Woman Wins Appeal for 'GAYSROK' License Plate (Utah)

AP ^ | 7-28-05 | Mark Thiessen

[DJ MacWoW]

It is entirely possible for something that is "natural" (such as brain cancer) to be bad,

You missed your point. Cancer is cells that grow abnormally and it's not natural.

Again you assert "design" without demonstrating it.

No. I stated it clearly. You just don't want to accept it and that's your problem not mine.

Homosexuality is "natural" because it occurs in biological life forms that are a part of the "natural" universe.

No. Propogation of the species depends on attraction of 2 OPPOSITE sexes. THAT is natural and normal.

[DBeers]

The "natural" argument doesn't really work well. For one, it tries to redefine "natural" to suit your whims, and for another it tries to carry with it the hidden implication that things that are "natural" are good and things that are "not natural" are bad, when in reality "natural" is no indicator of moral value whatsoever. It is entirely possible for something that is "natural" (such as brain cancer) to be bad, and there's no reason to believe that all things that are "unnatural" are inherently bad.

From a theologigcal perspective I suggest you are mixing up two entirely different concepts -that of nature and that of natural law -nature being that which is observed ocurring randomly or purposely in all of nature including all things animals etcetera... --natural law being that created by God wherin that which is specific to humanity one could describe as basic morality and conscience being hard wired and certain functions being specifically physically designed -humanity is created in God's image ...

The error you apparently espouse is for example embodied in the pro-homosexual penguin argument which is used by homosexual activists to support the argument that a man sexually pleasuring himself by the colon exploration of another man is a natural thing LOL... Yes and animals do all kinds of things that man does not -LOL, the argument you seem to favor is inherently flawed because you argue against what is ociurring naturally... To legitimately hold the position you espouse you must become but an observer and catalog everything you may agree or disagree with as natural... Without absolute truth morality becomes subjective and as such ambiguous at best...

[DJ MacWoW]

Thank you!

[chariotdriver]

Thank You for that.

If you go in and start reading his material. It is extremely intellectually dishonest and distorted, is full of hundreds and hundreds of vile profane obscene analogies and metaphors that are also false, but these are essentially the same handful of messages repeated over and over.

After going through a few hundred of his posts, I say he is anti-God, pro flag burning, the Constitution is just a rag to be burned, he worships evolution and cosmology, is pro anything homosexual or gay and so on.

How he is still here when others have been banned for much much less is beyond me. The only message I have ever had pulled is one describing accurately what he is about.

[AmericanInTokyo]

i guess we'll all just have to wait and see :-)

[Dimensio]

Cancer is cells that grow abnormally and it's not natural.

So you're saying that cancer cells somehow violate the laws of physics? Last time I checked, the process was "natural". It may not be pleasant, but it's simply the consequences of imperfect cell replication.

No. I stated it clearly.

No. You stated observations and declared "design" from them, but you didn't actually show that the "design" was anything more than an inference that you made.

No. Propogation of the species depends on attraction of 2 OPPOSITE sexes. THAT is natural and normal.

"Natural" is anything that occurs in nature. Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is "natural", but you'll fight do the death on that concept because you also don't want to get out of your false equivocation of "unnatural" with "bad".

You want to redefine "natural" to encompass far less than what it really covers, and then use your redefined term to "prove" that there is something wrong with homosexuality. So not only is your argument faulty because you're redefining your terms to suit your whims, but you're also making a false implication between "unnatural" and "immoral".

Unnatural does not necessarily mean immoral. Natural does not necessarily mean moral. I'm not trying to argue the moral status of homosexuality here, I'm simply pointing out that your attempt to label homosexuality as immoral is founded upon two faulty premises. You may be right, but that doesn't mean that your argument is logical. It is entirely possible to use bad arguments to advance a good cause.

[Dimensio]

pro flag burning

Hmm. I state that we shouldn't give flag-burners undeserved attention by throwing them in jail over something so petty and stupid (unless of course they're violating existing laws with their actions). Therefore I'm "pro flag-burning".

I guess this kind of intellectual dishonesty shouldn't be surprising from you.

Still waiting on that list you promised me.

[DJ MacWoW]

It may not be pleasant, but it's simply the consequences of imperfect cell replication.

In other words, they aren't growing the way they were DESIGNED to so it is not natural.

"Natural" is anything that occurs in nature.

No. It's not.

You stated observations and declared "design" from them

Their specific function shows design. They were MEANT for a specific purpose.

Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is "natural",

It's not natural as the bodies are not functioning as designed or to their original purpose. Your navel wasn't meant as a saltcellar, your ear isn't meant to hold objects, and it's not a good idea to put a bee in your mouth. These are all things you CAN do but they aren't normal. Homosexual activity is physically harmful as it injures organs. It's not a natural action. You can argue and hedge all you like. You're wrong.

That license plate trumpets a lifestyle that is harmful and not natural or normal. Political statements should not be on a state/government sponsored object. I suspect you have an agenda.

[Dimensio]

In other words, they aren't growing the way they were DESIGNED to so it is not natural.

Again, you assert "design" without providing justification for the assertion.

Of course, if I agree with you, the fact that the cells can (and frequently do) replicate imperfectly implies a shoddy designer. But that's another subject.

No. It's not.

I'm using the dictionary definition of the word that is "Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.".

This would mean anything produced by nature. Good or bad, it's natural.

Again, homosexuality being "natural" has no bearing on its moral (or immoral) status. It's simply an accurate description of it. My point is that declaring something "unnatural" not only doesn't tell you whether or not it's good or bad, but you also need to make sure that you're not using an arbitrary standard to declare something "unnatural" in the first place. Some would argue that using a toothbrush is "unnatural", but I'm not about to stop brushing my teeth. Some would argue that wallowing in manure is "natural" (and, technically, it is), but it's not something that I would want to do.

[DJ MacWoW]

Again, homosexuality being "natural" has no bearing on its moral (or immoral) status

Yes it does. It is an action that that part of the body was not meant for and all your hedging can't change that. I notice you don't want to debate using other parts of your body for uses they weren't meant to fulfill. You know like using your hand as a hammer which it was NOT meant to be.

This would mean anything produced by nature. Good or bad, it's natural.

And here we get to the crux of the arguement. Homosexuality is a choice. There is NO evidence otherwise. None. Any animal can and will copulate with any other animal in nature. If you want to be reduced to that level, be my guest. Man makes conscious choices, animals cannot.

if I agree with you, the fact that the cells can (and frequently do) replicate imperfectly implies a shoddy designer. But that's another subject.

It's not the fault of the designer but because of the choices of the designed. A fallen world causes all sorts of consequences. And you are right, that is another subject but they ARE intertwined.

[rintense]

You know a plate that said PRO LIFE would be denied.

[chariotdriver]

Here you make flag burning harmless and anyone against it insecure.
Why are you so insecure as to think that a flag-burning law is needed? Do you really think that flag-burners deserve the attention and publicity that they will inevitably receive should they start getting hauled off to prison for their immature antics?

Here you infer flag burning is harmless
Because unlike you, I'm not so insecure as to believe that our society will collapse if we ignore flag-burning attention-seekers rather than give them publicity that they don't deserve by hauling them off to jail simply because of what they do to their private property in a way that harms no one

We do need a law -- to protect the flag from vile, unclean, dispicable, anti-American, anti-military socialists and fascists.

Why? Is the flag in serious danger from them? Will the country collapse if we don't have an Amendment protecting the flag? If so, why hasn't the country collapsed yet?

Here you somehow tie in homosexual advocacy with anti flag burning and then infer anti-flag burning irrational.

I still don't see a rational justification for the flag-burning amendment. I can name a number of expressions that various people would find "offensive". Some homosexual advocates might become violently angry if you express opposition to same-sex marraige. Is your opposition now "fighting words" not protected under the First Amendment?

Flag burning is only vandalism to you.
Personally I consider it a case of public vandalism, not free speech. It's only public vandalism if it's done in public and causes damage to property not owned by the flag-burner. The proposed amendment would cover far more than that.

Here you convert the flag to idolatry and the flag is not a sacred symbol.
well, I think the flag is a sacred symbol of America and should be protected. Obviouslyj, you think possessions (private property) are more important.

Yes, I believe that personal liberty is more important than your preference for idolatary.

somehow you tie flag burning free speech all together with human sacrifice.
No, because it's been established that certain Constitutional protections do not grant the right to infringe upon the liberties of others. For example, you cannot claim that the First Amendment protects human sacrifice even though it protects religious beliefs and the "free excercise" thereof.

here you make flag burners legitimate
Indeed. Clearly flag-burners are making a valid and insightful message and as such we must stop them. After all, if their message were just stupid and vapid, the proper response would be to simply ignore them.

here somehow in response to perished soldiers flag draped coffins you make an analogy of pissing in the sink with dishes in it.
Does the sight of Flag Draped coffins give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Or do you just yell Allah ak bar Do you take the dishes out of the sink before you urinate in it?

Here you demean and mininmy the memory of our persihed soldiers with sick logic.

Flag-burning by an American does nothing but DISHONOR the memory of the millions who have died over the centuries to keep it flying.
Unless you're trying to claim that a US citizen burning the flag somehow causes those who died defending this country to be resurrected and suffer untold agony, I don't see your point. I don't see the job of the government as being to prevent idiots from dishonoring the memory of deceased heroes.
2) That flag was bought and paid for thousands of men and women, from the Revolutionary War to the present, whose dedicated service and sacrifice in our U.S. military has kept that flag flying as a symbol of freedom for humankind everywhere.

Appeal to emotionalism. Not a logical argument.

RESPECT for AMERICA is symbolized by they way we treat the Flag.

And trying to force respect by outlawing a show of disrespect only demonstrates that respect isn't deserved in the first place.

here somehow you tie in murder and fascist law with flag burning
Are you saying that fascist laws here are okay because there are worse laws in other countries? Is it okay if I rob a store because, hey, it's not murder?

Here you ridicule a person who served which you have not most likely and lower flag symbol to a stoplight.
I was a soldier and did study the history of national flags and their purpose.

Being a soldier and studying history does not make a person immune to piss-poor logic skills and thinking ability, as you clearly demonstrate. No, it isn't. For one, I don't own any of the stoplights in the city, nor do I own the land on which they have been erected, so I have no authority to have them removed. Secondly, I can actually quantify the "harm" resulting from the sudden removal all of the stoplights in the city. I can even draw from actual experience based upon events that occured when the lights were rendered temporarily out of service due to weather conditions. You have yet to provide any documented "harm" resulting from keeping flag burning legal. You just assert some garbage about popular morale. If our citizens are such chickensh*ts that their morale is reduced because flag-burning is legal, then we are nothing but a nation of spineless pussies and we deserve what we get.

Here somehow you tie anti flag burning amendment with violence against people of faith - creationists to you.
And I'm rational, and understand that someone hating the country just makes a fool of themself if all they do is make symbolic gestures. I have better things to do than beat up people for being foolish. If I thought that beating up fools should be legal, I'd be writing my senators and encouraging them to enact legislation making it legal for me to take a baseball bat to the heads of creationists.

Here you infer again that the flag burner is legitimate.
You, apparently, feel that flag burning sends a statement that is both valid and truthful, and since you don't like the statement and don't have a logical rebuttal, you feel that you must lash out against them to silence them.

here you infer again that the flag burner is legitimate
Trivialize assault and battery? Obviously flag-burners must be making a good and valid point if the only response to them that you can think of is beating them up. Great idea!

[DJ MacWoW]

Holy Smoke! Guess the debate is over. I don't talk to DU wannabes, clones or trolls.

[chariotdriver]

There are hundreds of more of this scum from that scum bucket.

[DJ MacWoW]

I believe you. And he couldn't even answer DBeers post.

[Dimensio]

Hmm. So all you have to offer is whining because you can't actually make a good case in favour of banning the act of burning the flag.

Here you ridicule a person who served which you have not most likely and lower flag symbol to a stoplight.

Shows how you read for context. The person to whom I was responding was the one who made the stoplight analogy. I was just explaining why it was a bad analogy.

here you infer again that the flag burner is legitimate

And, no, I infer that those who support the flag protection amendment think that the flag-burner is legitimate. After all, if they didn't think that a valid (but undesirable) point was being made by the act, they wouldn't be so quick to want to quash it. I think that people who burn the flag to "make a statement" are petty and stupid, and I'd rather my tax dollars not be spent giving them attention that they don't deserve.

But hey, go on and keep lying about my position. Intellectual dishonesty from you isn't a surprise anymore given your post statements.

[Minus_The_Bear]

So people in Utah support perverse sexuality... who woulda thought? It's only been happening for around 150 years.

[Dimensio]

One more thing...

Does the sight of Flag Draped coffins give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Or do you just yell Allah ak bar Do you take the dishes out of the sink before you urinate in it?

Nice way of cutting out context. My response to "Does the sight of Flag Draped coffins give you a warm fuzzy feeling." was "No". the second question, about "Allah ak bar" was totally loaded and I responded in kind. It is incredibly dishonest of you to claim that my "urinate in the sink" comment was to the "flag-draped coffin" comment.

This is why creationists like you aren't taken seriously. You've made it abundantly clear that you're willing to lie to prove a point, or even to smear someone who doesn't believe exactly as you do.

[chariotdriver]

I haven't lied about anything. You like to hide under what you think are clever evasions. Anyone reading your material can see the intent of your message in its totality, and its profane anti-God dishonest obscene, maybe even anti US.
Your probably someone very young that has completed some collegiate course work, had a few classes in biology logic theory etc., and think you know everything.
You've probably never had anything valuable to you threatened or had to fight for anything, nor have you ever done any service to the nation or maybe even any volunteer social services
You don't get it. If you were in some of these other nations and wrote about them the way you do about US and our symbols, such as Iran, China, Korea, well, you make the call.
here the posts leading up to your piss in the sink analogy. I took it out of context, yeh right.


To: Bernard
Yes well like so many things it's the principle that matters. RESPECT for AMERICA is sybolized by they way we treat the Flag.

I have always found it interesting how the so-called issues the Dums support always have another agenda. When dums fight an issue it's always another agenda they are protecting. Theirs is to show as much contempt and hatred of this country as they can before enough people say ENOUGH.
37 posted on 06/23/2005 1:07:12 AM PDT by marty60


To: marty60
RESPECT for AMERICA is sybolized by they way we treat the Flag.

And trying to force respect by outlawing a show of disrespect only demonstrates that respect isn't deserved in the first place.
53 posted on 06/23/2005 1:33:56 AM PDT by Dimensio
To: Dimensio

BS, just like everything else. The convoluted juvenile thinking of the anything goes crowd. If you can't even show a little respect for the Flag that drapes the coffins of our young people that have given everything for your freedom, then you can't respect anything. The sad thing is that respect for everything American is not welcome to the left.


To: marty60
BS, just like everything else.

I guess that's one way of ducking the facts. Just call it all "BS" and run away from the issue like a coward.

The convoluted juvenile thinking of the anything goes crowd.

And another dishonest tactic. Change the subject from allowing offensive yet ultimately harmless forms of expression to "anything goes" attitudes.

If you can't even show a little respect for the Flag that drapes the coffins of our young people that have given everything for your freedom, then you can't respect anything.

And even if that's the case, it's no justification for attempting to mandate respect.
108 posted on 06/23/2005 8:10:56 AM PDT by Dimensio
To: Dimensio
Then I'm certain you are much happier living in some OTHER country, which you do respect.

Does the sight of Flag Draped coffins give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Or do you just yell Allah ak bar
109 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:12 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marty60
Then I'm certain you are much happier living in some OTHER country, which you do respect.

Nice strawman. Good to see that you've no rational arguments for your position so you're resorting to pointless (and not terribly intelligent) personal attacks.

Does the sight of Flag Draped coffins give you a warm fuzzy feeling.

No.

Or do you just yell Allah ak bar

Do you take the dishes out of the sink before you urinate in it?
110 posted on 06/23/2005 8:23:50 AM PDT by Dimensio

[chariotdriver]

Finally Chariot will ease up on Dimensio, not his job to be a Freep policeman. Call Chariot liar, ignorant, a creationists whatever that is and so on if it helps.
But that don't define him
Believe it or not Chariot used to be science orientated also, till he saw the gargantuan conclusions that are based on the tiniest of fragments and said 'yah know' 'somethings missing here'
Chariot looked at the 'science' objectively.

If Chariot ever has lied it was to save his *ss, not for some argument on a msg board.

Chariots character life etc, certainly could not be used as any validation of what he knows, cept maybe in a Barabbas fashion. But he knows a few things, has been to the wire. What he knows can't be validated or invalidated by a few shattered bone fragments on a remote plain, or some exotic looking calculations on a chalk board.

Hey hang in there were all in this together.