Being politically correct harms Transgenders?

[annabenedetti]

We know you're a troll. You've said.

You'll throw out accusations of oppression and then refuse to substantiate them, thinking your entertainment is justification enough for lies.

No, that's what you just did. Hypocrite.

I've never said I was a troll, nor do I think I am. The fact that I'm fascinated by your behavior doesn't make me a troll, your assertion notwithstanding.

I said what I said, I stand by it, and I won't jump through your hoops. The fact that you've put up post after post trying to 'prove someone's wrong on the internet' shows that you've got the time and the inclination to engage in a conversation. You're choosing to stay in it, but you can't control my part of it.

Show us where I'm "forcing" my "religion" and you'll have the basis of an actual accusation.

As it is, you're just a liar and a troll.

Troll is worse.

Of course in the fantasyland of TOL you'd think troll is worse. I think lying is worse. Remember when you lied about me? I'd listened to, and commented on a Bob Enyart show, and you came by to say that I'd lied, that I hadn't listened to the show. You had no way of proving your assertion, but it didn't stop you from making it, did it? So here you are to make more baseless assertions. Not surprising.

I happen to believe that when you tell people "it's not okay to be gay" you force your religious beliefs on people who don't want them and don't share them - and that you support a government that would do the same and then execute those who don't comply. I linked to your posts where you've said these things.

If you don't like it that I believe that - tough.

You've got a nice little system here. If I walk away from this conversation, you'll likely call me a coward - if I continue it, you can keep calling me a troll. However, I'm not going to trouble myself over what you think, because I honestly don't care what you think. I'm here to say what I think. Do with that what you want.

 

[eider]

:wave2:

i know this one!


yes, they are all mentally defective

Moving forward.....
If, say, homosexuality was criminalised, what do you think should be a fitting sentence for convicted homosexuals?

 

[eider]

"mentally defective"? No, not at first. I'm sure they have the same range of intelligence as everybody else, at least to begin with. Maybe you mean morally defective? No, not at first, at least by comparison. I'm sure they have the same tendency to sin that the rest of us have, though perhaps are tempted in different areas.

So if they have the same mental and moral capacity as everybody else, then they are just as responsible to quit sinning as everybody, and just as unlikely to do so without help. Fortunately for all of us, while we were yet sinners (having the mental and moral capacity to sin), Christ died for the ungodly. So that when someone comes preaching repentance and salvation, they, just like everybody, can repent and be saved.

Unless the preacher neglects to tell them that they are sinners. If the preacher says, "It's ok to cross-dress, to be gay, to want to change your gender to something God didn't make you to be" he subverts God's desire for them and it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and be cast into the sea (at least he can't do as much damage to those sinners needing to be healed, if he's at the bottom of the sea).

The other thing that happens is that they refuse to repent, and God gives them over to a depraved mind. I think at that point one could call them morally deficient. And with moral deficiency can come mental deficiency.
[Rom 1:21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[Rom 1:22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Regarding the difference between transgender and transvestite, I appreciate the reminder, but it seems to me that if the person is not thankful for how God made them, whether they decide to rebel by changing their clothes or changing their body, there may not be much difference, except the consequences of body changes are not reversible in all cases.

Going back to your comment about Paul preaching something other than what Jesus taught, I think it's rather interesting that on one side are people that say Paul is too soft on sin, preaching grace too much, and on the other, he's not preaching grace enough (which sounds like where you are), because he actually calls sin "sin" (or evil "evil").

btw, what is TLDR?

Thank you for your straight reply.
I read the whole post with care, but have to admit that I did not read the whole of the one before. TLDR means 'too long didn't read'!

I see 'sin' as I think Jesus saw it. I see it differently to most Christians.
All of the 613 OT laws were perfect for strengthening and protecting the Israelites. For instance the forbidding of shellfish as food. If you look up 'shellfish poison paralysis' you will see how easy it would have been for a whole mass of people to die in an afternoon! Every single law was there to strengthen community, protect from illness etc. In a world where 65 people own more wealth than 50% of the world we could do with a return of many of the laws that are there.
I still wonder what caused that kid to be paralysed on Capernaum. But after his cure, Jesus told him that his sin was forgiven. See? Any sin could lead to sickness. Jesus did not talk about sin and evil like Paul did.
The OT laws protected from sickness, and that is why folks needed to be chaste, or sickness could rage through the whole tribe, and disaster.
But today, at last, we can protect folks a bit better?

I acknowledge your answer.... The fact that we cannot agree should not make us enemies though

 

[ok doser]

Moving forward.....
If, say, homosexuality was criminalised, what do you think should be a fitting sentence for convicted homosexuals?

execution :duh:

 

[ok doser]

(clipped rant about how she's in control)

I happen to believe that when you tell people "it's not okay to be gay" you force your religious beliefs on people

that's retarded

in what way is he "forcing" anything on someone who can choose to ignore him?



your real beef is not with "forcing". it's with stripe's voicing his opinion, an opinion that you disagree with, because it's rooted in scripture, which you now reject

but consider:

anna - when I tell people "it's not okay to molest children" or "it's not ok to commit adultery" or "it's not ok to steal", am i forcing my religious beliefs on them?

 

[Stripe]

I happen to believe that when you tell people "it's not okay to be gay" you force your religious beliefs on people who don't want them and don't share them.

Oh.

So are you "forcing your religion" on me with this?

Or is it only when someone says something you don't like?

 

[annabenedetti]

that's retarded

that's retarded

anna - when I tell people "it's not okay to molest children" or "it's not ok to commit adultery" or "it's not ok to steal", am i forcing my religious beliefs on them?

Last edited by ok doser; Today at 07:15 AM[

that's retarded

in what way is he "forcing" anything on someone who can choose to ignore him?

your real beef is not with "forcing". it's with stripe's voicing his opinion, an opinion that you disagree with, because it's rooted in scripture, which you now reject

but consider:

anna - when I tell people "it's not okay to molest children" or "it's not ok to commit adultery" or "it's not ok to steal", am i forcing my religious beliefs on them?

Last edited by ok doser; Today at 07:49 AM.

Sod, your original post (before the two edits) is the real you.
​

 

[Stripe]

that's retarded

in what way is he "forcing" anything on someone who can choose to ignore him?



your real beef is not with "forcing". it's with stripe's voicing his opinion, an opinion that you disagree with, because it's rooted in scripture, which you now reject

but consider:

anna - when I tell people "it's not okay to molest children" or "it's not ok to commit adultery" or "it's not ok to steal", am i forcing my religious beliefs on them?

It is, isn't it?

 

[ok doser]

It is, isn't it?

and her response is telling, isn't it?

she's not interested in doing anything other than bashing beliefs she disagrees with by labelling them "religious", ignoring the fact that she embraces a myriad of other beliefs that are rooted in religion



iow, she's trolling

or retarded


:think:

or both

 

[eider]

execution :duh:

Thanks for your reply.
Moving forward.
What method of execution would be fitting and correct in these cases?

 

[annabenedetti]

Oh.

So are you "forcing your religion" on me with this?

Or is it only when someone says something you don't like?

Oh.

Refer back to the rest of my post.

 

[Stripe]

Refer back to the rest of my post.

You didn't answer the question in that extended rant.

You accuse me of "forcing" my "religion."

You're not willing to explain exactly how someone sharing an opinion is forcing anything, let alone how it is religion. You admit you're only interested in watching a reaction. When it comes to the things you believe, they are somehow immune from any of your standards.

On this evidence, it sounds like we're justified in ignoring pretty much everything you say. :idunno:

And meanwhile, homos remain definitely not OK.

 

[Stripe]

What method of execution would be fitting and correct in these cases?

The punishment should be the same as for a rapist.

Drop a rock on them or something.

 

[annabenedetti]

You didn't answer the question in that extended rant.

You accuse me of "forcing" my "religion."

You're not willing to explain exactly how someone sharing an opinion is forcing anything, let alone how it is religion. You admit you're only interested in watching a reaction. When it comes to the things you believe, they are somehow immune from any of your standards.

On this evidence, it sounds like we're justified in ignoring pretty much everything you say. :idunno:

And meanwhile, homos remain definitely not OK.

Oh.

You've managed to twist my words. I'm not "only" interested in watching your reaction - it's an added perk.

You've managed not to answer anything regarding your past words - how convenient for you to "justify" ignoring all the inconvenient stuff you didn't want to talk about.

It's been interesting watching you circumvent with sod hanging onto your coattails... quite acrobatic.

 

[eider]

The punishment should be the same as for a rapist.

Drop a rock on them or something.

But .... Do you agree with ok doser that homosexuals are mental defectives?

 

[Stripe]

But ....

But? I answered your question.

Do you agree with ok doser that homosexuals are mental defectives?

Sure. But it's not a crime to have your brain warped to the point where you'll do anything.

It is a crime to do some of those things.

 

[ok doser]

Thanks for your reply.
Moving forward.
What method of execution would be fitting and correct in these cases?

something swift, painful and public in order to act as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to act on their perverted desires

 

[ok doser]

You're not willing to explain exactly how someone sharing an opinion is forcing anything, let alone how it is religion.

she has drunk so deeply of the liberal koolaid that she believes that stating one's opinion on an anonymous online discussion board is "forcing" your beliefs on those who might read them


pity her

 

[Stripe]

pity her

No time. Busy.

 

[ok doser]

:think:


:idea:

there's always time to mock her!


:mock:annabananahead