Of course the power trip scoob comes along

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

ooh cool i get to join in before it gets lost in the weeds with threats of exterminating democrats lol

Regarding the trans issue I've yet to see one post here (or anywhere for that matter) that thinks a bio male that went through puberty as a male should compete with bio females. That's not the issue. I agree that "the right side of history" is not on the NCAA's side from an objective viewing of the science

Regarding the "wrong side of history" comment, yes most of us are on the wrong side of history about a ton of stuff. We are all the same. You and I, if we were born more than 60 years ago, would have been racist. How do I know that? Because almost all southern whites back then were, and we're the same as them. Same with the Nazis, same with sexists, etc etc.

Think, how did you feel about the legalization of gay marriage? The left is 100% on the right side of that one, were you? Think of eating meat. In 50 years the idea of killing an animal for its flesh will be considered as selfish and barbaric as we view torturing a dog. Yes most of us (myself included) eat meat when we could be vegetarians and end animal suffering. It's not like we don't know animals feel pain, we just like the taste and texture. It's extremely selfish if you think about it. Yet we're "on the wrong side" of that because -like the wrong people in the past- we're a product of our culture.

At any point in time, society has some wrong views. If you find yourself ALWAYS defending the traditional societal views, you need to stop and rethink whether you've evaluated all those issues, or if you're just defending the status quo because it's the status quo.

And I have no issue with how Scoob handled that thread. The personal attacks, insults, and frankly god awful logic displayed meant that nobody was getting anything out of it. Just circling the wagons with like minded people and being defensive

[Johnson85]

ooh cool i get to join in before it gets lost in the weeds with threats of exterminating democrats lol

Regarding the trans issue I've yet to see one post here (or anywhere for that matter) that thinks a bio male that went through puberty as a male should compete with bio females. That's not the issue. I agree that "the right side of history" is not on the NCAA's side from an objective viewing of the science

Regarding the "wrong side of history" comment, yes most of us are on the wrong side of history about a ton of stuff. We are all the same. You and I, if we were born more than 60 years ago, would have been racist. How do I know that? Because almost all southern whites back then were, and we're the same as them. Same with the Nazis, same with sexists, etc etc.

Think, how did you feel about the legalization of gay marriage? The left is 100% on the right side of that one, were you? Think of eating meat. In 50 years the idea of killing an animal for its flesh will be considered as selfish and barbaric as we view torturing a dog. Yes most of us (myself included) eat meat when we could be vegetarians and end animal suffering. It's not like we don't know animals feel pain, we just like the taste and texture. It's extremely selfish if you think about it. Yet we're "on the wrong side" of that because -like the wrong people in the past- we're a product of our culture.

At any point in time, society has some wrong views. If you find yourself ALWAYS defending the traditional societal views, you need to stop and rethink whether you've evaluated all those issues, or if you're just defending the status quo because it's the status quo.

And I have no issue with how Scoob handled that thread. The personal attacks, insults, and frankly god awful logic displayed meant that nobody was getting anything out of it. Just circling the wagons with like minded people and being defensive

That's all good and well, but in the US, for now, we don't have a huge issue with people just defending the status quo because we've picked a lot of the low hanging fruit. There are still certainly issues we'll look back at and wonder how we allowed that to happen, but they're not the ones generally getting play (with the exception of abortion). Eating meat is a good guess on one but it's not really the cause of a lot of conflict. I think (hope) allowing our prisons to be basically anal rape centers is going to be a black mark but nobody really cares about that. ON the other hand, we have a problem sheep following reactionaries without thought just because they either don't have the intelligence to even question it, or they don't trust their intelligence (again, wisely) to think about it for themselves. So you get people arguing that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. You get people advocating for permanent chemical and physical mutilation of minors despite the fact that there's not a lot of evidence it makes things better and plenty of evidence that many will regret it. You get people arguing for segregation and treating people based on their race rather than the content of their character. You get people arguing against providing due process and instead punishing based on being a part of a group, whether by choice or by fate. The negative consequences of those ideas are currently concentrated on a minority of unfortunate victims, but those are the type of things that have the potential to cause serious decline and regression in society, not defending the status quo.

[Commercecomet24]

That's all good and well, but in the US, for now, we don't have a huge issue with people just defending the status quo because we've picked a lot of the low hanging fruit. There are still certainly issues we'll look back at and wonder how we allowed that to happen, but they're not the ones generally getting play (with the exception of abortion). Eating meat is a good guess on one but it's not really the cause of a lot of conflict. I think (hope) allowing our prisons to be basically anal rape centers is going to be a black mark but nobody really cares about that. ON the other hand, we have a problem sheep following reactionaries without thought just because they either don't have the intelligence to even question it, or they don't trust their intelligence (again, wisely) to think about it for themselves. So you get people arguing that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. You get people advocating for permanent chemical and physical mutilation of minors despite the fact that there's not a lot of evidence it makes things better and plenty of evidence that many will regret it. You get people arguing for segregation and treating people based on their race rather than the content of their character. You get people arguing against providing due process and instead punishing based on being a part of a group, whether by choice or by fate. The negative consequences of those ideas are currently concentrated on a minority of unfortunate victims, but those are the type of things that have the potential to cause serious decline and regression in society, not defending the status quo.

Very well said.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Johnson85 again.

[R2Dawg]

ooh cool i get to join in before it gets lost in the weeds with threats of exterminating democrats lol

Regarding the trans issue I've yet to see one post here (or anywhere for that matter) that thinks a bio male that went through puberty as a male should compete with bio females. That's not the issue. I agree that "the right side of history" is not on the NCAA's side from an objective viewing of the science

Regarding the "wrong side of history" comment, yes most of us are on the wrong side of history about a ton of stuff. We are all the same. You and I, if we were born more than 60 years ago, would have been racist. How do I know that? Because almost all southern whites back then were, and we're the same as them. Same with the Nazis, same with sexists, etc etc.

Think, how did you feel about the legalization of gay marriage? The left is 100% on the right side of that one, were you? Think of eating meat. In 50 years the idea of killing an animal for its flesh will be considered as selfish and barbaric as we view torturing a dog. Yes most of us (myself included) eat meat when we could be vegetarians and end animal suffering. It's not like we don't know animals feel pain, we just like the taste and texture. It's extremely selfish if you think about it. Yet we're "on the wrong side" of that because -like the wrong people in the past- we're a product of our culture.

At any point in time, society has some wrong views. If you find yourself ALWAYS defending the traditional societal views, you need to stop and rethink whether you've evaluated all those issues, or if you're just defending the status quo because it's the status quo.

And I have no issue with how Scoob handled that thread. The personal attacks, insults, and frankly god awful logic displayed meant that nobody was getting anything out of it. Just circling the wagons with like minded people and being defensive

One issue with your position here. Absolute truth has no expiration date. Moral laws are real and you have no moral law without a moral law giver. Gay marriage has a moral side and a legal side. Gay marriage is wrong and it doesn't benefit the people or society as a whole and brings judgment. You cheapen the real thing when you offer a counterfeit which is what that is. If you can't see this truth, answer one question. If it is so right then if everyone did it, where would society be? Easy answer - extinct.

Society has the wrong views because they look to the wrong sources for the answers. Just because something gets accepted doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, if so I apologize for that but the facts remain for anyone else.

[Extendedcab]

One issue with your position here. Absolute truth has no expiration date. Moral laws are real and you have no moral law without a moral law giver. Gay marriage has a moral side and a legal side. Gay marriage is wrong and it doesn't benefit the people or society as a whole and brings judgment. You cheapen the real thing when you offer a counterfeit which is what that is. If you can't see this truth, answer one question. If it is so right then if everyone did it, where would society be? Easy answer - extinct.

Society has the wrong views because they look to the wrong sources for the answers. Just because something gets accepted doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, if so I apologize for that but the facts remain for anyone else.

Very nice! I tried to give rep. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to R2Dawg again.

[Johnson85]

One issue with your position here. Absolute truth has no expiration date. Moral laws are real and you have no moral law without a moral law giver. Gay marriage has a moral side and a legal side. Gay marriage is wrong and it doesn't benefit the people or society as a whole and brings judgment. You cheapen the real thing when you offer a counterfeit which is what that is. If you can't see this truth, answer one question. If it is so right then if everyone did it, where would society be? Easy answer - extinct.

Society has the wrong views because they look to the wrong sources for the answers. Just because something gets accepted doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, if so I apologize for that but the facts remain for anyone else.

The government recognizing same sex legal marriage didn't cheapen marriage. We had already accomplished that, with the support of a lot (a majority?) of Christians by allowing no fault divorces. The only place that sort of provides legal force to the spiritual concept of marriage is Mississippi, which has a divorce by consent but not at will divorce, or at least not at will divorce without the sham of establishing domicile in another state first.

[Extendedcab]

The government recognizing same sex legal marriage didn't cheapen marriage. We had already accomplished that, with the support of a lot (a majority?) of Christians by allowing no fault divorces. The only place that sort of provides legal force to the spiritual concept of marriage is Mississippi, which has a divorce by consent but not at will divorce, or at least not at will divorce without the sham of establishing domicile in another state first.

You are proving the point that any deviation away from the "moral law giver" causes humans problems. Marriage was intended, from the beginning by God, to be for life, but Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of human hearts! Divorce for reasons other than infidelity is a sin. Also a gay life style is called an abomination in scripture - it is a sin but the worst kind of sin in God's eyes (read the book of Romans if you want to know more). A gay lifestyle used to be pushed out to the fringes of society but now they want to make it a center piece of society - something to be celebrated - but scripture also says it is a shame to even discuss the things they do must less promote it.

[Johnson85]

You are proving the point that any deviation away from the "moral law giver" causes humans problems. Marriage was intended, from the beginning by God, to be for life, but Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of human hearts! Divorce for reasons other than infidelity is a sin. Also a gay life style is called an abomination in scripture - it is a sin but the worst kind of sin in God's eyes (read the book of Romans if you want to know more). A gay lifestyle used to be pushed out to the fringes of society but now they want to make it a center piece of society - something to be celebrated - but scripture also says it is a shame to even discuss the things they do must less promote it.

I was trying to make the point that mixing up spiritual matters with the government doesn't purify the government, it corrupts the spiritual matters. There's going to be enough corruption in churches and spiritual communities without the involvement of government. It seems like a better approach might be to hold other christians accountable, and let the law be based primarily on utilitarian grounds, and try not to intermingle spiritual concepts with the government, as long as the government will enforce contracts.

[Extendedcab]

I was trying to make the point that mixing up spiritual matters with the government doesn't purify the government, it corrupts the spiritual matters. There's going to be enough corruption in churches and spiritual communities without the involvement of government. It seems like a better approach might be to hold other christians accountable, and let the law be based primarily on utilitarian grounds, and try not to intermingle spiritual concepts with the government, as long as the government will enforce contracts.

Hmm, If you want a government devoid of Christian principles, then Russia or China or North Korea come to mind. Somehow I don't think you would like those environment. Liberty under law was always rooted in biblical principles and is the basis for the US Constitution. Without the "moral law giver" (God) there is no liberty.

[R2Dawg]

Hmm, If you want a government devoid of Christian principles, then Russia or China or North Korea come to mind. Somehow I don't think you would like those environment. Liberty under law was always rooted in biblical principles and is the basis for the US Constitution. Without the "moral law giver" (God) there is no liberty.

Nailed it.

If we are so bad then why are so many wanting to come here? No one is trying to break into China or Russia or North Korea; wonder why? I've been to Russia crossing the border many times. They have AK47 every 100 yards and triple row fence security to keep people in not people out. We are so ignorant in the US, I didn't really understand freedom until my first visit to Russia.

[R2Dawg]

I was trying to make the point that mixing up spiritual matters with the government doesn't purify the government, it corrupts the spiritual matters. There's going to be enough corruption in churches and spiritual communities without the involvement of government. It seems like a better approach might be to hold other christians accountable, and let the law be based primarily on utilitarian grounds, and try not to intermingle spiritual concepts with the government, as long as the government will enforce contracts.

Tricky proposition. Here is the issue. Man is corrupt. People want to give the gov all this power but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our true freedoms come from a Higher Power as our founding documents say we are endowed by our Creator unalienable rights - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These do no come from government or man but from God. God has ordained gov as the institution to rule but His laws are to be the guiding moral law to rule by. Read the OT and you'll see many of our just original laws come from God.

As we abandon these moral laws you get lawlessness which is what you see all over our culture today. Law of the harvest - reap what you sow, reap more than you sow, reap later than you sow. It started 60-100 years ago in US and now we are reaping the results.

[R2Dawg]

The government recognizing same sex legal marriage didn't cheapen marriage. We had already accomplished that, with the support of a lot (a majority?) of Christians by allowing no fault divorces. The only place that sort of provides legal force to the spiritual concept of marriage is Mississippi, which has a divorce by consent but not at will divorce, or at least not at will divorce without the sham of establishing domicile in another state first.

I didn't say that was the only thing but gay marriage is another level of lower standards. I agree easy divorce also has cheapened marriage but even more importantly it may be the single biggest reason for culture and society breakdown. 50% of children come from single parent homes, part of the reason you see much of the lawlessness and disrespect today.