Black mobs terrorize Victoria’s Secret shoppers

Posted by lukenbocker 10 years, 3 months ago to News
244 comments | Share | Flag

I think we need to stop naming kids DaQuan and ShaT'qua. We also need to spend more time with our kids and love them and make sure that God and Jesus are first in our lives.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    but if you say "I'll pray for you to come to God, so therefore you can lead moral lives and be saved..." that is insulting to someone not of faith. How is that any different than me saying to you, "praying is stupid." Now if I said, "praying is irrational" you'd probably agree within the context of A is A. You might say, praying is part of the basis of my faith and I agree faith cannot be explained because we can't completely know it or we will never be able to know it. We can discuss in that realm-but telling someone they are praying for people they do not know, whose morality they cannot discern, will raise the ire of the Objectivist. LS was very clear that she was good, did not need peace and was firm in her moral foundations. but people kept pushing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 3 months ago
    Who's John Galt. Take their businesses away from them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Great points now look at it from another point of view. Why do we pray for people? We want them to be ok, we want them to find peace. It's all good intentions. If someone used it as sarcasm shame on them Noone can know if it was intended to be sarcasm except the person that said it. You can't see it or touch it or hear it even if they take the oath.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The term original sin is not in the bible. Do a search of the King James Bible. Baptism is a ceremony where you declare your faith and your plan to live your life the way God wanted publicly. John the Baptist's calling was to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus by preaching. Baptism was used for the forgiveness of sins by baptism and repentance. Jesus was the new covenant (promise from God) Through Jesus baptizing us in the Holy Spirit our sin is forgiven and a new strength is given to us. Great question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    nope-wasn't directed at you. I can't get any of you to acknowledge that at times the discussion has become overwhelming to Objectivists though. Atlas store there is a book offered by Mark Henderson (mark in the gulch, who is a producer) called The Soul of Atlas. btw, he is the stepson of John Aglialoro. The premise of the book was to find where Christians and Objectivism could meet. That premise can be debated, but it seems more productive of a discussion to me than how it devolved in this post, and shows the site is welcoming to people of faith.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks Rich. I have to say that I have always felt free to participate in any and all discussions until and most especial last night when some pointedly told all Christians that they were not welcome here in the gulch.

    I think such prejudice is so far over the top to not be tolerated. No matter how I might disagree with some people on some issues, I would never go so far and I felt that it needed cleared up. Thank you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    then why is it discussed on the wiki page for Baptists? Where does the term "baptism" come from? What was John the Baptist's calling? For baptist's the baptism isn't even sufficient to wipe away sin-that also on the wiki page. I know there are many different branches of Baptist churches, but I'll be pretty surprised if you can show the doctrine does not include original sin. It's the point of baptism-am I wrong?



    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know who took away a point. If you're referring to me, I patiently said nothing until the morality of LS's family was brought into question. That's generally when I'll say "lectern banging." It's my humorous way of saying could ya tone it down a little. You don't have to agree nor do you. There are many posts on religion, including click-through's to christianegoist's site. If you could see it from the Objectivist's perspective, however, we have these debates "out there" and regularly. This is a site devoted to AR's ideas and Atlas Shrugged. Sometimes the Christian or religious perspective can be overwhelming. Juxtapose that perspective with an Objectivist not bringing it up in here. There are (for contrast sake) very few posts in which Christianity is attacked (without it being brought up in here by the religious initially). So, in other words, you are free to enjoy and exchange all the other areas where there is tremendous overlap and we can discuss and engage from the same tenets. How many times have our gay gulchers had to be offended by the christian perspective on their post? Or how many times have they had to hear they needed to lighten up on posts referring to those topics? and star, you are one of those complainers-which was reasonable btw.
    I remember a post where a member wanted to discuss the appropriate age for reading AS and because she mentioned she had a partner- the post immediately focused on that and how evil she was. The original intent of the post completely ignored. On THIS site! When several gulchers say hey-it's a little too much-can't that be seen as reasonable?.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Um..no. I’m professing my annoyance. I dislike peddlers. Born again christians who evangelize might as well be Moonies.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are likely commenting on some of those whom I no longer bother to read. So the viciousness can come from multiple directions. I don't think that you or anyone else here, would say that I have been other than rational (sometimes snarky, but never vicious).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First of all that is not an argument. This quote "IT'S HIS UNIVERSE. If it amuses Him to stake us out on anthills... there's not a damned thing you can do about it" is complete nonsense. There is no evidence for this.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Robbie53024 replied 10 years, 3 months ago
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes that is irrational and immoral on its face. Face it you can't have a rational discussion about something that is inherently irrational.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Vicious? Hmmm. I think yesterday LS clearly stated she was done debating and instead peoole kept at her including insulting her boys. The there is no morality without faith in God- now there's a very sharp elbow and delivered on a site where an Objectivist should think they would be free from thinking like that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi, star - there are some here who are viciously atheist, and will attack your faith. Most are reasonable and rational and are willing to debate intelligently and thoughtfully. The moderators here are very lenient in what they allow, so if you can't take sharp elbows, you might find this forum uncomfortable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi Star. Sorry for the delay in answering. I believe that Christians are welcome in the Gulch. My wife has a very strong faith while I do not and we make it work. I think those with a strong faith can still follow objectivist principles. I responded to what I thought was the more direct point that this article made. It is clear that black on white crime is not being reported in the news. I welcome other opinions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 3 months ago
    Black on white crime is hardly surprising. Remember decades ago when blacks were treated with contempt by many whites, and how they were portrayed in the media, from movies to newspapers?

    Look at how whites, particularly white males, are treated in the modern media, from commercials to tv and movies. Weak, impotent, cowardly, foolish, backward and out-of-touch.

    Back in the 1980s, a common attribution applied to Japanese men was their taste for, not just white, but blonde women. The explanation sometimes given was their attempt to regain their potency and dominance by possessing the women of those who emasculated them.

    This was explained in Anthro 101, and is embodied in the quote misattributed to Ghengis Khan and Atilla the Hun;
    the great leader is sitting among his warriors (NOT soldiers) and the question comes up as to what is best in life. One asserts that the open steppes, the wind in your face, and a falcon to stir up the hares is best.

    The Khan or Hun responds that no, what is best in life is to drive your enemy before you; to destroy his works, to possess his woman before him.

    Like it or not, it's in our genes that "possession" of the females of a tribe equates to the ultimate dominance of that tribe.

    Now watch the phase the media is in; watch commercials, television programs, movies, and see how frequently black males and *blonde* females are portrayed together (and the female is seldom portrayed respectfully). For comparison, keep likewise count on how often white males and black females are are portrayed together (further proof of this almost instinctive outlook; political correctness would forbid a portrayal of a white male even vaguely "possessing" a black female... it harkens back too closely to the days of slavery, don'tcha know...) A black person, especially male, who rejects the artificial "black culture" is, in the media and public arena, condemned for "acting white", when the real black culture has far more in common with "white culture" than with the artificial black culture.

    Combined with the destructive, artificial "black culture" they've created, and you've a modern-day Morloch/Eloi relationship established.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A is A is a logic premise. It is the basis for things are knowable. That is a contradiction with religion. You are free to reject that premise in making an exception for God but you cannot deny the contradiction. Things got heated in the thread when the poster said they were going to pray for someone to come to God. If you could see it from an objectivist 's perspective, its quite condesending. After all they are trying to live a moral life without religion. It is reasonable to assume on a site promoting AR 's ideas and AS, you wouldnt have to field comments like Ill pray for you (and your ignorance) Its insulting. There have been many lively discussions on faith in here, so Im not sure where you get the idea christians aren 't welcome, however when faith shows up in a post it will get criticized and no one should be surprised by that. I think you 'll find this Objectivist site is much more tolerant in discussing faith than all the other O forums.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's what I was taught when I went to Sunday School. I remember they took one of us up and told him that everyone below him would be burning in hell but he would go to heaven and be happy about it for some reason.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo