Deputy42

is being mst'd anything like being fisted?

bonduca

Quoting Kid Rock does not even entitle you to donorship privileges. Nor does it prove your point, unless it is to brag that you are capable of producing sperm? Please explain what 1)what superiority it entails and 2)what your point is, if you have one.
Please explain this statement. Even taken in the context of your usual posting style, it is incomprehensible.
Yes, it is difficult when one’s comfortable bigotry conflicts with the law. C’est la vie, Tiger.
I have asked you to explain your statements, CLEARLY. It is not dissent I cannot tolerate, but stupidity. Again, if you are not up to the task, simply say so.
One cannot “worm” one’s way out of something that has yet to be clearly expressed. Please explain what the hell you are talking about, I tire of your incoherence and pomposity.
I have repeatedly asked you to explain your rambling and diffuse statements clearly and succinctly. Please show me evidence of at very least basic knowledge of punctuation and sentence structure, I have given up hope of coherent content.
1. Please state clearly what you are trying to say, you are incomprehensible.
2. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. You are not listening.
3. I care nothing for what you think is the teaching of St. Paul, Christ, the Bible, or any related writings, as I am an atheist and have rejected these as nonsense. Therefore, my heart is not centered on your Christ (see number 2 above). I can, however, construct a comprehensible sentence.
4. Are you on crack, or do you have a head injury?
Please try to make some sense, you are very tiresome. I do not believe in God. Look at the atheist testimony thread and read my post.
1. You cannot even be taught rudimentary sentence structure.
2. It is NOT my responsibility to teach you anything, in fact, I can hardly bear to read your posts. You have given me the impression of bigotry, stupidity, and pompous complacence. I find you tiresome and ignorant.
3. Thank you so much for permission to not believe in God. Now I can sleep at night.
4. How does acknowledging that an incorrect belief structure exists lend it validity? Yet, again, you make no sense.
YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION. HOW do you propose EQUALITY should be established and safeguarded? HOW is equality between the sexes (such as Title IX) offensive to you? Do women not deserve equal opportunity as well as men? Should this not be protected? If so, what method do you propose? If not, defend why. Do not presume further upon my patience with your ill-informed, incoherent stupidity. Either answer the question or be quiet.
Read my posts. Look for the sentences that pose questions. Answer them. If you are not capable of doing so, admit it. You are hardly fooling anyone with this rambling garble.
Do not offer to beat people up on my behalf. I have not designated you my champion.
It is not for the law to decide what is likely to be popular or profitable, the law is not an advertising agency. The law is to protect equal opportunity. If you cannot understand the concept, say so.
Thank you for taking it upon yourself to volunteer what you find beautiful in women. I would, however, be far more interested in some satisfactory answers to my questions. Again, if you are incapable of rational statements, you have only to say so, and I will leave you alone.

bonduca

Because watching Queen of Swords work you over is so damned amusing, of course. Surely you didn't think it was for the conversation.

Deputy42

i never argued that quoting kid rock gave me some type of donorship privileges. i don't remember saying men were ultimately superior to women. i only argued that one thing that men are better at than women is impregnating a woman. nothing more nothing less. you are taking my statements out of context.

this is merely an invitation for you to continue posting your questions.

there are a lot of ugly words you atheists use to describe those with opposing views.

i can only do my best to satisfy your requests. i am truly sorry we are unable to communicate effectively.

by your own words, atheism is entirely described in the statement "god is not"

the value or importance of that statement is dependent on the meanings of the words in the statement. "is" is an easy word to define. the meaning of the entire predicate of the statement is simple enough to understand. the interesting part is the meaning of "god". take the statement "p is not" for example. "p" here means nothing. the statement "p is not" has no value, it is meaningless. the meaning of the statement "god is not" likewise depends on the definition of "god". were there no theology, your statement would have no relevance because "god" would have no meaning. the only time your stance has any value is when we have any idea of what "god" means.

since your value as an atheist is dependent upon theists, and your entire stance is the negation of theology, then you
1.)do nothing but tear down.
2.)rely on others for your definition of your negation.
so i will ask you again: what do you deny? if you say "god" then what is the definition of "god".

is this a proof reading contest?

1.)im sorry
2.)define that which you deny
3.)very good for you
4.)i have a crack and i've been called a headcase

1.)Pandora, are you talking about prescriptive or descriptive english grammar?
2.)i'm sorry you feel that way. what is your typical response to bigots? do you educate or do you just throw insults?
3.)peace be with you.
4.)the atheist says "p is not". i feel so sad that you base your life on such a meaningless statement.

i do not know the best way to safeguard equality. i do not know about title 9, so it does not presently offend me. i already stated that i think men and women should get equal opportunity. i'm sorry you grow weary. if this is the case then don't post.

i did not offer to beat anyone up on your behalf. again, you presume too much. are we going to argue the nature of law also? while you classify me as bigoted stupid and pompous, i in turn would classify you as a heretical leftist equally bigoted entitlement junky. enter at your own risk sister.

Deputy42

will someone please explain what mst'd is?

bonduca

Again, you make no sense whatsoever. Again, you have yet to answer my question.

1. Basic punctuation and clarity of expression would do, however, it is obvious I will not find them here.
2. For the last time, I am not in the bigot education department. What gives you the right to attach yourself to me uninvited and demand that I “educate” you? Get a life and educate yourself.
3. Another meaningless response.
4. Again, what the HELL are you referring to? Evidently you are expert in the “meaningless statement.”

1. The bigot dislikes me. Is this per the teachings of St. Paul? Now I am indeed reduced to girlish tears. What shall I do?
2. “Enter at your own risk” must refer to anyone foolish enough to attempt to engage you in rational discussion.

I have limited patience with stupidity, and you exhausted it some two pages ago. You are now running on a negative balance, and until you can produce two sentences together indicative of some sense, you will have no more of my time.

Your incoherent ramblings are no longer even entertaining. However, you may provide some amusement as food for our Queen of Swords (if she has not exhausted your meager potential, that is).

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Meager potential, indeed, bonduca. His latest responses consist of a whining plea for me to "teach him", repeated perhaps a hundred times or so. Plus, he's reduced to insulting himself :

With this kind of self-condemnation, there's nothing more I can do to him. I'm almost sorry for him now.

Eudaimonist

Deputy, mst'd refers to the television show Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which parodies old movies. To mst someone is to parody them in the manner QoS has done for you recently.

I've got some serious questions for you, just to satisify my curiosity.

Where does your interest in the "excellent" and "happy" life come from? Is this just your own personal interest, or is this sort of life an explicit goal of your denomination of Christianity?

If your denomination, what is that denomination, and what other denominations do you know that take a similar approach?

The reason I ask is that I have encountered Christians before who insist that happiness is not a proper goal in life, and that this life must be regarded as only a means to an afterlife, not as an end in itself.

Mageth

Statements from Deputy42 on this thread. I think they speak for themselves:

since i am a member of the highest social class, i need to be yoked equally.

the idea is that the person you marry should balance and complement your strengths and weaknesses. affluent and poor? i think you oversimplify. there's obviously more to any marriage than rich/poor man/woman etc.

i afford college because i work not because i am in a higher social caste

on the contrary, people with redistributive and restorative agendas have the most preoccupation with entitlement.

the problem here again is not allowing for individual differences between and among different "races" and "sexes".

whenever you try to classify people, and put them into nice neat categories, you get in trouble.

yes i support equality between sexes.

according to genesis, man came first, in the image of god, then came eve out of the rib of adam. patriarchal, but again that tradition has always been that way.

i don't remember saying men were ultimately superior to women.

two people being otherwise equal, a man would function as a male role model better than a woman.

arguments about equality of sexes seem to hinge on the assertion that men and women are the same. while both are members of the same species, i think you will agree that men and women have many differences.

of course men and women can work together.

i think sexual harrassment, as i've said above is a good idea, but a nightmare in practice.

any woman playing hard to get says no and really means yes

a womans role is whatever she decides to make it

one of my friends is having a baby by herself. of course not every woman has a husband to help her out. does the fact that this happens also make it right? or even desirable? i think not.

i, like a scientist, make no moral value judgement here, only stating what is, not what it should be.

i cant speak for christianity as a whole, but as i've said before, i think that some of st pauls sentiments are best not used as the basis for christian practice in todays society.

i am willing to accept his teachings, misogyny and all

of course you know that men are called to be the leaders by bible, not only for themselves but for their families.

that doesn't change the fact that they are head of the household and expected to "bring home the bacon"

yoked equally is just that, equal participation and equal work done in a relationship.

there will be no evil in heaven because people in hell choose to be there, just like those in heaven.

no i don't necessarily believe people are going to hell. much like god is described as a living god, hell is a living hell. i tend to think that hell is an adjective for a state of mind and a way of living. living life according to righteousness leads to an abundant life.

you fail to make obvious connections

free thought is thought without bounds

Mageth

QoS: Great mst'ing as always, but he does a perfectly good job of it on his own.

Note also that he didn't know what a "strawman fallacy" is (and apparently still doesn't grok the concept, as he's misused it several times since), yet he attempted to throw logic at me regarding my "God is - not" statement, which obviously was not intended to be a strictly logical statement (note that he later attributed this statement to bonduca).