted wouldn't it make sense to have female soldiers who could kick the crap out of enemy women seeing as the history proves men clearly can't do that.

LOL ferris is Newt Gingrich.

OH NOES WOMENS GET INFECTIONS!!!

Okay, so if you don't buy that they deserve more sanitary attention than men, how about urinating? What would take a men mere seconds, would take several minutes for a women, which could cause several issues.

ferris209 said:

Okay, so if you don't buy that they deserve more sanitary attention than men, how about urinating? What would take a men mere seconds, would take several minutes for a women, which could cause several issues.

Have you met women or men or just read about them in books?

Almost every woman I've met can pee standing up. Some of the men I know wee sitting down and everyone craps the same.

I guess if that if the situation demanded it they could do what astronauts and pilots sometimes evacuate in their combat suit. 

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

As for your last post about social experimentation.  I find it hard to believe you are against trying to stop sexual harrassment and sexual assauts.  I would understand you believing that certain policies to do so would be unreasonable and/or wouldn't work.  But I remember you talking about how you hold doors open for women and stand at the table with they get up to leave and act like a gentleman.  That seems to be in opposition to sexually harrasing women or sexually assaulting them.  I have to believe that you think both are wrong and abhorant.  I can't believe you are against punishing both.  As for gays serving openly in military.  I continue to not understand your opposition.  I fail to see the problems you think it is causing or would cause.  I just don't see it.  As for women serving at the front,  I think it should be allowed IF the women and pass THE SAME requirements that the men have to pass.   Of course not as many women would able to so as the men, but I think some would.  I could easily find pictures of musclebound women that would clearly pass strength requirements.  I am not for making any requirement any easier for women.  If that is happening, I oppose it.  After all, the enemy isn't going to take it any easier on them just because they are women.  I also would not want to send any unqualifed soldiers to the front that would endanger other soldiers due to being unqualifed.  

I am really disappointed your totally unsimpathetic reaction to people being oppressed throughtout the world.  I just don't get it.   

 

 Men on the front have to go for weeks without a shower, or even any working facilities. How can women, who have very stringent sanitary needs at least once a month, endure that?

I am sure there are ways to solve that. 

Additionally, the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

 then I think these males need to change that and treat women at the front equally.   I don't think that is impossible for men to do.