You’re only allowed to decide what’s true for you if you’re not
Christian. While imposing your morality on others is wrong, which is
what laws do, it’s completely acceptable to demand others not govern their
own behavior by God given morality. This itself is not an imposition
but a demand for fairness
The “Global Poverty Act,” which is sponsored by Obama, is up for a Senate vote today, and if passed would mandate the U.S. to spend 0.7 percent of the gross national product on foreign aid, on top of the money being sent out of the country already.
A rare new species of plant that eats small rats has been discovered at the tip of Cape York.
Pitcher plants, otherwise known as flesh-eating plants, grow throughout Cape York but now a new, larger species that grows like a vine has been discovered.
The new species has been called “Tenax”.
James Cook University ecologist Charles Clarke and a colleague found the new species at a swamp near the Jardine River, but exactly where is a secret.
“They are quite vulnerable,” he said.
“They are only found in a few small areas and if we broadcast the location then there are people out there who would take advantage of that.
“There’s a lot of interest in pitcher plants from Australia, even from people outside of Australia.
“And while people often associate these things with New Guinea or Borneo or Sumatra, the fact that there’s more species here is actually very exciting.”
Once it begins to eat liberalists we’ll have a self replicating fix for the economy
Release sufficiently large quantities of Nitrogen Dioxide and effect a global cooling. But since this is a false religion this action would be doubly unwise. Perhaps the hippies could just inhale another of their preferred substances… legalizing drugs would solve so many problems.
I’m pro-nuclear, pro-fossil-fuel… and ITS MY CHOICE. ahahaha
tolerate the diversity, you eco-fascists! Remember, diversity is great! Choice is great… my gas burning car is awesome! Separation of church and state? ? yes, there’s no room in government for the religion of global warming!!
I’m pro-science
We should be more worried about leprechaun’s crusade for world domination than the ‘threat’ of global warming. Stop the hate
riiiight. And what of other deviants like some sociopaths? ‘They were born with the inclination to rape and murder. They are entitled to their feelings. You cannot tell them not to derive sexual pleasure from torturing innocent people nor can you prevent them from sating themselves’
isn’t relativism fun?
wait.. the typical response will make some reference to hurt or injury and or consent. The *thumbnailed* response is to have you recognize intangible injury, as from this thread the non-physical damage done to a child, transcendental if you will. If you cannot admit of the former then the discussion is over as your values are such.. your attempt to inflict your deviant expectation of warped-tolerance. If you do grasp the concept we can explore further the type of injury upon another in a consensual deviant sexual relationship and the nature of love, which has not yet been explored here.
Consent does not mitigate harm. Choice does not effect justice. Perception does not effect change in the object. Freedom is not license. Unwanted consequences do not cease to exist.
Homosexual acts, as with other deviant activities with regard to grave issues, are an affront to the dignity of the actor and recipient, and then some.
The hypocritical intolerance is rife. Why can’t you people be tolerant of parents who don’t wish to scandalize their own children? That’s awfully hateful of you. Only you have the right to be offended? Why is that exactly?
What about to each his own?
You queers get bent out of shape when you think other people are controlling how you live, but yet when the pro-deviant movement tries regulate what parents teach their children, and those same parents object you’re shocked? Keep your moralphobia to yourself.
You deny absolute truth, and then insist that the tenants of liberalism are the only truth? Nope, no faulty logic there.
Anarchy for all?
(As a teeny tiny minority are you sure that’s a wise ideology for you deviants to pursue?)
Richards said that [the principal's practice of sending the honor roll to local media] have
a dark side, creating a competitive culture among students where grades
are compared within groups and argued over with teachers.
Get that parents? Encouraging your kid to do well is a bad, bad
thing. They might compete. They might even meet other kids
who want to be at the top of their class and then they’ll be
striving to make even better grades. Damn you awful parents for
breeding this kind of behavior! - TheBitchGirls.us
So Bush was responsible for the security policy during the Clinton
admin when the FIRST attack of the world trade center happened??
Bush
must have been using that time travel device to plant WMD in arab
countries…. so the slaughter of the kurds in Iraq with WMD under
saddam insane was really Bush’s fault, too!
It must be rooted in the relationship he didn’t have with those drugs
I am confused. If we aren’t holding words to their literal meaning, why are we writing encyclopedia entries about them? — bikeable (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The pedophiles and liberalists have on many occasions deleted WORDS like “moralphobe” and “moralphobia” calling them neologisms all the while wrongly tolerating the entry on the colloquialism “homophobia”. Double standard? The talk article even linked to “Moralityphobia“. It was swiftly delted in a state of frantic moralphobia.
MoralphobiaAPTLY describes the fear driving the deletion of the word itself. As commented above there’s no place in wikipedia for the colloquialism “homophobia”.
Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
In a world where there can be homo”phobia” there can certainly be
moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential:
caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem
Unfortunately I have no idea what “moralphobia” is. Neither does the OED or Webster’s. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
fortunately “homophobia” hasn’t long been in the OED. We’re
witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is
quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki
article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem
I think the “oft touted tolerance” left the building at the precise
moment you started ranting about “moral deviancy.” And don’t call me a
liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
And how much ranting is in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_deviant Is it the word “deviant”
that has set you off? Why don’t you move to delete the previously cited
article? Comment by User:Crushthem
We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we’re witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. –Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
right because that argument didn’t apply to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia What are you people
‘afraid’ of? Comment by User:Crushthem
“Neologism” means “new word”. A word that only gets 8 Google hits
and isn’t in any dictionary doesn’t need an article on Wikipedia. As
for what I’m afraid of, I’m afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection
of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. –Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005
(UTC)
So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to
google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by
those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What does that article have to do with “moralphobia”? –Carnildo 09:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Considering the only real “absolute truth” is
death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight.
Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don’t disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
“We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia.” Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word,
it’s still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way.
See Wikipedia is not… Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice - because I
never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005
(UTC)
Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. –Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not
liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is
commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The
same for “bad”. An example: It would be stupid from me to reject
all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some
moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in
other religions, philosophies…) but the catch… It’s all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth
concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be
mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this
neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21
Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. — Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete the nonsensical neoligism. — ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn’t this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
comment: - original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
That’s what I’d say, but there was no “research” involved. It’s
more of an “original rant.” Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still
falls under Wikipedia’s definition of original research, but it’s my
opinion that the word “research” is too good for this crap. –Szyslak)
Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of
this “word” outside the mind of the article creator. –Dtobias 04:10,
23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like
some other VfD subpages, is no longer ‘live’. Subsequent comments on
the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be
placed on the relevant ‘live’ pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live.
Further comments should be made on the article’s talk page rather than
here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
The truth is that the public consciousness is unfortunately all too familiar with Muslim suicide bombers. The truth is that this is not a tactic of Jews.
The truth of the numbers: * Muslim extremists kill infadels and blasphemers. (everyone not-muslim is a target) * Jewish extremists kill blasphemers. (everyone who claims to be God is a target)
The truth of the scale of tactics: * Muslims extremists throw themselves into innocent public gatherings and blow themselves up to kill sinners. * Jewish extremists throw stones to kill sinners.
The truth of the sanity: * Muslim extremists go out into the world to slaughter all who oppose Islam. (claim: _defending_ their omnipotent creator) * Jewish extremists lob missiles at people who first attack them. Jewish extremists have been known to destroy nuclear weapons facilities in countries run by Muslim extremists. (claim: self defense)
The truth of the map: http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1981/pwsign22kr0ri1.gif
The army would be MUCH more successful if it recruited people of an age
who still didn’t think they were indestructible. 18 is waay too young
emotionally in most cases. They should focus on 30-45 where there is a
higher degree of sneakiness, and desire to continue living. No more
stupid “tactics” like charging a hill. Shell them from a distance.
Don’t throw people at a problem.. HURL MUNITIONS AND DROP BOMBS.
(1) mine US oil! — who cares about a few deer. animals have zero rights.. except the right be be tasty
(2) cut taxes — always a great plan
(3) cut spending — I can’t print my own money and as the state only
has the right I do by extension has no right to print new money to
spend either
(4) dump liberalist favored government programs — funding evil is never wise
(5) “use less” is not a plan
(6) ignore liberalists with “secret plans”
hahaha…. now for an econazi perspective:
Why not just remove gas tanks from cars? Then no one would be able to use gas. Problem solved. woo.
No, wait, let’s remove personal freedom and dictate each must drive State Brand ™ TheCar. It will be solar powered exclusively. That will reduce night time traffic considerably.
Orr just pass a law demanding that machines be built to make gas in one’s garage? Or by edict declar that the properties of gas are now such that it produces better milage (UN style)
Start a letter writing campaign and whine until suppliers lower price. Threaten that you won’t be putting gas in your ethanol car to teach them a lesson.
Walk more. It’s environmentally friendly. Be sure your shoes contain no oil products and CERTAINLY no animal products! Avoid walking on plants. You might hurt their feelings.
So little time, so many great solutions to force on people!
“A 46-year-old man is accused of assaulting
his wife with a carrot, causing her to lose sight in one eye,” reports the
Associated Press from Monroe, Conn.:
Pamela Vecsey, 46, underwent six [hours] of surgery
after being hit in the left eye with the vegetable Saturday night, but doctors
were not able to restore her vision, prosecutor Stephanie Damiani said.
The couple was arguing when Roderick Vecsey tossed
the carrot, Damiani said.
It is a scandal that thanks to the carrot lobby,
Americans–even the mentally ill, convicted criminals and stalkers–are able to
buy these dangerous weapons without so much as a license or background check.
We need carrot control! It’s the only way to deal with crime at its roots.
OpinionJournal [OpinionJournal@wsj.com]
Both swimming pools and highschool football practice kill more people than accidental shootings. Let’s outlaw both pools and highschool football practice.
The missile causing the most concern, the Taepodong-2, which some
analysts say is capable of hitting the Western United States, was fired
in the morning. It failed after about 40 seconds and landed in the sea
about 200 miles (321 kilometers) west of Japan, U.S. officials said.
they have NO sense of strategy. “Let’s set a date for troop withdrawl” or “hey start removing troops now”. Yes, let the enemy know your plans… good strategy.
In July 2005, EPIC
filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission concerning a website that
offered phone records and the identities of P.O. Box owners for a fee ….
EPIC supplemented
that filing in August with a list of 40 websites that offered to sell phone
records to anyone online. In light of the fact that so many companies were
selling communication records online, EPIC also petitioned the Federal
Communications Commission, urging the agency to require enhanced security
precautions for phone companies’ customer records.1
Although telephone carriers unanimously opposed enhanced security requirements
queers cannot be married. Being not-married couples cannot receive any benefits of marriage anymore than a single person can claim the benefits of marriage.
Do we need to amend the Constitution to ban queer abusive re-definition of marriage?
Hmmm. Pat says no. He claims as the majority of people affirm that marriage is to be between a man and a woman we need not modify the Constitution.
Wait.. don’t we live in a demrocratic republic? Didn’t those same most people affirm that slavery should be [banned]? Did we really need to amend the Constitution?
Oh, it doesn’t matter what the majority wants in a democracy when it offends a teeny, tiny, perverse minority!
Queer advocates of satan: marriage isn’t really a big issue. Gas prices are more imporant, oh and the economy. So since its not an issue we shouldn’t be wasting any time on it.