T Nation

Claiming Moral Authority

IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine

Any thoughts ?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

This thread would be better without the “call outs”…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

This thread would be better without the “call outs”…[/quote]

I am not calling any one out, I am trying to see if others agree with my analysis , I also have one of you as well but I must admit it is not as well founded :slight_smile: I also would love to hear your critique of me ?

Sloth?

Not really, IMO.

He believes what he believes in and you can take it or leave it.

I am heartbroken that it appears I have been so unfaithful to my Lord as to have been excluded from your list. I’ll try harder from now on.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth?

Not really, IMO.

He believes what he believes in and you can take it or leave it. [/quote]
I was just about to say that.

He doesn’t come at things from a position of authority at all. It just might look like that because he states things definitively, but that’s no flaw

I get Religion I grew up in it , I understand that Religion not God that gives the people the illusion they are invincibly right and it is your job to prove them wrong. The only problem is it leaves to invincible one’s with out the need to back up their claims

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

This thread is in violation of Statute 007.0 of the Moral Code, I’m going to need to have it shut down.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am heartbroken that it appears I have been so unfaithful to my Lord as to have been excluded from your list. I’ll try harder from now on.[/quote]

While I may disagree with you I find you to be genuine in your posts . Meaning you listen to reason.Sorry :slight_smile:

The people I have listed lose sight that this is a conversation and they set themselves on a pedestal and in doing so feel others should over look their absence of substance .

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

LOL…you are one goofy bastard I’ll grant you that.

Keep em coming pittski!

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

LOL…you are one goofy bastard I’ll grant you that.

Keep em coming pittski![/quote]

Any time Zebadiah , you are truly unique in your Authority. You used to do it in the name of Religion , now not .

My moral authority comes from the Bible, which I see as an absolute one.
In that regard - Christians should be willing to speak to call sin what is sin.

We are not given the leeway to hate on, judge, ridicule etc the ‘sinner’ as we are neither perfect nor have we been authority to do so in this world.

The shame is that someone like me can openly say that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and God says He will punish the homosexual if they do not turn from it - yet I have suddenly ‘hate homos’ or ‘which they would die slow painful death by aids’. Christians should be praying for their turning to God instead.

In case, you somehow think I feel ‘holier than thou’, I fail my higher calling each and every day.
Thankfully God still forgives me when I repent.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am heartbroken that it appears I have been so unfaithful to my Lord as to have been excluded from your list. I’ll try harder from now on.[/quote]

While I may disagree with you I find you to be genuine in your posts . Meaning you listen to reason.Sorry :slight_smile:

The people I have listed lose sight that this is a conversation and they set themselves on a pedestal and in doing so feel others should over look their absence of substance .
[/quote]

Pitt, if I could actually get the substance of my arguments to not be ignored, it would be wonderful. Take the ‘gay marriage’ thread, which is undoubtedly my freshest offense in your mind. I made a case for my position that which touches upon such questions as the role of the government, what is sufficient to cause it to act and distinguish, or to lay dormant and blind.

I called into question the assumption made by opponents that somehow homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings carry the same social (heck, humanity) wide impact. That they are somehow remotely equivalent.

When someone ask me “Fine, you don’t think the government should recognize homosexual couplings as marriages, but what’s so damn special about heterosexual couplings? Huh? Huh…”

Well, I can’t help but feel that the answer is so self-evident, just from having lived in the world long enough to learn about the birds and bees, that I’m not being treated to an honest conversation. If you don’t want any marriages recognized than make the argument.

But don’t ask me to pretend that there aren’t circumstances between the two couplings which make them worlds apart in the consideration “Does it rise to the level that society/government may have an interest?” World’s apart. Concede it and move on.

I’m not the kind of guy that is going to pretend homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings have anything remotely like the same impact on society and humanity as a whole.

I’m not going to pretend your son in a dress is a little girl.

I’m not going to pretend that a human organism (life) isn’t in the womb.

I’m not going to pretend that a raunchy low-brow culture doesn’t shape the next generation.

I’m not going to pretend that a socially liberal society would vote against a large nanny state to handle the morning after oopsie, or the absence of family in their twilight years.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine

Any thoughts ?[/quote]

LOL…you are one goofy bastard I’ll grant you that.

Keep em coming pittski![/quote]

Any time Zebadiah , you are truly unique in your Authority. You used to do it in the name of Religion , now not .
[/quote]

LOL “now not”

Things like this are just…well they’re pittbull magic!

When I read your posts I always wonder what you did before the Internet was available.

Did you go to the park and talk to the pigeons?

Wonder around in a grocery store babbling about not being able to get your prescription filled?

Or, did you just take up that spot on the corner of the bar and whine to every sucker who gave you the time of day?

You know I’m right Pitski.

Seriously…you are pure entertainment waiting to happen. And it all comes together for you right here on T Nation.

LMAO!

More…more…more!

[quote]treco wrote:
My moral authority comes from the Bible, which I see as an absolute one.
In that regard - Christians should be willing to speak to call sin what is sin.

We are not given the leeway to hate on, judge, ridicule etc the ‘sinner’ as we are neither perfect nor have we been authority to do so in this world.

The shame is that someone like me can openly say that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and God says He will punish the homosexual if they do not turn from it - yet I have suddenly ‘hate homos’ or ‘which they would die slow painful death by aids’. Christians should be praying for their turning to God instead.

In case, you somehow think I feel ‘holier than thou’, I fail my higher calling each and every day.
Thankfully God still forgives me when I repent.[/quote]

Ok , I get it , Gay sex is not for you

http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html

but why would you want to be responsible for some one else’s soul ?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am heartbroken that it appears I have been so unfaithful to my Lord as to have been excluded from your list. I’ll try harder from now on.[/quote]

While I may disagree with you I find you to be genuine in your posts . Meaning you listen to reason.Sorry :slight_smile:

The people I have listed lose sight that this is a conversation and they set themselves on a pedestal and in doing so feel others should over look their absence of substance .
[/quote]

Pitt, if I could actually get the substance of my arguments to not be ignored, it would be wonderful. Take the ‘gay marriage’ thread, which is undoubtedly my freshest offense, in your mind. I made a case for my position that calls into such questions as the role of the government, what is sufficient to cause it to act and distinguish or to lay dormant and blind.

I called into question the assumption made by opponents that somehow homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings carry the same social (heck, humanity) wide impact. That are somehow remotely equivalent.

When someone ask me “Fine, you don’t think the government should recognize homosexual couplings as marriages, but what’s so damn special about heterosexual couplings? Huh? Huh…”

Well, I can’t help but feel that the answer is so self-evident, just from having lived in the world long enough to learn about the birds and bees, that I’m not being treated to an honest conversation. If you don’t want any marriages recognized than make the argument.

But don’t ask me to pretend that there aren’t circumstances between the two couplings which make them worlds apart in the consideration “Does it rise to the level that society/government may have an interest?” World’s apart. Concede it and move on.

I’m not the kind of guy that is going to pretend homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings have anything remotely like the same impact on society and humanity as a whole.

I’m not going to pretend your son in a dress is a little girl.

I’m not going to pretend that a human organism (life) isn’t in the womb.

I’m not going to pretend that a raunchy low-brow culture doesn’t shape the next generation.

I’m not going to pretend that a socially liberal society would vote against a large nanny state to handle the morning after oopsie, or the absence of family in their twilight years.

[/quote]

I am sorry I can not see the forest for the trees . one question at a time or one statement please

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I called into question the assumption made by opponents that somehow homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings carry the same social (heck, humanity) wide impact. That are somehow remotely equivalent.

[/quote]

See this statement says nothing

[quote]Sloth wrote:

When someone ask me “Fine, you don’t think the government should recognize homosexual couplings as marriages, but what’s so damn special about heterosexual couplings? Huh? Huh…”

[/quote]

How is who some one else fucks or marrys any of your business ?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m not the kind of guy that is going to pretend homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings have anything remotely like the same impact on society and humanity as a whole.

I’m not going to pretend your son in a dress is a little girl.

I’m not going to pretend that a human organism (life) isn’t in the womb.

I’m not going to pretend that a raunchy low-brow culture doesn’t shape the next generation.

[/quote]

No one is asking you to do any of these things

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am heartbroken that it appears I have been so unfaithful to my Lord as to have been excluded from your list. I’ll try harder from now on.[/quote]

While I may disagree with you I find you to be genuine in your posts . Meaning you listen to reason.Sorry :slight_smile:

The people I have listed lose sight that this is a conversation and they set themselves on a pedestal and in doing so feel others should over look their absence of substance .
[/quote]

Pitt, if I could actually get the substance of my arguments to not be ignored, it would be wonderful. Take the ‘gay marriage’ thread, which is undoubtedly my freshest offense, in your mind. I made a case for my position that calls into such questions as the role of the government, what is sufficient to cause it to act and distinguish or to lay dormant and blind.

I called into question the assumption made by opponents that somehow homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings carry the same social (heck, humanity) wide impact. That are somehow remotely equivalent.

When someone ask me “Fine, you don’t think the government should recognize homosexual couplings as marriages, but what’s so damn special about heterosexual couplings? Huh? Huh…”

Well, I can’t help but feel that the answer is so self-evident, just from having lived in the world long enough to learn about the birds and bees, that I’m not being treated to an honest conversation. If you don’t want any marriages recognized than make the argument.

But don’t ask me to pretend that there aren’t circumstances between the two couplings which make them worlds apart in the consideration “Does it rise to the level that society/government may have an interest?” World’s apart. Concede it and move on.

I’m not the kind of guy that is going to pretend homosexual couplings and heterosexual couplings have anything remotely like the same impact on society and humanity as a whole.

I’m not going to pretend your son in a dress is a little girl.

I’m not going to pretend that a human organism (life) isn’t in the womb.

I’m not going to pretend that a raunchy low-brow culture doesn’t shape the next generation.

I’m not going to pretend that a socially liberal society would vote against a large nanny state to handle the morning after oopsie, or the absence of family in their twilight years.

[/quote]

I am sorry I can not see the forest for the trees . one question at a time or one statement please
[/quote]

Don’t complain about substance when an individual has laid out his arguments, had to reiterate specific points, fielded questions…only to have someone such as yourself turn around and contribute nothing but pot-shot questions and statements.

Questions where basic self evident realities of the world have to be ignored in order to be asked. Questions that are meant to hijack by trying to goad the person, let’s say me, into an argument he’s not making. Etc.