Which skrum wall(s) are you referring to? The economic wall (based on information costs, not religion, universal in application) that I started the thread with, or the spiritual wall, in which some kinds of behavior can impose harm on third parties, either by contact with demons (a lot of conjecture here on my part) or because of a stain that gets placed on the land?

this thread sucks more dicks than the gays

The North Carolinian thread is over there, Chris. This one is only for non-North Carolinians. I know it's probably hard for you to read.

a) Most dicks are sucked by women. Women sucking dicks does not represent gay intercourse, if I remember correctly. If it is legal in a bible-based life, I do not know.

b) IIRC Hinduism does see many ways to reach nirvana, thus this is a not absolute religion in its basic ideas (just to oppose Jurgen a bit). However, there are radical groups within there as well I am afraid.

c) I am missing the fathers rights in the brief discussion of abortion. But then, the so called civilized world is moving towards matriarchy anyways. Thus there is no need for rights for males. God will you girls be sad when the batteries are out...

If the father has the right that his potential offspring not be killed, that right should be contingent upon his right of fatherhood, which would be forfeited in the case of rape or incest, or would be overridden to save the life of the mother.

On the other hand, if the woman has the sole discretion about whether the prospective child should live, there should be a corresponding lack of obligation of the man to support the child.

The Bible is unclear on when, or if, the unborn child may be aborted. My conjecture is that the prospective child gains the right to live when it gets its soul. But when does that happen? I suspect it happens after conception, because otherwise, how would identical twins get separate souls?

Completely agree with skrum's first two statements.

skrum i refer to you as a wall because i think your idea of communication, at least when it comes to discussion/debates, is to only be heard, and not to absorb what others are saying. i'm not sure ive ever seen you change your mind or politely listen to a conflicting perspective. nor have i seen you 'agree to disagree'. its always you are right and the other person (or other 99% of the people) are wrong. period.

if you refuse to treat the other people with respect and dignity in your communication, then it doesnt matter how correct your argument is, they most likely will not have a change in heart or mind, based solely on how rudely you are presenting your ideas. maybe i'm wrong here, but my guess is that you desire people to agree with your truth. well, as the bible says, share the truth IN LOVE. and you know what the bible says love is, so i would advise you express your views more lovingly, and listen to others views more lovingly.

How have I not treated people with dignity and respect in my communications? People like Freddie Mercury don't treat people with dignity and respect. I haven't heard you taking *him* to task.

what about intersex people. you know the people with forex XXY as cromosones.

they are both male and female at the same time, where do you think these people fit skrum?

montecarlo wrote
at 8:21 AM, Tuesday May 15, 2012 CDT
skrum i refer to you as a wall because i think your idea of communication, at least when it comes to discussion/debates, is to only be heard, and not to absorb what others are saying. i'm not sure ive ever seen you change your mind or politely listen to a conflicting perspective. nor have i seen you 'agree to disagree'. its always you are right and the other person (or other 99% of the people) are wrong. period.


skrumgaer wrote
at 8:56 AM, Tuesday May 15, 2012 CDT
How have I not treated people with dignity and respect in my communications? People like Freddie Mercury don't treat people with dignity and respect. I haven't heard you taking *him* to task.


i lold