America is a Christian Nation - Page 23
Page 23 of 156 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373123 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 1554

Thread: America is a Christian Nation

  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Just FYI, Title of this thread: America "is" a Christian nation (quotes mine).

    You sir, are welcome to start a new thread about the nation's Christian history or subjects related to the founding of this nation as far as Christianity is concerned. Otherwise, your attempt to hijack the thread will be summarily ignored.

    Factually speaking (since you seem to like using the term "fact") American is NOT a Christian nation.
    Hey, Alaska, you feel free to opine as you please, as far as I'm concerned. No need to start a new thread as you're not hijacking a thing. If Half-Cocked ignores you, why, just consider it a blessing from the Lord in this great Christian nation of ours.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Hey, Alaska, you feel free to opine as you please, as far as I'm concerned. No need to start a new thread as you're not hijacking a thing. If Half-Cocked ignores you, why, just consider it a blessing from the Lord in this great Christian nation of ours.
    Looks like the argument has already been lost by the side that no longer wishes to talk facts, but has instead turned his attention to attacking me personally instead. Not a big deal, that is the usual end of these exchanges when they can no longer dispute the facts, then they attack the messenger. I quite well understand that I am able to post on this topic as much as I wish and I don't remember seeing anywhere in the rules that I needed Cocked and Locks permission.

    I have found that over the years, the degree which you can even discuss this type of subject is less and less. We have had a pretty good go at it so far and I have enjoyed meeting many fellow believers here at USA carry. I came here to learn about differenct ccw issues and have been pleasantly surprised by the number of fellow believers.

    Jesus is our rock.

    God bless,

  4. #223
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Hey Alaska, JerkJerk Flash is giving you some good advice!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Hey Alaska, JerkJerk Flash is giving you some good advice!
    Looks like the ad hominem attacks is against all Christians. Let us know when you have some facts to discuss.

  6. #225
    JJ remember to use the ignore button.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    JJ remember to use the ignore button.
    Yessir!
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  8. #227
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Funny how they get there butts handed to them and declare victory. Par for the course, I suppose.

  9. #228
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    Thing is, that whole, "Bored now, ignoring you." thing is a two way street.

    In meat space, if you're in public and someone is trying to talk to you about... let's say the mattress sale going on inside the store you're standing in front of, you can tell them, "I'm sorry, but I sleep on a wooden shelf as a penance to Our Most Holy Lord, therefore, I do not desire to engage in commerce with you." You've informed the person desirous of your audience for their free speech rights that you do not want them to speak to you any longer.

    At that point, the mattress salesman has a choice, honor your wishes as a free person and cease his sales pitch to you, or ignore your wishes and attempt to ply his coercive trade in an attempt to prevail upon you and generate a sale anyway. The former is termed polite. The latter, rude.

    If the other part has chosen to be rude, YOU have a decision to make. A person being rude in public is just that, a rude member of the public. As much as you have a right to expect them to go away, you, yourself, can go away from them. In a place like a public thoroughfare (walkway), the onus is on you to flee the rude person.

    If, however, you are in a place of public accommodation, say, a public park, you have just as much right as they do to stay put. This is where a wise and talented jurist has to split the Solomonic baby and balance one person's right, to speak their mind, even for commercial speech, versus another person's right to not be that person's audience.

    In such a case, it's generally the right to be left alone in a public place that trumps the right of free speech. This has some ramifications in the formation of "free speech zones" whenever a public figure comes from far away to give a speech or during parades celebrating politicly controversal groups. Right or wrong, that's the situation.

    Now, if it's not in the public sphere, but in a private place, it can depend on the degree of "publicness" the place has taken on. For instance, if your house guest is trying to chat you up about their latest bout with oozing pustuals right after the cookout, you have every right under the sun to kick their disgusting ass to the curb and no court in the land is going to ever opine different.

    If the speech is a presentation in a privately owned convention hall that is rented out by the owners to members of the public, the owner's power to squelch speech they personally disagree with is greatly circumscribed.

    The operation of web fora falls somewhere in between. You can't post/participate unless you are a "member", but anyone and everyone can become a member. Still, it's the resources of others, the web masters, moderators, and hosting companies that you are using to spew your diatribes or to publish your well written polemics. In the end, the rules they choose to enforce are law within the particular venue.

    If they choose to lock a thread and prevent any further continuance of the particular line of conversation, they have that power and that right. If they choose to step in and say side A's participants are right and side B's participants are wrong, they have that power and that right.

    The thing that I'm getting at is all of these questions stem from a singular, original act... of rudeness.

    State your case.

    If someone chooses to engage you in conversation, converse with them.

    If your idea of conversation is not a give and take of positions, but a rote recapitulation of your original thesis, then you're not engaging in conversation, you're just being rude.

    As much as one person is free to ignore the other person, the other person is free to ignore the one person. This is as true on a collective level forum-wide as it is thread-wide as it is within sub-thread conversations. To break that and insist on continuing to recapitulate positions without further elaboration, is to disrespect all other members of the sub-thread, thread, and forum.

    I can only take so many assumptions of the hypothesis before I'm ready to go Scientific Method on someone's ass.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  10. Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    Thing is, that whole, "Bored now, ignoring you." thing is a two way street.

    In meat space, if you're in public and someone is trying to talk to you about... let's say the mattress sale going on inside the store you're standing in front of, you can tell them, "I'm sorry, but I sleep on a wooden shelf as a penance to Our Most Holy Lord, therefore, I do not desire to engage in commerce with you." You've informed the person desirous of your audience for their free speech rights that you do not want them to speak to you any longer.

    At that point, the mattress salesman has a choice, honor your wishes as a free person and cease his sales pitch to you, or ignore your wishes and attempt to ply his coercive trade in an attempt to prevail upon you and generate a sale anyway. The former is termed polite. The latter, rude.

    If the other part has chosen to be rude, YOU have a decision to make. A person being rude in public is just that, a rude member of the public. As much as you have a right to expect them to go away, you, yourself, can go away from them. In a place like a public thoroughfare (walkway), the onus is on you to flee the rude person.

    If, however, you are in a place of public accommodation, say, a public park, you have just as much right as they do to stay put. This is where a wise and talented jurist has to split the Solomonic baby and balance one person's right, to speak their mind, even for commercial speech, versus another person's right to not be that person's audience.

    In such a case, it's generally the right to be left alone in a public place that trumps the right of free speech. This has some ramifications in the formation of "free speech zones" whenever a public figure comes from far away to give a speech or during parades celebrating politicly controversal groups. Right or wrong, that's the situation.

    Now, if it's not in the public sphere, but in a private place, it can depend on the degree of "publicness" the place has taken on. For instance, if your house guest is trying to chat you up about their latest bout with oozing pustuals right after the cookout, you have every right under the sun to kick their disgusting ass to the curb and no court in the land is going to ever opine different.

    If the speech is a presentation in a privately owned convention hall that is rented out by the owners to members of the public, the owner's power to squelch speech they personally disagree with is greatly circumscribed.

    The operation of web fora falls somewhere in between. You can't post/participate unless you are a "member", but anyone and everyone can become a member. Still, it's the resources of others, the web masters, moderators, and hosting companies that you are using to spew your diatribes or to publish your well written polemics. In the end, the rules they choose to enforce are law within the particular venue.

    If they choose to lock a thread and prevent any further continuance of the particular line of conversation, they have that power and that right. If they choose to step in and say side A's participants are right and side B's participants are wrong, they have that power and that right.

    The thing that I'm getting at is all of these questions stem from a singular, original act... of rudeness.

    State your case.

    If someone chooses to engage you in conversation, converse with them.

    If your idea of conversation is not a give and take of positions, but a rote recapitulation of your original thesis, then you're not engaging in conversation, you're just being rude.

    As much as one person is free to ignore the other person, the other person is free to ignore the one person. This is as true on a collective level forum-wide as it is thread-wide as it is within sub-thread conversations. To break that and insist on continuing to recapitulate positions without further elaboration, is to disrespect all other members of the sub-thread, thread, and forum.

    I can only take so many assumptions of the hypothesis before I'm ready to go Scientific Method on someone's ass.
    Great, we are now rude by stating our case. The ad hominems continue. Wating for the lock out to come. I would just note that I have called no one unflattering names.

    If there are any interesting topics related to this I will keep my eye out. Otherwise, time to just sit back and watch.

    Cheers,

  11. #230
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    Stating your case is not rude. Rude is responding to a specific challenge to your case, not by addressing the challenges presented, but by REstating your case. Rude is replying to counterexamples which challenge your argument by assuming the hypothesis is true, which you are ostensibly trying to prove, not assume.

    I'm a big fan of web comics. There are some high quality sequential artists out there. This entire 24-page thread seems to be echoed in a very recent update to one of them...

    Shadowgirls - Interrogation Part Two
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

Similar Threads

  1. Judge Declares Prayer Unconstitutional - Here's What You Can Do
    By Conservative Wife & Mom in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 08:48 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 11:48 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast