The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think its not fair to avoid saying something about a politician if it isn't that person's own rejection of something that isn't a widely held belief, or isn't even a requirement to not have the position.

Herr Kut disapproves. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't think its not fair to avoid saying something about a politician if it isn't that person's own rejection of something that isn't a widely held belief, or isn't even a requirement to not have the position.

ETA:
That isn't directed at any one INGOer, but rather a commentary on the current discussion.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think its not fair to avoid saying something about a politician if it isn't that person's own rejection of something that isn't a widely held belief, or isn't even a requirement to not have the position.

ETA:
That isn't directed at any one INGOer, but rather a commentary on the current discussion.

Herr Kut disapproves. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

No one can dispute what he said if it contains no discernable meaning

View attachment 81235

 

[HoughMade]

If one claims to be an evangelical voter, then explain how questioning their vote for Trump makes them an atheist?

What he said is that the people saying Christians shouldn't vote for Trump due to his morals, by and large, aren't christians.

That's all.

I don't know if that's true. However, it seems to me I've been hearing a lot from people who don't claim to be christians, telling christians what they should be doing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What he said is that the people saying Christians shouldn't vote for Trump due to his morals, by and large, aren't christians.

That's all.

I don't know if that's true. However, it seems to me I've been hearing a lot from people who don't claim to be christians, telling christians what they should be doing.

You've inferred WAY too much from that post. There are plenty of people that are neither Christian, nor atheist.

 

[HoughMade]

You've inferred WAY too much from that post. There are plenty of people that are neither Christian, nor atheist.

The meaning of the parts you bolded seemed obvious.

...and yes......so?

Sure, he could have said "a lot" and he could have said "non-christian". Great, we've really advanced the cause........of pedantry.

What evs....

 

[Alpo]

No one can dispute what he said if it contains no discernable meaning

View attachment 81235

I have to give credit for a well-turned comment. My nomination for internet win today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The meaning of the parts you bolded seemed obvious.

...and yes......so?

Sure, he could have said "a lot" and he could have said "non-christian". Great, we've really advanced the cause........of pedantry.

What evs....

Where did that start? Oh yes...

I said majority... Stop trying to twist.

 

[printcraft]

What he said is that the people saying Christians shouldn't vote for Trump due to his morals, by and large, aren't christians.

That's all.

I don't know if that's true. However, it seems to me I've been hearing a lot from people who don't claim to be christians, telling christians what they should be doing.

I don't see evangelicals giving evangelicals grief about voting for Trump.
I do see a lot of enlightened atheists telling evangelicals "How can you vote for Trump, he's clearly not following Christian values."
They don't give a **** about morals, it's a shame hammer and it's blatant.

 

[Alpo]

I didn't know it was required to profess a religion to point out moral failures.

 

[printcraft]

I didn't know it was required to profess a religion to point out moral failures.

See post #747

People without faith are using the faith of others as a hammer to admonish how the people of faith voted since who they voted for does not follow "religious" principles.

It's disingenuous at best.

 

[HoughMade]

I didn't know it was required to profess a religion to point out moral failures.

Speaking of things no one said.....

 

[mmpsteve]

No one can't not dispute what he said if it contains no non-discernable meaning

View attachment 81235

Fixy

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

See post #747

People without faith are using the faith of others as a hammer to admonish how the people of faith voted since who they voted for does not follow "religious" principles.

It's disingenuous at best.

So you're essentially saying that people outside of particular set of beliefs can't admonish those who hold certain beliefs and don't live up to them? Uhhh.... welcome to INGO, how is your first day going.

 

[mmpsteve]

So you're essentially saying that people outside of particular set of beliefs can't admonish those who hold certain beliefs and don't live up to them? Uhhh.... welcome to INGO, how is your first day going.

IKR. Printman, you really need to up your game.

.

 

[Alpo]

Speaking of things no one said.....

They don't give a **** about morals, it's a shame hammer and it's blatant.

Seems you need to read validation remarks more closely, counselor.

 

[nonobaddog]

There are some really poor readers in here lately.

 

[printcraft]

So you're essentially saying that people outside of particular set of beliefs can't admonish those who hold certain beliefs and don't live up to them? Uhhh.... welcome to INGO, how is your first day going.

Is the website translating my words to a different language then back again?
Is that why you are having trouble following along?

No, I'm essentially saying they don't give two ****s about the beliefs other than to use them to try to shame and silence the opposition.

This is not a new concept.

 

[Alpo]

There are some really poor readers in here lately.

Or perhaps they are accustomed to more nuance.

 

[printcraft]

Seems you need to read validation remarks more closely, counselor.

Post 771