“Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute. And you have no right to be heard. You may speak, I may listen, or ignore. You may not insist that I agree with you. You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission. And lastly, this is not a public place, there are Mods and it belongs to Jim Robinson. I always like to think of myself as his guest. Any guest in my house who uses inappropriate language will be shown the door. I expect no less from the Mods of this forum.”
Whooo Hoo, here comes the threats to the mods. I guess you’ve used that before effectively to stifle debate once your usual spin stops working.
You always know when someone has lost the debate when they start claiming the other side used “inappropriate language” while not providing any quotes! And if I am corrected by the Mods, I will gladly follow their lead, but in general it is hard to take me to task because I’m generally quoting from Mormon source material.
But, I guess if you aren’t man enough to debate mano a mano without crying to the Mods and playing victim, it means your position is pretty weak.
I’ve been called everything from a bigot, to “loony grey matter” by you guys and I’ve laughed it off and provided counter examples without crying Mommy to the Mods. Wonder if you are strong enough to do the same.
“Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute.”
Pretty interesting how you’ve conflated physical violence with free speech. I’ve never threatened any violence, it’s not in my nature, though I’ve been threatened by Mormons before. If my right to speak is not absolute, then neither is yours, but I would have thought you were strong enough to survive rigorous debate. If you aren’t strong enough, please let me know and I will avoid you.
“And you have no right to be heard.”
I think that is the point of your diatribe, shutting me up because it’s too hard to argue with my points. Much easier to try and get someone banned, you can just feel the frustration.
“You may speak, I may listen, or ignore.”
I sure haven’t held a steel bow to your head making you type your replies to me.
“You may not insist that I agree with you.”
Please provide a reference to where I said that. chirp chirp
“You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission.”
Reference please? chirp chirp chirp
Seems to me you are speaking for Jim Robinson and acting as if you are a Mod right now, wonder if you asked him? And if you have some proof that I was “speaking for someone else”, please provide the reference and I will stand corrected.
But, all we’ve seen so far is innuendo - born of what looks like frustration. Not a single quote. Seems like you fight your battles by getting people banned rather than arguing persuasively. Sort of like Harry Reid’s technique, calling for investigations and impeachment ‘cause he ain’t holdin no cards.
So, let me know if I’m “banned from speaking with you”, it’s not like it is much of a pleasure debating someone who cries wolf all the time anyway.
“That is quite an inherently flawed argument and the reason we believe Mormons will spin anything. If Hitler said he was a Christian, by your logic we would have no right to cull him from the Church.”
[Certainly, cull him from the church, but leave the judgment of whether or not he is a Christian up to Jesus. ]
Ummm, a lot of people did the same thing in 1939, that’s why we had something called World War Two. Christ will make the decision who makes it to heaven, but he gives us free will to decide between right and wrong. If I decide Mitt Romney is unsuitable for the Presidency because our religious differences are large enough, then that is a judgment I will make whether or not you try and force me to think otherwise.