No Room At The Inn?

[Darth Executor]

Revolution is not a violation if it succeeds? Where do you get that from the text?

Because a winner is by definition the ruling authority. If you are the weaker faction then you are the one in rebellion against the ruling power, even if you previously held nominal control.

[Darth Executor]

Because that is who the people elected.

There is nothing inherently good in electing your leaders.

Beats an inbred Royal family that goes around chopping heads off people at their slightest whim.

That never actually happened and it certainly doesn't beat them. Taking credit for their replacement with abortion loving liberals is the same as taking credit for the latter's far more atrocious endless stream of mass murder.

[KingsGambit]

There is nothing inherently good in electing your leaders.



That never actually happened and it certainly doesn't beat them. Taking credit for their replacement with abortion loving liberals is the same as taking credit for the latter's far more atrocious endless stream of mass murder.

How do you know they wouldn't have supported abortion today? The abortion culture we have today didn't exist to that extent then so a true comparison is impossible. Many elites have supported eugenics, after all... it wouldn't shock me.

[lilpixieofterror]

I certainly don't see a problem; you and others are the ones obsessed that I don't demonstrate what you want me to. When challenged, you seem unwilling or unable to elucidate what problem that poses.

It has already been pointed out to you pap. Was Jesus ALWAYS engaged in combat? You seem to really revel in the combative nature of the forum, without getting involved anywhere else. Why?

Perhaps, but my claim was that they would feel comparatively less angst, not zero angst. Terrible red herring.

Of course it is a 'red herring' because you're incapable of admitting to error. Go ahead, go find some Europeans and call their children slaves. Tell us how the react. I'd like to hear it.

Nonsense. It's okay for you to criticise my English, but not fine for me to attack yours?

I'm criticizing your choice of words you dunce, not your English. Learn the difference.

[Paprika]

Looking at the American Revolution, it led not only to the greatest nation on earth,

Every empire is greatest in its heyday.

who has defended freedom around the globe

but also to the fall of the British Royalty controlling the UK and instead eventually just becoming a figurehead and democracy ruling through Parliament.

Democracy is not an intrinsic or unalloyed good.

[Paprika]

It has already been pointed out to you pap. Was Jesus ALWAYS engaged in combat? You seem to really revel in the combative nature of the forum, without getting involved anywhere else. Why?

I do? That's news.

Again, what's the problem that occurs when I don't meet your standards?

Of course it is a 'red herring' because you're incapable of admitting to error. Go ahead, go find some Europeans and call their children slaves. Tell us how the react. I'd like to hear it.

Because a negative reaction is definite proof of error.

I'm criticizing your choice of words you dunce, not your English. Learn the difference.

False, especially since we're conversing in English, dumbass:

Something you three continue to miss. Words do have both a definition and a connotation, this is basic stuff that you learn you English and public speaking classes. Did you not take those courses, in college pap? I did and I specifically remember that connotation was a very important thing to considering when choosing your words.

[Darth Executor]

How do you know they wouldn't have supported abortion today? The abortion culture we have today didn't exist to that extent then so a true comparison is impossible.

I don't. But the abortion revolution was brought about by the same type of people using the same type of arguments based on the same type of principles as the anti-monarchists. So, you know...

Many elites have supported eugenics, after all... it wouldn't shock me.

There will always be elites as a byproduct of the inequality of human individuals. The type of elites, OTOh...

[lilpixieofterror]

I do? That's news.

Again, what's the problem that occurs when I don't meet your standards?

Irony at its finest, since you seem to love correcting others. Guess it only matters when you do it, eh?

Because a negative reaction is definite proof of error.

More piles of burning straw? Sorry idiot, but you're the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves. It appears you know they would, but really don't care because you're incapable of admitting to any sort of error, at all. Was I right all the long and you're just arguing because you like to argue and can't admit to any sort of error, at all?

False, especially since we're conversing in English, dumbass:

And that refutes what I said because (this is where you produce an argument instead of dodging because you're incapable of admitting to error).

[Paprika]

I do? That's news.

Again, what's the problem that occurs when I don't meet your standards?

Irony at its finest, since you seem to love correcting others. Guess it only matters when you do it, eh?

No, dumbass, there's nothing inherently wrong with correcting others. The issue with you is that you can't seem to demonstrate the problem you claim I have.

More piles of burning straw? Sorry idiot, but you're the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves.

I have made no such claim

False, especially since we're conversing in English, dumbass:

And that refutes what I said because (this is where you produce an argument instead of dodging because you're incapable of admitting to error).

It refutes this:

I'm criticizing your choice of words you dunce, not your English.

Look, you've always been mediocre, but this is just pathetic. Up your game or stop embarrassing yourself.

[Paprika]

I never actually outright supported illegal immigration Having said that, I suspect illegal immigration falls under one of the less weighty matters of the law, but that's of course not my call to make. In any event, I restrict my advocacy (well, my support, I'm not involved in any advocacy) to actually changing the laws in support of open borders.

Let's clarify two things: would you agree that illegal immigration is rebellion against the powers set up by God and hence against God; and that those who support the enforcement of the laws (against illegal immigration to be enforced) are therefore in the right?

[lilpixieofterror]

No, dumbass, there's nothing inherently wrong with correcting others. The issue with you is that you can't seem to demonstrate the problem you claim I have.

You're demonstrating it right now, with your inability to get along with anybody. Can you point to just three cases of where you actually made the effort to get along with others? In the SB, you seem to enjoy starting fights, on thread after thread; you enjoy starting fights, and I've seen`other cases of you again starting fights. The problem is your history speaks for itself pap.

I have made no such claim

So you didn't say:

"Fixed. I'm pretty sure Europeans aren't as angsty as you Yanks about slavery."

So would a European enjoy you calling their children slaves? Yes or no pap or are you going to call me a bunch of names, to avoid admitting you're wrong again.

It refutes this:

Look, you've always been mediocre, but this is just pathetic. Up your game or stop embarrassing yourself.

No it doesn't because you're incapable of reading because you're trying to find fault vs trying to understand what I actually said, for context, here is what I said:

"See, good writing writes to the audience and not to another audience."

You dishonestly cut up my post and only posted part of my paragraph because you wanted to find error and didn't want to search for what I actually said (thus your rant about grammar when I said not a damn thing about spelling or grammar). Oops, again, keep showing how stupid you are pap and how you'll keep shoveling words down my throat because you're incapable of admitting to error. Keep digging pap, you'll find you're way to the states in no time.

[Paprika]

Can you point to just three cases

There's no reason why I should.

The problem is your history speaks for itself pap.

As long as you're not willing to demonstrate it, there's no reason to take your assertion seriously.

So you didn't say:

"Fixed. I'm pretty sure Europeans aren't as angsty as you Yanks about slavery."

So would a European enjoy you calling their children slaves? Yes or no pap or are you going to call me a bunch of names, to avoid admitting you're wrong again.

Idiot. I said that Europeans would be less angsty; you claimed that I'm "the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves."

I'm really not sure at this point if you're just stupid or dishonest.

No it doesn't because you're incapable of reading because you're trying to find fault vs trying to understand what I actually said, for context, here is what I said:

"See, good writing writes to the audience and not to another audience."

You dishonestly cut up my post and only posted part of my paragraph because you wanted to find error and didn't want to search for what I actually said (thus your rant about grammar when I said not a damn thing about spelling or grammar).[/QUOTE]


1) You criticise my English, then cry "red herring" and "rant" when I return the favour.
2) I quote only the parts relevant to my response. It has nothing to do with dishonesty. Not all of your ramblings are worth answering; deal with it.

[lilpixieofterror]

There's no reason why I should.

Because such evidence does not exist, eh?

As long as you're not willing to demonstrate it, there's no reason to take your assertion seriously.

Sorry pap, you're behavior is quite demonstrated all over tWeb. You pick fights with people all the time all over the forum. If denial works for you though go ahead... deny to make yourself feel better, but the evidence speaks for itself. Nobody seems to be jumping to your defense, nobody seems to get along with you, you start fights in the SB and on the forum all the time, and you're unable to bring up even one piece of evidence that demonstrates otherwise. I don't expect you though to take my claim seriously because you are incapable of admitting to error.

Idiot. I said that Europeans would be less angsty; you claimed that I'm "the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves."

I'm really not sure at this point if you're just stupid or dishonest.

A bald assertion, you have failed to demonstrate. Hey, if you want me to back up anything and everything I say

1) You criticise my English, then cry "red herring" and "rant" when I return the favour.

100% demonstrated as false as I demonstrate below.

2) I quote only the parts relevant to my response. It has nothing to do with dishonesty. Not all of your ramblings are worth answering; deal with it.

Translatin: "WAAA! You proved me wrong in my attempts to dishonestly cut up your post where you were correcting my word usage, not my English, but I am incapable of admitting to error, so I'm just going to call you a bunch of names to deflect my failing arguments!"

And thus you've been reduced to a ranting mess because cutting up my post and dishonestly representing what I said is all you got left. My full words:

I've read this thread twice, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything and they do have points on the 'slave' thing too. See, good writing writes to the audience and not to another audience. The Bible was not written to a 21st century western audience, so it isn't going to have the same connotations of 'slavery' that a 21st century western audience would have. In our past, the forum slavery took was one in which people were bought and sold as property and treated as such. That mental image is ingrained into our cultural psyche, so that would mean that you need to be aware of this when you write to a 21st century western audience. A better term, that the law would see our children in, as being dependent or attached to their parents. I do think Epo was right that breaking up families is more traumatic than deporting him (so he was right there), but his wording was not the best. Something you three continue to miss. Words do have both a definition and a connotation, this is basic stuff that you learn you English and public speaking classes. Did you not take those courses, in college pap? I did and I specifically remember that connotation was a very important thing to considering when choosing your words.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...007#post136007

My post had not one thing to do with correcting your English, you dishonest hack, it had to do with correcting your word usage. Something your tiny mind seems incapable of figuring out. Perhaps you should try actually reading what people say, who dare disagree with you, instead of glancing though their post and not bothering to comprehend what they say.

[Paprika]

Because such evidence does not exist, eh?

Sorry pap, you're behavior is quite demonstrated all over tWeb. You pick fights with people all the time all over the forum. If denial works for you though go ahead... deny to make yourself feel better, but the evidence speaks for itself.

A convenient way of dodging the burden of proof.

Nobody seems to be jumping to your defense, nobody seems to get along with you, you start fights in the SB and on the forum all the time, and you're unable to bring up even one piece of evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

Thanks for the concern, but I can take care of myself. The lack of defense by other people doesn't imply that there's a problem, my dear lilpix. And again, my choice not to swat flies doesn't imply I am unable to do so.

I don't expect you though to take my claim seriously because you are incapable of admitting to error.

A bald assertion, you have failed to demonstrate.

Weren't you the one who made the false claim that I'm "the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves"? Who's the one who isn't admitting the error here, and quickly backpedalling?

100% demonstrated as false as I demonstrate below.

This will be good.

My post had not one thing to do with correcting your English, you dishonest hack, it had to do with correcting your word usage.

Somehow you think that correcting my word usage in the language English isn't correcting my English Are you quite well? Or perhaps you're just unable to admit error?

Perhaps you should try actually reading what people say, who dare disagree with you, instead of glancing though their post and not bothering to comprehend what they say.

The dumbass who falsely claimed that I'm "the one attempting to argue that Europeans would have no issue with you calling their children slaves" is advising me to read posts carefully. Wonders never cease.

[Cow Poke]

A convenient way of dodging the burden of proof.

Pappy,

You're a smart guy. You know you can't prove a negative.

You have TONS of "battle" emails all over Tweb. Darthy has already admitted he's here to fight. You would be wise to do likewise.

Just sayin

CP