bukka
Well-Known Member
This posting still stands:
Since I've been flooded with postings meant to annoy me and to make answering difficult, I will wait to see if marks and Rennik can answer the following:
I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens of the BLM, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies to violate laws. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.
So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you by people complaining that you are criminals or sympathetic to criminals? This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.
Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.
I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.
I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.
Again I ask, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.
Since I've been flooded with postings meant to annoy me and to make answering difficult, I will wait to see if marks and Rennik can answer the following:
I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens of the BLM, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies to violate laws. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.
So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you by people complaining that you are criminals or sympathetic to criminals? This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.
Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.
I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.
I THINK THE POSTERS ARE NOT ANSWERING ME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ANSWER ME. THE LOGIC IS IRREFUTABLE AND SO THEY SEEK TO HARASS AND ANNOY ME AND AVOID ANY TYPE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION.
Again I ask, why not consider the Golden Rule for a change? This is the moral basis for the right of assembly specifically, and for the Bill of Rights, generally. Let us follow Christ and love others as we wish ourselves to be loved. The Golden Rule establishes equity in law.
Last edited:
