|
Post by bernard on Oct 6, 2017 18:24:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 6, 2017 19:02:20 GMT -6
As I stated to begin with,it was very misleading that link you placed out of the UK..
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 9, 2017 4:39:41 GMT -6
1st. You tried in another thread, " worse of the worse" to bring homosexuality into the mix. I stated we are not talking about homosexuality, we are talking about murder. 2nd. I could not get your link to work. I did locate infor which was not from the US. Only the UK etc. 3rd. The USA does not put people to death for homosexuality, adultery, etc. There is nothing to debate until facts come in. Or maybe this at this point should say, don't feed the trolls, possibly maybe even Putin's trolls. I would say the title of this thread is so to put it is (not to offend) very misleading. It is an offensive title" so what the heck. it is a BS title, very dramatic of the UK news hey> You made more sense when your English was worse.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 9, 2017 19:26:11 GMT -6
1st. You tried in another thread, " worse of the worse" to bring homosexuality into the mix. I stated we are not talking about homosexuality, we are talking about murder. 2nd. I could not get your link to work. I did locate infor which was not from the US. Only the UK etc. 3rd. The USA does not put people to death for homosexuality, adultery, etc. There is nothing to debate until facts come in. Or maybe this at this point should say, don't feed the trolls, possibly maybe even Putin's trolls. I would say the title of this thread is so to put it is (not to offend) very misleading. It is an offensive title" so what the heck. it is a BS title, very dramatic of the UK news hey> /quote]You made more sense when your English was worse. You never told me I had to do both, make sense & speak English.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 11, 2017 14:46:08 GMT -6
You never told me I had to do both, make sense & speak English. That's cause you never told me I was in charge. If I were, I would also insist that you learn how to use quote boxes to make your posts easier to read. The forum hasn't changed in years, and it isn't a tough skill to pick up.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 11, 2017 14:50:11 GMT -6
I would say the title of this thread is so to put it is (not to offend) very misleading. It is an offensive title" But conservatives tell me all the time that offense is taken, not given. So if you're offended, that's your problem, no? Well the thread title is mine. I grant you that it is not the most charitable way to describe things. But it's not incorrect. If you vote against a ban on executing homosexuals, that's a vote in defense of it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 11, 2017 15:13:33 GMT -6
You never told me I had to do both, make sense & speak English. That's cause you never told me I was in charge. If I were, I would also insist that you learn how to use quote boxes to make your posts easier to read. The forum hasn't changed in years, and it isn't a tough skill to pick up. I know how to use the quote box.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 11, 2017 16:06:58 GMT -6
I would say the title of this thread is so to put it is (not to offend) very misleading. It is an offensive title" But conservatives tell me all the time that offense is taken, not given. So if you're offended, that's your problem, no? Well the thread title is mine. I grant you that it is not the most charitable way to describe things. But it's not incorrect. If you vote against a ban on executing homosexuals, that's a vote in defense of it. Yeah it is obvious the thread title/subject is yours. Not the most charitable title? I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals. Implying the US voting agains't a stupid ban, since the US never has or would execute one for being a homosexual to begin with. So, obviously that is a moot point, misleading title. Offensive title towards the USA. You just like to stir & divide. Also, you do think your in charge, telling me not to come to this forum unless I debate the DP topic, demanding I debate, taking credit that you improved my English. My English has always been fine, just not in print for a long time, my secretary did my typing & filing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 12, 2017 1:47:28 GMT -6
But conservatives tell me all the time that offense is taken, not given. So if you're offended, that's your problem, no? Well the thread title is mine. I grant you that it is not the most charitable way to describe things. But it's not incorrect. If you vote against a ban on executing homosexuals, that's a vote in defense of it. Yeah it is obvious the thread title/subject is yours. Not the most charitable title? I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals. Why? I expect my senators to vote to ban dangerous acts like drink driving. I don't think it's enough that they don't drink-drive themselves. Republicans expect their representatives to vote to ban abortion. They don't take it as enough that the senator never had an abortion herself. I am sure you would want your representatives to vote to execute murderers. It's not enough that those representatives aren't murderers themselves. So why is it that when the US votes against a ban on executing gay people, you think it's okay since the US doesn't execute homosexuals? What has that got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 12, 2017 7:42:01 GMT -6
Wrong again" on abortions too, they want to ban LATE term abortions . That is what Rep's want. Sounds sane to me. Late term abortions is murder.
Drink driving? lol Drink posting maybe? That tea you say you drink, what is in your tea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 15:33:32 GMT -6
I'm finding this conversation confusing. Maybe it's all the drink-thinking. We, in the US, don't (presently) execute for homosexuality, nor do we support the execution of non-murdering gays (unless underneath we actually do), so why would we not support the UN ban on execution of homosexuals? Perhaps we want to keep our own options open. Or do we figure it's not our business? Another point of contention I'll mention is how it's possible to stir and divide when there are all of 2 or 3 people posting.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 15, 2017 18:44:23 GMT -6
I am compelled to state again, the US does not execute homosexuals, past, present or future . Unlike the title suggest.
I mean" how many people believed for years the sightings of Elvis were real & he was not dead ?
Just like the repub's do not want to ban all abortions, only Late" term abortions, are the facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 19:52:45 GMT -6
I am compelled to state again, the US does not execute homosexuals, past, present or future . Unlike the title suggest. I mean" how many people believed for years the sightings of Elvis were real & he was not dead ? Just like the repub's do not want to ban all abortions, only Late" term abortions, are the facts. First, you cannot know what the future will bring any more than I do. Second, the title suggests that the US doesn't support the ban of such practices worldwide. Obviously, that's true. So, it's no leap to say we support the practice. If we don't object, that's on us, and shame on us. As to abortions, (I'll call that C) I know many many people who support the termination of legalized abortions no matter what the term or predicament. So, in my estimation, banning 'late-term' abortions is merely the first step. All abortions illegal (again) is the objective. We are nothing if not redundant in our arrogance and stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 15, 2017 20:30:52 GMT -6
I am compelled to state again, the US does not execute homosexuals, past, present or future . Unlike the title suggest. I mean" how many people believed for years the sightings of Elvis were real & he was not dead ? Just like the repub's do not want to ban all abortions, only Late" term abortions, are the facts. First, you cannot know what the future will bring any more than I do. Second, the title suggests that the US doesn't support the ban of such practices worldwide. Obviously, that's true. So, it's no leap to say we support the practice. If we don't object, that's on us, and shame on us. As to abortions, (I'll call that C) I know many many people who support the termination of legalized abortions no matter what the term or predicament. So, in my estimation, banning 'late-term' abortions is merely the first step. All abortions illegal (again) is the objective. We are nothing if not redundant in our arrogance and stupidity. If we cannot know what the future will bring, how do you know in your estimation banning Late term abortions is merely the first step to making all abortions illegal? So, it's no leap to say we will support the practice of executing homosexuals just for being gay in the future? Wow heck of an comparison. All life is precious no abortions or DP for 1st degree murderer's in the future, yet in the future homosexuals will be executed just for being gay.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 15, 2017 21:53:43 GMT -6
so why would we not support the UN ban on execution of homosexuals? As I understand it, and I may be wrong, we did not support the ban because it called for an end to all executions. Also, no one is going to support a ban on the execution of homosexuals. The ban was in reference to the executions of homosexuals for engaging in homosexual sex, not for murder.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 16, 2017 11:15:24 GMT -6
Sodomy is only an applied penalty (felony) when it is (non consenting), or if an underage child. No different than rape of a woman or child., which is a felony too. No DP for rape, or for just being gay. Ever.
I understand also, we did not support the ban because it would put an end to executions for murderers in the US. Since we do not execute homosexuals for being gay or sodomy ANYHOW, as stated above. Under right to privacy laws, we do not care what goes on between consenting adults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 11:20:33 GMT -6
so why would we not support the UN ban on execution of homosexuals? As I understand it, and I may be wrong, we did not support the ban because it called for an end to all executions. Also, no one is going to support a ban on the execution of homosexuals. The ban was in reference to the executions of homosexuals for engaging in homosexual sex, not for murder. Hi Oslo. I read the article, and according to it, we (the US) opposed the ban on executing practicing gays because we feared it would later undermine our use of DP, just like Bernard says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 11:30:27 GMT -6
First, you cannot know what the future will bring any more than I do. Second, the title suggests that the US doesn't support the ban of such practices worldwide. Obviously, that's true. So, it's no leap to say we support the practice. If we don't object, that's on us, and shame on us. As to abortions, (I'll call that C) I know many many people who support the termination of legalized abortions no matter what the term or predicament. So, in my estimation, banning 'late-term' abortions is merely the first step. All abortions illegal (again) is the objective. We are nothing if not redundant in our arrogance and stupidity. If we cannot know what the future will bring, how do you know in your estimation banning Late term abortions is merely the first step to making all abortions illegal? So, it's no leap to say we will support the practice of executing homosexuals just for being gay in the future? Wow heck of an comparison. All life is precious no abortions or DP for 1st degree murderer's in the future, yet in the future homosexuals will be executed just for being gay. WD, my estimation is my opinion, just like you have one. I wasn't making any comparison between executing gays for engaging in sex to abortion. You brought up abortions, not I. IMO, they're separate issues entirely. But, back to the subject at hand (support or opposition to executing homosexuals for engaging in sex) if we don't oppose THAT practice unequivocally, then IMO or my estimation, we obviously support it. There is no gray area.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 16, 2017 11:42:12 GMT -6
I was replying to your c comment. banning late term abortion is merely a step away from making all abortions illegal.
The US has no reason to support a ban that includes no DP for murderers. I do not see them as separate issues, late term abortion is a DP, which you & many women you know, as you stated support, any term abortions. So, you do not want that changed.
Where as the US does not execute homosexuals is a moot point to begin with.
Yes to add. we have a right to our opinions, our" opinions. Just seems you want it all, no in between. Anti DP for all murderers & no matter what term one is in all abortions should be legal.
I must be getting senile as years go on, even Doctors preach they do not want pregnant women smoking, drinking, doing drugs while pregnant, yet late term abortion is fine?
Gotten to the point where everyone has rights, with no responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 13:55:29 GMT -6
I was replying to your c comment. banning late term abortion is merely a step away from making all abortions illegal. And, my comment about abortion was in direct reply to your comment about abortion. You brought it up. I stated my opinion about your opinion on that issue. That isn't in question. Nowhere in the article above does it state that execution of murderers is a part of the ban. Actually, you're wrong. I do not support late-term abortions except when the mother's life is in jeopardy. What I said stands, however. Banning late-term abortions is NOT the only kind they have in mind. It's easier to pass because even many of those who support a woman's right to choose do not condone late-term abortions. We know this already. So that was NEVER the point ~ moot or otherwise. The US doesn't oppose the execution of homosexuals is the point. Where, exactly, did I EVER say that?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 16, 2017 14:03:25 GMT -6
Yeah it is obvious the thread title/subject is yours. Not the most charitable title? I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals. Why? I expect my senators to vote to ban dangerous acts like drink driving. I don't think it's enough that they don't drink-drive themselves. Republicans expect their representatives to vote to ban abortion. They don't take it as enough that the senator never had an abortion herself. I am sure you would want your representatives to vote to execute murderers. It's not enough that those representatives aren't murderers themselves. So why is it that when the US votes against a ban on executing gay people, you think it's okay since the US doesn't execute homosexuals? What has that got to do with it? Actually it was Bernard who brought up abortion first. This is Bernard's thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 17:47:35 GMT -6
But, that was his drink think. (Joke)
Anyway, you're right. He did. I did not.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 16, 2017 18:15:01 GMT -6
But, that was his drink think. (Joke) Anyway, you're right. He did. I did not. LOL,yep it was.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 18, 2017 22:14:15 GMT -6
Why? I expect my senators to vote to ban dangerous acts like drink driving. I don't think it's enough that they don't drink-drive themselves. Republicans expect their representatives to vote to ban abortion. They don't take it as enough that the senator never had an abortion herself. I am sure you would want your representatives to vote to execute murderers. It's not enough that those representatives aren't murderers themselves. So why is it that when the US votes against a ban on executing gay people, you think it's okay since the US doesn't execute homosexuals? What has that got to do with it? Actually it was Bernard who brought up abortion first. This is Bernard's thread. Yeah, I brought up abortion as one among many examples that were meant to help you with a point you were struggling to understand. It predictably didn't work, but maybe I'll try again in a wee while. I have patience like you would not believe. I don't think anybody round these parts said anything about "no matter what term one is in all abortions should be legal". You made that up to baffle and delight us.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 3, 2017 23:22:56 GMT -6
I swear to god I need to stop trusting the media. My apologies. This article is misleading. They make it sound like this resolution was specifically about protecting homosexuals, and so a vote against it is a vote for homophobia. In fact, the resolution is about the death penalty, the death penalty, the death penalty and the death penalty. It talks about problems with the death penalty falling harder on low income groups; non-citizens; and minority groups. It talks about the need to ensure adequate representation; condemns the use of the death penalty on people with cognitive problems, but doesn't define "cognitive problems" (do psychopaths count? Pedophiles?) It condemns the use of the death penalty on people who were under 18 at the time they committed the offense, and for religious and sexual crimes. It encourages countries that haven't signed the protocol against the death penalty to sign it, and it uses the word "yet" throughout to imply that death penalty states are simply backward thinking hold-outs who are bound to abolish the death penalty eventually. Hidden on page three is a sentence condemning countries that use it for homosexuality. But that's not what this resolution is about. There's no way to vote for this resolution without also criticizing the use of the death penalty for child rapist-murderers, nazi terrorists and hate murderers like Dylann Roof. It's dishonest to imply that this was a homophobic vote. I apologize for posting. ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2017 10:12:25 GMT -6
As I stated to begin with, that link & title of that news article came out of the UK, which was misleading.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 5, 2017 0:40:18 GMT -6
Yeah, but you also said "I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals", so I assumed you were just brainstorming every possible response you could think of, no matter how desperate.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 5, 2017 8:11:10 GMT -6
Yeah, but you also said "I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals", so I assumed you were just brainstorming every possible response you could think of, no matter how desperate. Wrong, I knew damn well we would never execute homosexuals for being gay. How stupid & misleading it all was to begin with. I was defending against stupid misleading, your the one who is desperate . You drank the kool aid, not me.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 5, 2017 17:31:40 GMT -6
Yeah, but you also said "I too would vote against a ban on executing homosexuals", so I assumed you were just brainstorming every possible response you could think of, no matter how desperate. Wrong, I knew damn well we would never execute homosexuals for being gay. No-one said that we would. Even "The Independent" wouldn't try to convince us of that. I was certainly wrong on this occasion.
|
|