-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
flag msg tools
Cross_ wrote:
Homosexuality==bestiality ? Right..
Neither did I claim that all homosexuals like the color red. I chose that example because it's a sexual behavior, but still (thankfully) jarring enough to get people to see the point that some behaviors just don't contribute much and are in some cases even detrimental. Among my friends, there are males and females. I love them all. The difference between them, to me, is that I'd only ever consider having sex with the females. To me, and a lot of other people supposedly, homosexual behavior is about sex -- regardless of claims to the contrary (the claims just aren't that convincing). So the point of the comparison was to question the benefit of any sexual behavior that doesn't promote families and by extension solid communities. It could have been masturbation or dolls or anything else.

Cross_ wrote:
Let's rephrase this into: what's so special about people having sex with the opposite gender? Preferred tax treatment- why? And before you answer consider infertility and menopause.
Primarily children. And higher quality individuals by a lot of measures.

Again, I tend to agree that government should not be dealing with marriage. Preferential tax-treatment doesn't seem right to me because in the general case, taxes should not be used for social engineering. But I DO think the society should recognize the value of traditional families and reward it. Government should NOT interfere with that.

Cross_ wrote:
Weird- how can all these prisons exist then I wonder?
Because the person DID deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. Rules are not made to be broken. Without the specter of punishment, rules and laws are largely meaningless and a society would cease to exist if those who seek to undermine or destroy that society were not deterred from lawlessness or removed (incarcerated) when guilty. I'll go on to say that I think retribution ('making things right') is a much more just way to deal with lawbreakers than incarceration.

Cross_ wrote:
Exactly. Just like any society requesting equal protection for cancer cells would not be rational. Good luck trying to explain why an embryo is more of a person than cancer cells.
I've never heard of a cancer cell growing into a person. People have the right to defend their lives. Cancer cells kill people, therefore people attacked by them have the right to defend themselves against them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
VETRHUS of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
An ash I know, Yggdrasil its name. With water white is the great tree wet; thence come the dews that fall in the dales. Green by Urth's well does it ever grow.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
disclamer wrote:
diehard4life wrote:
Look around you. Are 75% of the people you know devout Christians?

In fact at any church there may not be a majority of people who actually live their daily lives as committed Christians. Churchgoers aren't Christians.

Sitting in a garage doesn't make me a car.

Political people who espouse Christianity aren't necessarily Christians. Athletes who thank God aren't necessarily Christians.


haha, I knew you'd get around to it eventually. 75% say they're Christians, but they're not good enough Christians for you, so they don't count.


No. Read more carefully. I made no statement about the quality of their faith.

I was speaking as a pragmatist and a student of sociology. If you consider the symbol offensive--isn't it because you associate it with a specific stereotype of Christianity?

Be honest with yourself. I made no judegement of the faith of these people. But, the flak about the Christian right, and the evangelical wing of Christianity ought to be directed toward the minority that it is.

In fact, the majority of the Christian world is quickly becoming the orthodox Catholic, mostly because of birth-rates and the familial devotion of the Latino members of the Roman wing of Christianity.

But, I would guess that anger would not be directed at that group. I also levy that the frustration would not be felt toward the majority of the mainstream denominations. Most of the parishoners of those denominations are promoters of social justice, active in the community, and live their faith moreso by actions than by words.

Be clear on who you are directing your statements toward. And, understand that the Christian community does not match the assumptions that most people make.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
VETRHUS of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
An ash I know, Yggdrasil its name. With water white is the great tree wet; thence come the dews that fall in the dales. Green by Urth's well does it ever grow.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ManlyWan wrote:
diehard4life wrote:
Those numbers are not reflective of reality. C'mon, it doesn't take a logic major to know that 75% of that 75% are adherents only is the most loose of terms.


You're trying really hard to make your point by sub-categorizing without revising the claim. Bad sociology major. No biscuit.

The claim is "This is a predominantly Christian nation."

The claim is not "This is a predominantly devout Christian nation."
The claim is not "This is a predominantly Christian nation who will put a fish symbol on their car."
The claim is not "This is a predominantly committed Christian nation."
The claim is not "This is a predominantly evangelical Christian nation."

If we back up for a second, let's ask "what is a Christian?" which seems to be where you're trying really hard to wiggle. According to my source, it is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" Empahsis mine.

Me thinks you want to define it as: "one who exhibits belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." If you're going to do that, be intellectually honest with yourself that you're just making stuff up.


But those aren't the people who are the target of scrutiny here, are they? My basis for the statement was logic.

Isn't it important to know who the subject of this discussion actually is? Without knowing which group we are talking about, there can be no legitimate dialogue.

Is it truthful or honest to lump all of Christianity into one pool? Isn't it akin to making a broad racial generalization.

It is prejudice and bigotry.

So, to prevent bigotry. I thought it might be helpful to narrow the field of Christians who are being discussed.

Especially, since the author of this thread named them. "Fundamentalist" Christians. That is not 75% of our nation.

I have worshiped in nearly every type of Christian tradition here in the states (and a few overseas). I've lived in a metro area working with Ecumenical ministries for ten years. That, coupled with my travels and education, might make me a legitimate voice in this discussion.

However, surely, any person's experiences with Christians would certainly invalidate my thoughts. Believe as thou wilst...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Shepherd
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Be on your guard. There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rgmnetid wrote:
I've never heard of a cancer cell growing into a person.


You must not have followed the career of Terrel Owens...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lukas Litzsinger
United States
Falcon Heights
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
captkayoss wrote:
Octavian wrote:
ManlyWan wrote:
stormseeker75 wrote:
Jeez, between a fish and a soldier geek, the BGG world is really coming to an end today. The apocalypse is nigh.


Don't forget about the nipples.


And don't even get me started on the drama in the werewolf forums.

-MMM


There's drama in the werewolf fromums??? Could you provide a link, pretty please???


It kind of started with the 'invasion' of players from other sites. It took a little adjusting to get used to the different play styles of our neighbors, but seemed to work out fine. And then came ScottHoward.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/168256/page/1

And of course the many "Ban Whatever" threads that followed.

You could also read his first game:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/165858

It's kind of long, so maybe you should jump to the end and read the post-game discussion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Tuttle
United States
Logan
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cross_ wrote:
diehard4life wrote:
Nobody has the right to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property.
Weird- how can all these prisons exist then I wonder?


Dude, take a step back and think about what you are saying here.

Prisons are there because, for the most part, the people in them attempted and in lots of cases, succeeded in depriving another person of their life, liberty, or property.

I personally don't give a crap what folks do in the privacy of their own homes, but tend to admire those that make a clear statement about where they stand, whether it's with an Ichthys, or a Darwin fish, don't be afraid to let others know where you stand, just don't be a jackass about it, and be ready for some backlash if you try to force feed views that you hold to be true to someone who thinks you are a loon.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
VETRHUS of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
An ash I know, Yggdrasil its name. With water white is the great tree wet; thence come the dews that fall in the dales. Green by Urth's well does it ever grow.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, I agree with your conerns, Brian. I said that without qualifying what I meant by Christian. I meant the sort of Christian which would be termed "fundamentalist."

I thought that was evident from the context. But, I apologize. I am a little slow sometimes...

That didn't sound as I meant it to be. Still, we know that those numbers do not reflect the practicing Christians.

We have a lot of them in Episcopalism: our Rector jokes about the Christmas and Easter Christians... or the people who are only in church when "hatched, matched, and dispatched."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Grubert
United States
San Diego
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rgmnetid wrote:
Cross_ wrote:
Let's rephrase this into: what's so special about people having sex with the opposite gender? Preferred tax treatment- why? And before you answer consider infertility and menopause.
Primarily children. And higher quality individuals by a lot of measures.
That's specifically why I gave these two examples. Neither infertile nor old couples will produce offspring. So along with the request to keep homosexual marriages illegal should come the request to make marriages of old and infertile people (and those who don't want to have kids) illegal. But that's not happening- it's limited to the irrational fear of homosexual marriages. Furthermore with adoption for homosexual couples the "no children" explanation would be invalid as well. What are your sources for "higher quality of life" ?

Quote:
But I DO think the society should recognize the value of traditional families and reward it. Government should NOT interfere with that.
Society does no matter what the laws say. There will always be people (like me and you) who instinctively go "yuck" upon the thought of homosexual couples so there is your automatic societal preferential treatment. However, government has no business making laws based on emotional responses.

Quote:
Because the person DID deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property.
In other words deprivation of life, liberty & property is okay if done in response to deprivation of life, liberty & property? Not one, but all three are present in the case of a pregnant woman (much hugher risk of death, not enjoying life as you wish, and increased costs during and after pregnancy) and yet here you would deny this principle ?

Quote:
I've never heard of a cancer cell growing into a person. People have the right to defend their lives. Cancer cells kill people, therefore people attacked by them have the right to defend themselves against them.
As above: having a child puts your life at risk are you allowed to defend yourself against that? In your first sentence you are defending the _potential_ of a cell cluster to turn into a person, not an actual person. Fortunately law does usually not concern itself with potentials, if someone breaks my fingers I can't sue him because I could have potentially become a concert pianist.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Grubert
United States
San Diego
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
tuttleboy wrote:
Dude, take a step back and think about what you are saying here.
I am saying that clearly currently people (executive branch) do have the right to deprive others of life, liberty, and property. What's so hard to understand about this?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Likens
United States
Cornelius
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
This space for rent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tuttleboy wrote:
Cross_ wrote:
diehard4life wrote:
Nobody has the right to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property.
Weird- how can all these prisons exist then I wonder?


Dude, take a step back and think about what you are saying here.

Prisons are there because, for the most part, the people in them attempted and in lots of cases, succeeded in depriving another person of their life, liberty, or property.

And so then you respond by doing the same to them.

It's a double standard.

It's not okay to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property... but if we decide you've done that to someone else, then it's okay to do it to you.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Myers
United States
Madison
WI
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
diehard4life wrote:
disclamer wrote:
diehard4life wrote:
Look around you. Are 75% of the people you know devout Christians?

In fact at any church there may not be a majority of people who actually live their daily lives as committed Christians. Churchgoers aren't Christians.

Sitting in a garage doesn't make me a car.

Political people who espouse Christianity aren't necessarily Christians. Athletes who thank God aren't necessarily Christians.


haha, I knew you'd get around to it eventually. 75% say they're Christians, but they're not good enough Christians for you, so they don't count.


No. Read more carefully. I made no statement about the quality of their faith.


Sure you did. You asked for devout Christians rather than just plain Christians and made statements along the lines of "someone who says he's a Christian but doesn't lead a particular lifestyle isn't really a Christian."

But then, I didn't mention their faith in my reply - only your assessment of their less-than-Christian (in your assessment) behavior.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Likens
United States
Cornelius
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
This space for rent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lajos wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I'm just saying... a guy wearing an understated cross around his neck seems a whole lot less likely to cause trouble than a guy with the Anarchy symbol tattooed on his forehead.

I have one (an Anarchy symbol) on my right arm. Does that make me a trouble maker?

I think his problem is with tattoos. Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe he'd be fine changing his example to a person with a cross tattooed on his forehead versus a person with an anarchy symbol tattooed on his forehead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Nothing pisses off a secular progressive more than a Christian being good.

Nothing? DW, you have to believe me when I say that getting kicked in the nuts pisses me off far more than a Christian not being a hypocrite (ie. being good).

Quote:
the lowlifes and criminals who were likely to sport Darwin Fish or Pastafarian jewelry vastly outnumbered those who I knew to be Christians.

Vastly? I doubt if there are nearly enough people who wear those particular symbols to vastly outnumber anybody. Hell, I've never seen anybody who wears them.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
It's not okay to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property


That's why we have laws against murder. Since abortion is not being prosecuted under those laws it is, by definition, not murder.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Grubert
United States
San Diego
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
pwn3d wrote:
From my understanding, any Christian including Cathloics and Mormons could associate themselves with those symbols.
Well the symbol itself is just an ancient image/wordplay on Jesus Christ, so with regards to this any Christian could associate themselves with it.
However, having spent 20 years in Europe I have never seen the symbol outside of a church. Whereas in the US I see it on every 10th car. It looks more like a showing off thing and that would be more typical of evangelicals and born-agains who have somewhat of an "in your face" attitude.
Coming back to the original post, it's not a symbol exclusively for fundamentalists even though they love it. Seeing this on a store page makes me think it means "Christians preferred" and thus I take my business elsewhere. The overall effect for the store owner is that Christians will be attracted and non-Christians will either ignore it or be repulsed. With a majority in the US being Christian there is much to win (money wise) and not much to lose (credibility, Matthew 6:5 and all that).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc B.
United States
Melbourne
Florida
flag msg tools
Fun or Bust!
badge
Owns one of the good FLGSs :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cross_ wrote:
It looks more like a showing off thing and that would be more typical of evangelicals and born-agains who have somewhat of an "in your face" attitude.


look again. typical huh?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Comfort
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Man, I love Time Well Spent.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
flag msg tools
Cross_ wrote:
That's specifically why I gave these two examples. Neither infertile nor old couples will produce offspring. So along with the request to keep homosexual marriages illegal should come the request to make marriages of old and infertile people (and those who don't want to have kids) illegal.
OK, you make a good point. And my response is to say 'get government out of the marriage business.' I think there are two main reasons why homosexuals want 'legal marriages': one is to legitimize/normalize their behavior via government 'sanction', another is tax breaks. If government got out of administering marriages, neither of these incentives for agitation would exist. The problem seems to be that certain contractual expectations arise in a marriage, and when marriages end, those expectations need to be arbitrated. This is where government might rightly be involved. And this is a basis for at least maintaining a public record of who claims to be married to whom. But right now, that's as far as I'm comfortable with government being involved.

Cross_ wrote:
... it's limited to the irrational fear of homosexual marriages.
I take exception to the phobia characterization. I think people have a perfectly reasonable claim on the right of association and the healthy constitution of their society.

Cross_ wrote:
Furthermore with adoption for homosexual couples the "no children" explanation would be invalid as well.
It's not invalid. They can't *produce* children. They can help raise children, but anyone can raise children. Many mothers raise children alone and I see that as a handicap for those children. I similarly view having two moms or two dads as simply a variation on the single-parent situation and still a handicap.

Cross_ wrote:
What are your sources for "higher quality of life" ?
I said 'higher quality individuals.' And while there are studies relating to things like mental stability, financial stability, crime rates, healthy romances, etc., I admit to not being immediately able to point to them.

Cross_ wrote:
However, government has no business making laws based on emotional responses.
I agree.

Cross_ wrote:
In other words deprivation of life, liberty & property is okay if done in response to deprivation of life, liberty & property?
In a word, yes. The principle is that you can enjoy YOUR life, liberty, and property up to the limits of someone ELSE's life, liberty, or property. When you cross the line, you should make restitution (not retribution, as I said before - oops) or be removed from society. If it were not so, anarchy would prevail, and the society would cease to exist (disintegrate by dispersion, I suppose). Citizens must either be deterred from offense and/or removed from society if found guilty.

Cross_ wrote:
Not one, but all three are present in the case of a pregnant woman (much hugher risk of death, not enjoying life as you wish, and increased costs during and after pregnancy) and yet here you would deny this principle ?
In the case of abortion, the fundamental problem I see is lack of personal accountability. It's no secret where babies come from. Take responsibility for yourself and most of the other issues become moot. I am, like polls have shown most Americans to be, not in favor of strictly outlawing all abortions. Special consideration should be made for the life/health of the mother and rape or incest. Financial hardship doesn't cut it -- we don't allow people to 'uninvest' in stocks that tank or reclaim gambling losses, either. I remain convinced that the abortion advocates are simply wanting to escape responsibility.

Cross_ wrote:
Fortunately law does usually not concern itself with potentials, if someone breaks my fingers I can't sue him because I could have potentially become a concert pianist.
True, we agree that punishing potential is not generally a good way to go. But there are some actions we DO consider to have such dangerous implications that we punish them. For example, the results of a murder conspiracy are so egregiously bad, that the law intervenes based almost entirely on the potential outcome.

But babies are different. The law intervenes not because of egregious badness, but because of the virtual certainty of the outcome. It's not really potential -- it WILL happen. When a human sperm and egg join in the womb, in virtually every case, it will produce 'a cluster of cells' identifiable by inspection as a person. To know with virtual certainty that a person is involved, how can we justify taking that person's life away?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
flag msg tools
Lajos wrote:
If by this statement you mean that heterosexuals are 'higher quality individuals' than homosexuals, I despise you. If that's how I should interpret the statement, you - as an individual - are worth less to me (or should I say 'of lower quality') than a flee on my cat's back.
You interpreted incorrectly, as far as I can tell. And YOU said 'worth', not me. Obviously, all people have worth. Not all behaviors have worth, though. But even people who behave in worthless ways are still worth convincing of their errors. That's why Spider-Man never kills the villains, right?

There have been studies done that try to attach certain conditions relating to individuals (like their home life) with the quality of those individuals as measured in various dimensions like (as I posted elsewhere) mental stability, emotional stability, social stability, etc.. What is to be inferred by these studies? Is mental stability a good quality or a bad quality? What is your understanding of quality?

I should also note that I was not trying to make a distinction between the quality of heterosexuals and homosexuals. I was trying to make a distinction between children raised in a traditional family with mother and father present and children raised in any other arrangement.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
flag msg tools
Artaxerxes wrote:
DW, you have to believe me when I say that getting kicked in the nuts pisses me off far more than a Christian not being a hypocrite (ie. being good).
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a hypocrite is.

A hypocrite is someone who says '*You* should do X' and then fails to do X himself. A hypocrite is NOT someone who says, '*I* should do X' and then fails to do X.

I understand that Christians think everybody should be Christians, but it isn't the same thing at all. It's more akin to saying 'I think you should be *trying* this' than to saying 'I think you should be *succeeding* at this.' The whole deal with Christianity is that nobody can do it perfectly. Hence the need for an eternal atonement by someone who could.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Myers
United States
Madison
WI
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rgmnetid wrote:
In the case of abortion, the fundamental problem I see is lack of personal accountability. It's no secret where babies come from. Take responsibility for yourself and most of the other issues become moot.


Good idea. We should abolish all protections for those individuals who engage in behavior with some chance of risk involved. Ever smoked a cigarette or breathed second hand smoke? Lung cancer is a slow, agonizing death, but it ain't no secret what caused it. Injured in an accident? Suck it up gimpy, you knew the risks when you got behind the wheel. Died and reincarnated as a worm? Oops, you guessed wrong Jesus-boy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Lajos wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I'm just saying... a guy wearing an understated cross around his neck seems a whole lot less likely to cause trouble than a guy with the Anarchy symbol tattooed on his forehead.

I have one (an Anarchy symbol) on my right arm. Does that make me a trouble maker?


Hardly. I'm guessing you were a big time trouble maker well before getting the tat Lajos. Looking on the bright side though, it's an identifying mark, usable by Interpol if they ever decide to track you down for dealing contraband microbadges across international borders.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But babies are different. The law intervenes not because of egregious badness, but because of the virtual certainty of the outcome. It's not really potential -- it WILL happen. When a human sperm and egg join in the womb, in virtually every case, it will produce 'a cluster of cells' identifiable by inspection as a person. To know with virtual certainty that a person is involved, how can we justify taking that person's life away?


The law intervenes? We've had over 40 million legal abortions in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade. In the minority of cases in which the law does intervene it intervenes not because the embryo/fetus is a person. It intervenes because abortion is "naughty" and the government wants to be our nanny. It does not now, and never will in the future, intervene because it is murder. That's because virtually everyone who claims to believe that abortion is murder isn't willing to treat it as murder, and punish the abortionist accordingly. People who don't have the courage of their convictions should just shut up and stop meddling in other peoples business.

Quote:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a hypocrite is.

A hypocrite is someone who says '*You* should do X' and then fails to do X himself. A hypocrite is NOT someone who says, '*I* should do X' and then fails to do X.

Good luck in your quest to rewrite every dictionary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Frankly Randy... and I'm speaking as a non-Christian here... the lowlifes and criminals who were likely to sport Darwin Fish or Pastafarian jewelry vastly outnumbered those who I knew to be Christians.

That goes against every statistic (including official US Prison stats) which state that overwhelmingly, prisoners state that they are of a particular religion. While roughly 20% of the US population (and 89% of a couple of European countries) identify themselves as secular/agnostic/athiest (and, peculiarly, Unitarian is often mixed into that group), less than 1% of prisoners state no religion.

Not that I'm saying that all Christians are criminals (obviously a silly statement), but I don't buy the "pastafarians and Darwinists are obviously criminals" line of thinking.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
flag msg tools
Artaxerxes wrote:
The law intervenes?
D'oh! Um...'should'?


Artaxerxes wrote:
Good luck in your quest to rewrite every dictionary.
Clearly, I should have given this more thought.

But still, a Christian is not a hypocrite simply because he can't live up to his ideals. Setting high goals and failing to reach them does not make one a hypocrite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [18] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.