The Religious Question

[0:->]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin3.htm





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

What is the Religious question?
Why is an ATHEIST posing the ""Religious Quastion""?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> What is the Religious question?
> Why is an ATHEIST posing the ""Religious Quastion""?

Atheists are now denied constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Or are you asking in the moral and ethical sense?

Do religious commentators commonly express views on atheism?

My understanding is that they do, and I wouldn't think to question their
right to do so.

After all, defending one's position by questioning that of others is
normal discursive debate and argument.

You didn't know that, did you, Greg?

By the way, when you quote me, try not to misspell what you think I
said. Thanks.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Did you want people to think something in
particular about me, and atheist, bringing up the Religious Question in
relation to spanking?

Is that supposed to be off limits to me as one?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Atheists are now denied constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Goes to your motives and bias.

People should know that you are expressing your
personally motivated bias, rather than impartial reason.

You knee jerk for your pet issues, Kane!

Race, gays, caseworkers, atheism...

Yet you claim you're a conservative.
What a HOOT!

[Greegor]

Didn't the NAZI's have a Religious Question?

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Atheists are now denied constitutionally guaranteed rights?
>
> Goes to your motives and bias.
>
> People should know that you are expressing your
> personally motivated bias, rather than impartial reason.
>
> You knee jerk for your pet issues, Kane!
>
> Race, gays, caseworkers, atheism...
>
> Yet you claim you're a conservative.
> What a HOOT!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Didn't the NAZI's have a Religious Question?

Didn't the Russians?

How about the Japanese?

South Africans?

Bengalis?

English?

Or, we can presume that every person that has some interest in common
with some evil folks are themselves thereby evil.

So, tell us, Greegor, what are your interests?

0:->


> Greegor wrote:
>> Kane wrote
>>> Atheists are now denied constitutionally guaranteed rights?
>> Goes to your motives and bias.

Not an answer to my question, but then that's how liars avoid being
exposed.
>>
>> People should know that you are expressing your
>> personally motivated bias, rather than impartial reason.

And you?

Pray tell, Greg, who expresses their opinion without bias?
>
>> You knee jerk for your pet issues, Kane!

One idiot's "kneejerk" is an advocate's issue of concern.

>>
>> Race, gays, caseworkers, atheism...

And self centered, weak egoed men that move in with single mothers and
displace the love and care for that women's child.
>>
>> Yet you claim you're a conservative.
>> What a HOOT!

You mistake "cause" for viewpoint.

So tell me, what proof have you that a conservative is not interested in
race, homosexual issues, government workers, and atheism?

And do the ranks of conservatives include no atheists?

No blacks?

No homosexuals?

You have such a narrow fundamentalist view of the world, child.

Why is that I wonder.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Or, we can presume that every person that has
> some interest in common with some evil folks
> are themselves thereby evil.

You're describing one of your own tactics.

You are an atheist but,
Like a cult leader, you paint all opponents with the
broadest brush possible. You lump all of your
opponents into one LABEL, even asking people
to speak for or defend others.

If any of your opponents leaves you rave about them
long after they are gone, vainly scoring yourself a win.

Reconstructionists, Fundamentalists, etc.
you are eager to vilify or ad hom any opponent, smearing
with the broadest brush possible.

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Or, we can presume that every person that has
> > some interest in common with some evil folks
> > are themselves thereby evil.
>
> You're describing one of your own tactics.
>
> You are an atheist but,
> Like a cult leader, you paint all opponents with the
> broadest brush possible. You lump all of your
> opponents into one LABEL, even asking people
> to speak for or defend others.

You ask people to speak for defend others all the time, Greg.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Or, we can presume that every person that has
>> some interest in common with some evil folks
>> are themselves thereby evil.
>
> You're describing one of your own tactics.

On the contrary. I do the exact opposite.

I refuse to lump all homosexuals, for instance, into the category of
higher potential child molester.

I refuse to presume that the majority of foster parents are child
abusers at a higher rate than a population that isn't even available for
counting their abuses of their children.

> You are an atheist but,

That has nothing to do with the issues under discussion, and IS of
course, YOUR attempt to lump me into a category.

> Like a cult leader,

There is nothing in my posting that would suggest I'm anything like a
cult leader. I do see it in some of the posters here though. You suck up
to one and he pats your little ass regularly.

> you paint all opponents with the
> broadest brush possible.

Meaningless hyperbole. What do you mean by "broadest brush possible?"

I refuse to do that Greg, unlike YOU. It's YOU that claims that CPS is
unrelentingly evil and all caseworkers are somehow flawed. Isn't that so?

> You lump all of your
> opponents into one LABEL, even asking people
> to speak for or defend others.

Non sequitur. Your second phrase does not connect to the one preceding.

And I do not lump them into a category they have not earned. For
instance, notice that in conversations with Doug I mention his obvious
intelligence, and your clearly displayed stupidity and ignorance.

That alone shows I don't "lump" my opponents, unless you think one of
you isn't?

> If any of your opponents leaves you rave about them
> long after they are gone, vainly scoring yourself a win.

I don't play win lose, Greg, but you obviously do.

You were ranting about Sherman after she was gone, and interestingly
enough, you did so about Dan when he had been absent from the newsgroup
for a time.

You have different standards for me than for yourself then?

> Reconstructionists, Fundamentalists, etc.

Yes, some of them are very dangerous indeed. I avoid naming names among
them most of the time because I consider people that believe in stonings
and enslaving others very dangerous indeed.

> you are eager to vilify or ad hom any opponent, smearing
> with the broadest brush possible.

Well, now I have a brush in each hand.

And interestingly my intent and I succeed often, is to ISOLATE and
identify very different people with different intents.

I admit to painting Dan with a broad brush though. One that clearly
labels him a winner with CPS defeats again and again, and I paint you
with the brush in my other hand....as a loser, with CPS, one very
unfortunate time.

Dan can see his kids any time he wants. And of course all those families
he's helped HAVE THEIR CHILDREN HOME. So I admit to admiring his
skill....painting him with a broad brush. R R R R R

And you, loser?

I dip that other brush in your **** and paint your face with it. And the
other losers you hang with.

0:->

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in news:4v-
> :

....snip. ..

> > Dan can see his kids any time he wants. And of course all those families
> > he's helped HAVE THEIR CHILDREN HOME. So I admit to admiring his
> > skill....painting him with a broad brush. R R R R R
>
> Such high praise, Kane,

Simple recognition of success. Nothing we could call "high praise."

> yet you make these statements as if they are fact

Ah, the old, "as if" clause. Greg likes to use "seems like." 0:->

> without providing any supporting evidence in this medium we are in.

Yep. I let the posters that have read other posters here that are
people he has helped provide the evidence.

And Doug, of course. Ever read his post pointout that Dan's tactics are
successful ones?

> You
> request it of others, yet exempt yourself from the same?

Nope. My demands of others (I don't care for the wimp word "request")
related to published research and data.

This is not one of those instances.

What we have is what can be gathered in this medium, the statements of
others.

YOU may wish to call Dan's statements into question, but then you have
Doug's, and those families that have reported Dan's success here in
their cases. Are they all liars?

Have you forgotten? They apparently ****ed YOU off enough to inspire
you to create a bogus website that denied others the chance to respond
to your lies in that website. You used it to make personal attacks that
could not be answered ON SITE, by those you attacked.

Did YOU provide proof in this medium then?

I must have missed it. Refresh my memory. Thanks.

0:->

........snip.....

[Greegor]

When you lied, Kane, was it ethical or moral this time?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> When you lied, Kane, was it ethical or moral this time?

Failing to site the circumstances simply reveals you as morally
bankrupt, Greg.

We don't know IF I lied. We don't know what, if I lied, I lied about,
and if it met ethical and moral criteria or not.

In other words, you wish to accuse, and HIDE the circumstances from the
reader.

Any particular reason, other than my exposing you continuously for the
last three years as a chump?

0:->

[Michael©]

"0:->" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Greegor wrote:
>> When you lied, Kane, was it ethical or moral this time?
>
> Failing to site the circumstances simply reveals you as morally
> bankrupt, Greg.

Exactly what you just did in my previous post where you 'aborted the
attributions' of mine that you didn't want archived on Google. Two
standards, Kane? One for everyone not on your side and another for you
that is morally and ethically justified in your mind?

>
> We don't know IF I lied. We don't know what, if I lied, I lied about,
> and if it met ethical and moral criteria or not.

A liar is a liar. Now that I know you will lie and justify it by your
moral and/or ethical standard, it makes it easy to take every word from
you as a lie.

You are simply playing games with people here, Kane. Speaking truths if
they support your agenda and speaking lies if the need arises to prove
your point. You are really taking the high road aren't you?

Kane Wrote: [1]

Look, you pimple plagued piece of putrid puke, you've seen me post for
some time here and one thing the truly stupid or the lying assholes
learn is that The Stoneman doesn't lie. They learned that because time
after time they vomited their **** and I dumped it right back down
their throats.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/s5ajy

So you were lying then obviously.

Kane Wrote: [2]

Best you can do? You don't know what a "troll" is, do you?
They make trouble and don't come back. I make trouble and I DO come
back, and probably always will. Try and sort that out.
Your misunderstanding of things gets you in difficulty. Associating
with and defending Greegor the Whore is a prime example.
Best,
Kane


[2] http://tinyurl.com/m7o9y

So you are here to create trouble. And you are a long standing troll.
BTW, trolls stay, they don't leave. You are the perfect example of a
troll. Thanks for admitting to it, troll.



>
> In other words, you wish to accuse, and HIDE the circumstances from the
> reader.
>
> Any particular reason, other than my exposing you continuously for the
> last three years as a chump?
>
> 0:->
>
>



--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Greegor]

Kane: This is your vocation and avocation? You are sad.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane: This is your vocation and avocation? You are sad.

Depends on what "this" is, doesn't it?

'This,' as you carefully have hidden with both attribution abortion and
jumping the thread, is 'truth.'

It's sad this is not of interest to YOU, Greg.

Very sad indeed.

And it costs the people around you dearly. Like Lisa and her daughter.

I've a hunch when you've used her up you'll just dump and run.

We'll see.

You've never accepted our offer to speak here with Lisa and told her we
invited her, have you?

I wonder why? Is she too fragile?

Or ... What is your vocation and avocation, Greg?

0:->

[Greegor]

Kane:
Does your wife post here?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane:
> Does your wife post here?

I don't have a case with the state. I've not been the cause of her
losing her children. Neither has she. We've lost no children to the state.

Why would she post in a CPS focused newsgroup?

YOU and Lisa, on the other hand have a somewhat different relationship
to the subject and topics usually discussed here.

Is that not correct?

0:->

[Greegor]

I read about how she was a teacher and then developed a
distrust for the way things are done.
That sounds familiar.

Her newest web picture looks better than the previous one.