you do not understand it because that is not the position i am takingOriginally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
there is no god
you do not understand it because that is not the position i am taking
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Yes it is if you deny the political lobby.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
there is no god
Tell me how I am denying it.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
effendi
Of course there is a difference. However, you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they believe is right but still believing you should be allowed to state what you believe is wrong or right (or in this case, lobby to get it made law) -- is daft.then why ask me to explain it
'Cos it doesn't make sense.
NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made law
Moral values are you what you hold to be right and wrong.
This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.
You don't have an opinion on whether self regulation of Guantanamo Bay within the current administration is right or wrong. My apologies. How about ... US troops in Iraq?
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.
Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.
If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.
People who have different values of right and wrong to you have the same moral right to vocalise their feelings, in the form of lobbying, as you do. To disagree with this statement goes against freedom of expression
====
You know, I think you're trying to wriggle out of it by making a moral issue into something far too narrow. Our morals tell us what is right and what is wrong. If this is not what you meant then I believe it may be the root of the consternation.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
You are saying that people should not try to influence the law.Tell me how I am denying it.
That's what political lobbying is for.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
there is no god
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, my stance has remained unchanged.Of course there is a difference. However, you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they believe is right but still believing you should be allowed to state what you believe is wrong or right (or in this case, lobby to get it made law) -- is daft.then why ask me to explain it
'Cos it doesn't make sense.
NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made law
Moral values are you what you hold to be right and wrong.
This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.
You don't have an opinion on whether self regulation of Guantanamo Bay within the current administration is right or wrong. My apologies. How about ... US troops in Iraq?
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.
Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.
If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.
People who have different values of right and wrong to you have the same moral right to vocalise their feelings, in the form of lobbying, as you do. To disagree with this statement goes against freedom of expression
No i am not. I am saying i object to people trying to force their moral values on me. i am not trying to stop them lobbying i just disagree with them trying to make their moral values law. If they where just saying what they think then i have no problem with their opinion even if i disagree
====
You know, I think you're trying to wriggle out of it by making a moral issue into something far too narrow. Our morals tell us what is right and what is wrong. If this is not what you meant then I believe it may be the root of the consternation.
the whole point of the thread was about moral values, in this case people wishing to block a vaccine that reduces cervical cancer because they say it will encourage promiscuity.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
saying I disagree with them doing it when it is based on moral values . NOT stopping them. If I was trying to stop them I would be anti expression. I haven't said I wish to deny them I said I disagree. You are the one that said I wish to deny them the right to lobby...and seeing as you are not me you can't say what I am wanting to doYou are saying that people should not try to influence the law.
That's what political lobbying is for.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
effendi
You said you disagreed with people trying to get their moral values made law. This is lobbying, is it not.
To disagree with people lobbying about something you don't like yet agreeing with people lobbying about something you think is okay with isn't what freedom of expression is all about.
Now, I might disagree with their sentiment (ban soccer) but I would not disagree with their actions (lobbying to ban soccer).
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
there is no god
But because I believe in freedom of expression I AM allowing them to lobby and I am not trying to stop them lobbying despite my opinion on their actions.You said you disagreed with people trying to get their moral values made law. This is lobbying, is it not.
To disagree with people lobbying about something you don't like yet agreeing with people lobbying about something you think is okay with isn't what freedom of expression is all about.
Now, I might disagree with their sentiment (ban soccer) but I would not disagree with their actions (lobbying to ban soccer).
you would oppose anyone trying to stop you watching football. That's all I have said...I would oppose anyone trying to make a law base on their moral values.
Why is it ok to say I will fight for your right to say something even if I disagree with what you say and not ok to say I will fight for your right to do something even if I disagree with what or why you are doing it?. I haven't once said lobbying should be banned I simply said I disagree with it when based on moral values.
I am not anti free speech if I don't think you should be saying something I am anti free speech if I stop you saying it. There are many things people shouldn't say but they have every right to say it anyway.
Like I said you have the right to lobby, I have the right to object. Freedom or speech and freedom of expression is not a one way street.
Last edited by vidcc; 06-02-2005 at 11:13 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!!!
Tbh I skipped JP's posts to an extent and responded just to yours,Perhaps you should read what my posts say and not what jpaul says they say
Your posts are sounding like a big clusterfuck.
Most of us will agree with you regarding the article.
However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."
On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.
Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition.
Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.
Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....
..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks