Glenn Beck is NOT Martin Luther King Jr.

[And Such Were Some Of You]

Sept 3, 2010 19:13:09 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

Sept 3, 2010 17:52:47 GMT -5 And Such Were Some Of You said:

Wow...reverse racism.

Imagine that.

What's "reverse racism"?

You're really good at making hit and run comments but won't elaborate on them or stick around to defend them.

I come here when I am asked to. There is no need for me to repeat what has already been said. That would be just.......dumb and a waste of everyone's time.

[krazeeboi]

I'm not asking you to repeat anything; I can clearly read what you've written and have no problems doing so. But what's unclear is what you MEAN by what you say. Isn't this a discussion board after all? Shouldn't actual discussion be encouraged? At least be able to stand behind what you say and defend it. You've done so in other threads; why is it any different here?

So, again, I'll ask: what exactly are you calling "reverse racism" and why?

[Nikkol]

Not if one's faith is grounded in reality and not disconnected from it.

One's view of "reality" can be considered relative.

That doesn't always happen (which is why it helps to have a society that actively disapproves and discourages such behavior, along with others that weaken societal structures like adultery, etc.). Also that goes back to my earlier point about getting help for the issue, especially if a parent sees tendencies in their child.

Define "help". Not to mention "tendencies" can be seen as "relative" as well. Some would say a man with clean hands and nails has tendencies and that a woman that doesn't like to shop has "tendencies".....that could become very dangerous to "label" as well. Additionally, although you may want to deal with "the tendencies", you also have to deal with their low self esteem, the fact they get teased, and prayerfully can keep them from making the decision that many others have made....suicide.

That was very rare. Again Nikkol, I acknowledge there are exceptions. There are exceptions to everything. But that doesn't mean you overthrow the norm for the sake of a few exceptions.

And if they can prove throughout history that what we view as exceptions are moreso the "rule", than what. Or that this was/is normal and many societies of old did this...what would that mean? For the Christian, of course nothing changes....but that's linked to faith/spirit of God.....

You brought up the historic point of view so that's why I mentioned that. It's interesting that you say that today most people are marrying for love, but it seems that back then, a lot more marriages (arranged, "shotgun," etc.) lasted.

That depends on how one defines "lasted". I personally don't know of anyone that was part of an arranged/shotgun marriage to speak in length about it.

The facts are the facts; they aren't opinions. While statistics can be used in a biased manner (if they are cherry-picked), statistics themselves are not biased.

You gave me a faith based website that had statistics. Their report would never say the opposite of what they're standing for. That's like saying that the Society of Atheism has a statistics proving that most ppl don't believe in God/higher being.

Right, which is why we're having this discussion right now. You see the legalization of gay marriage as essentially being irrelevant.

I believe that putting much time and emphasis on marriage is really not the "issue". You don't legalize it and ppl will still do what they do...children will still see those types of relationships...and worse of all, ppl as a whole are still dying.

The question is is this issue going to make/break society/church? This is the question where there are many different answers....

When it comes to matters of morality, I think a parent should always be able to explain the "why" behind what they tell their kids. I know there's still this old school "because I say so" mentality that exists among parents, but kids have access to all sorts of information sources these days and are exposed to all sorts of influences, and that has to be taken into account. The UPC actually does a good job of explaining the "why" behind their prohibitions. From what I see, the young people who grew up with these prohibitions hammered into their brains who abandoned them when they grew up did so because the reasoning, even from a biblical perspective, wasn't clearly laid out to them. The rest just disagreed with the reasons behind them.

I'm speaking as a parent....there won't always be an explanation to everything I tell my kids....just like there's not always an explanation to what God says to us.......main point.....the "wiser" we get, the worse we as a ppl become....

[krazeeboi]

At this point Nikkol, I don't think there's any need in continuing this particular discussion. When just about every other response is essentially "Well, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," then I think common understanding has been lost.

Suffice it to say that yes, I believe that the legalization of gay marriage is going to assist in the erosion of society and societal bounds/standards.

Going back to my original point here as far as Glenn Beck is concerned, the real reason he's largely keeping silent about this issue as well as the other social hot-button issues is because he knows the Tea Party movement started as largely a libertarian movement, but then started attracting the social conservatives. He doesn't want to throw a monkey wrench into the machine that could potentially even further fragment the movement.

[Nikkol]

Sept 8, 2010 20:41:06 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

At this point Nikkol, I don't think there's any need in continuing this particular discussion. When just about every other response is essentially "Well, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," then I think common understanding has been lost.

I'd agree with your first sentence. For a lot of what you say is "relative" and if we're going to look at this Constitutionally, just like with any other court case, it's your word against theirs and honestly, your argument doesn't have enough behind it (looking TOTALLY from an unbiased view).

You keep saying it'll damage society (opinion) and then the statistics you gave was from a faith based organization (bias). My point was to show you how much of what you said was "relative" and definitely wouldn't hold much weight if that was your "evidence". You say that there are always exceptions to the "rule"....which is true. However, what you consider a rule, others would say was an exception and what you are basing your "rule" on is "Christian moral standards" which in a society where most are not Christian gives the impression that we are holding onto one religion more than others in this "melting pot". Granted Christian values are the values that we should hold fast to...

Another interesting point is that statistics are shown (at least when hearing focus on the family, etc) is that only 10% of ppl in the world fall in this category...which if it rings true it doesn't effect the majority at all....

Suffice it to say that yes, I believe that the legalization of gay marriage is going to assist in the erosion of society and societal bounds/standards.

And though I may not agree with it, I don't see it making things any worse than they already are

Going back to my original point here as far as Glenn Beck is concerned, the real reason he's largely keeping silent about this issue as well as the other social hot-button issues is because he knows the Tea Party movement started as largely a libertarian movement, but then started attracting the social conservatives. He doesn't want to throw a monkey wrench into the machine that could potentially even further fragment the movement.

There was actually a show that Glenn Beck was on....can't remember exactly what show (it was a "political style" show) by which he told why he doesn't talk about certain issues...and your reasoning based on what he said is false. (which was on the link that you posted on this site) His point was that he didn't feel the necessity to talk about certain issues because there are other ppl talking about those. Unless, of course there is proof to say other than why he said he doesn't talk about hot-button issues. :-)

[krazeeboi]

Sept 9, 2010 12:47:06 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

I'd agree with your first sentence. For a lot of what you say is "relative" and if we're going to look at this Constitutionally, just like with any other court case, it's your word against theirs and honestly, your argument doesn't have enough behind it (looking TOTALLY from an unbiased view).

LOL, so you're a constitutional lawyer now? Never mind the fact that I presented statements from justices and such. And how can you say you're looking at this from a TOTALLY unbiased point of view when you hold the opposite position from me? By definition, that makes you biased! Wow!

You keep saying it'll damage society (opinion) and then the statistics you gave was from a faith based organization (bias). My point was to show you how much of what you said was "relative" and definitely wouldn't hold much weight if that was your "evidence".

Nikkol, I could just as easily have come up with the same statistics myself or have posted that coming from another organization. You're using an ad hominem fallacy here. Two groups argue different sides of the case because they are, by definition, biased. The goal is to show that you are on the appropriate side of the law. You're basically saying here, "Your argument is invalid because you're presenting evidence to support your point of view." Well, that's the point of having an argument!!!

You say that there are always exceptions to the "rule"....which is true. However, what you consider a rule, others would say was an exception and what you are basing your "rule" on is "Christian moral standards" which in a society where most are not Christian gives the impression that we are holding onto one religion more than others in this "melting pot".

Again, it goes further than "Christian moral standards" because those standards are actually rooted in reality. I suppose we just have fundamentally different understandings here.

Another interesting point is that statistics are shown (at least when hearing focus on the family, etc) is that only 10% of ppl in the world fall in this category...which if it rings true it doesn't effect the majority at all....

We're not talking about the world; we're talking about the US.

There was actually a show that Glenn Beck was on....can't remember exactly what show (it was a "political style" show) by which he told why he doesn't talk about certain issues...and your reasoning based on what he said is false. (which was on the link that you posted on this site) His point was that he didn't feel the necessity to talk about certain issues because there are other ppl talking about those. Unless, of course there is proof to say other than why he said he doesn't talk about hot-button issues. :-)

That makes no sense, because other people are already talking about what he's talking about (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Beck simply doesn't want to alienate his social conservative base. So he just appeals to that group by talking about God in general terms, but not by outlining his specific beliefs which apparently runs counter to what they believe. Smart strategy. Too bad too many of his social conservative base don't know he's part of what evangelical Christianity considers a cult.

[Nikkol]

Never said I don't agree with what you said. :-). I don't need to "argue" about this. HOWEVER, I have been in numerous conversations where ppl have made the SAME arguments that you make and those on the other sides, who also come very well prepared have "blown them out the water", so to speak. So if anything, if your purpose was to think that your point was to "prove me wrong" than you're sadly mistaken.

I am not saying that your argument is invalid because you're presenting evidence to support your point of view....your argument is "valid"....but there are some holes that would need to be filled. I'm telling you what those "holes" are. And like I mentioned in the prior paragraph, I've heard debates on this.

I thought that I had made that clear....but since you seemed to have missed it, I'll try again:

Reply #20 on Sept 2, 2010, 8:02am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) This country isn't a God-fearing country anymore.
2) I'm not and advocate of this cause...but rather wanting to make sure we all see the difficulty in proving it wrong and what the other side will say/has said. [/b]


And so while your point in many of these posts is to prove what I'm saying wrong or indicate that I just say "that's relative", plese re-read my #2. :-).

[krazeeboi]

I consider myself pretty well-versed in this issue, having read much about it. People presenting both sides may have "holes" in their argument; that's why we see court cases and such about it. I don't deny that and have never denied that. But we simply reached a point in OUR discourse where, as I stated, it was simply boiling down to what the definition of "is" is. That's not productive at all, and it certainly isn't what court decisions are made of.

[Nikkol]

Sept 9, 2010 14:30:15 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

I consider myself pretty well-versed in this issue, having read much about it. People presenting both sides may have "holes" in their argument; that's why we see court cases and such about it. I don't deny that and have never denied that. But we simply reached a point in OUR discourse where, as I stated, it was simply boiling down to what the definition of "is" is. That's not productive at all, and it certainly isn't what court decisions are made of.

Agreed..... I think that in reading, those will see both sides and be able to use it all to create a very good argument. :-)