Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Apologists for homosexuality cannot condemn this shooting...

If the boy baby watches the male nurse longer than the female nurse, does that mean he's gay? Since he was just born, doesn't that mean that God made him gay?

As to JoeBob's post, Jefferson and the founding generation thought otherwise. They thought that unassisted human reason (what Jefferson meant by "the law of nature") and revelation (what Jefferson meant by "the law of nature's God") were in agreement on what constituted moral behavior and therefore, that it was not necessary to appeal strictly to revealed religion to discover the ground of the distinction between right and wrong. On the essential moral questions, the Founders saw reason and revelation as reinforcing one another, not in conflict.


Jordan

Newborns can't see beyond about 6", you ignoramus jackass. They certainly cannot focus, and what they can see is only light/dark shadows. Your example fails (shockingly) on facts and science.

While your not always right, your almost always logical.

Oh, I'm always right.

Spoken like a true believer in freedom. Plus one.

That a whole lot of stupid in that post

I skipped to the bottom and didn't read but the first reply. I don't believe homosexuality is moral I also do believe God gives freedom of choice and what ever someone wants to do is their own buisness. I don't rejoice in the death of a bunch of root lickers. That being said it's better them than a grade school somewhere or a church or synagogue.

While I think the Gay crowd needs to be taken down a couple of notches, this isn't the way....

on the flip side, I don't necessarily care for gays....

but as the same time, I have less care about Muslims, especially those who come here and then kill folks, regardless of reason and do so in the name of God/Allah....

and then want to take over our nation and the free world, by killing all of its inhabitants....

I've always maintained, you play by your enemies rules...

Maybe its time we played by theirs...... its long over due and more than justified....

Are you and out-and out moron? How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Nowhere have I stated or implied that homosexuals in the Orlando night club deserved to be murdered because they were homosexuals or that it was right or moral for them to be murdered. For the umpteenth time what I have tried to show (and what I think I have shown)is that one cannot consistently condemn this mass murder while simultaneously accepting as true the premises of the homosexual rights movement insofar as those premises deny any moral authority to nature and the law that is in nature.

4ager, you have consistently, gratuitously and quite mendaciously misrepresented what I have written either because (a) you don't comprehend it or (b)because you are incensed that anyone has the temerity to publicly criticize the philosophical underpinnings of the homosexual rights movement. I think it is the latter, which is why I think, that at a very basic level, you are a man of the Left. I note that you still have not explained why, if I shouldn't be a lawyer, Jefferson should not be on the Supreme Court or Washington shouldn't be the CINC, given their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

Will I be hearing from the State Bar on account of you? If so, I will not be surprised since I think, at bottom, you are incensed that anyone who is a lawyer should be permitted to speak out, in any manner, against homosexuality. You have made that very, very clear in this thread and historically, on this forum. I don't accept your attempt to put me in a politically correct, censorious straight-jacket. Your not much different than college radicals who shout down conservative lecturers who dare to refuse to toe the line on publicly acceptable political positions. I will not be intimidated by your thinly veiled threat.

Jordan

RJ opining on the lack of cerebral thought here is like claiming the .270 Win is gay.

You're not making an argument, your hiding behind your words.

Then you should have no difficulty refuting what I wrote. So do it.

There are a lot of sentences in this paragraph, and they all have words, but together they do not make a coherent argument. The problem comes with sentences like "But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman". This is nonsense. The "root of all friendships" is not "that of a man and a woman", no matter what nonsense you use to tie the two phrases together. You might say that the root of friendships is mutual respect, or mutual interests or any number of things. You might also say that the coming together of a man and a woman is required for a new person to exist, and thus is a requirement in order for future friendships to occur, but this doesn't mean that any relationship between men is wrong. I could go on with the rest of your argument, but since this cornerstone of it is so badly incorrect I see no need.

Am I correct in thinking that you have identified yourself as a lawyer in this thread? If so then I am surprised that you aren't aware that the basis of the Western legal system is the Deontological ethical system (also the cornerstone of libertarian thinking). The fundamental principal of this ethical system is that your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's face begins (in layman's terms). Thus what two people may do consensually together, if it doesn't cause harm to others, is not something the courts should deal with. Killing people with guns on the other hand, is generally considered bad because it both causes harm to others and is not consensual. How you could miss something as basic as this in your multisyllabic attempts to justify your belief that there's nothing wrong with the murder of more than 50 people is almost mind blowing. But on the plus side for you, because your illogical rant doesn't cause direct harm to others, your right to say it is protected by the laws of the land, as are our rights to inform you of how poorly formed your argument is. This also answers for me the burning question of why there are so many foolish law suits filed every year.

Support your local sheriff:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=521381144701796&id=153688004804447

I get what Jordan is arguing and from the very narrow perspective of his initial point on morality, what he's saying is fairly consistent and logical. I don't think he's saying that gays deserve to be killed because they're immoral. He's saying that the gay rights movement can't represent something that is, under the views of many people, immoral at its core and then express outrage over other immoral acts (like murder).

I simply don't agree with the positions of people like Jaffa, who concluded that there is a 1:1 relationship between morality and justice or that there can be no sense of just and unjust if we accept homosexuality, since homosexuality is immoral because it's not natural. First, while it certainly isn't natural for the majority of members of a species that survives over generations, but I'm pretty sure it's been a part of human existence from the early days for a minority of folks. Second, there are many things that one can deem to be immoral that do not give rise to the termination of rights to assert the immorality of other acts.

If Jordan is only saying that he finds the gay rights movement to be a bunch of hypocrites for basing their demands upon an argument of morality, I agree with him. But you'll find hypocrisy in virtually every movement and anyone who would make the leap to stripping a group of legal rights (such as, say, the right to not be murdered) based on a wholly separate system of moral beliefs is a total lunatic. I don't think Jordan did this, explicitly, but many people presumed that is where he was heading with his argument.

If I thought there was even the smallest chance it could make a difference, but there ain't no cure for what you've got.

Holy fugg

Nowhere have I said or implied that the murders in Orlando were anything but wrong. Quite the opposite: what I have argued is that on the premises of the homosexual rights movement those murders can only be criticized on idiosyncratic (subjective) grounds and impliedly asked "is this what we as a society want?

The meaning of the statement "but the root of all friendship, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman" is self-evident. You and I exist in virtue of having a mother and father who themselves had a mother and a father and so on and so on. Human friendship---as with human existence itself---is ultimately the product of that first sexual friendship between a man and a woman. The homosexual rights movement denies that there is any meaning to be drawn from these facts. Likewise, they deny there is anything meaningful to be drawn from the distinction between the human and the non-human. Jaffa's argument (like Jefferson before him) is that nature and the law that is in nature are the rational ground of all moral distinctions. Nature, which has within it the principle of "coming-into-being", is constituted in and by the generative distinction between male and female. If nature and the law that is within nature condemn slavery and genocide (for example) then surely they equally condemn homosexuality because the distinction in nature between male and female is even more fundamental than the distinction between the human and the non-human.

You are not correct in thinking I have identified myself as a lawyer. Others have, though it happens to be true. Let us then deal with your condescending (and utterly ill-informed) notion that law school teaches anything about the basis of the western legal system. It emphatically does not. (There might be a course on the matter available at some schools. I would be shocked if it is part of the general law school curriculum.) That's supposed to be the product of a liberal education. Did you not know that?

Your invocation of deontology is analytically silly and unavailing. In the first place, the fundamental principle of American law is not that whatever two people consent to is just and proper. Quite the opposite, Jefferson made clear in the Declaration of Independence that only "the just laws" are derived from the consent of the governed. Consent as such cannot justify that which is intrinsically immoral. Virtually everything Jefferson wrote speaks to his believe in a non-relative normative system that consent cannot properly contravene and in that vein, condemnation of homosexuality is consistent throughout western civilization since at least Plato. Jefferson in fact wrote a criminal code for the Commonwealth of Virginia making it a felony punishable by castration. Whether we should so regard it today is certainly open to question, but apparently questioning this new morality---the morality of immorality is not open to question. Jefferson would be surprised at that, but apparently he too was ignorant of your "deontology".

You are obviously quite proud of yourself for learning that big word (deontology) but virtually everything you assert in your thread is incorrect. Nowhere have I justified or tried to justify the murder of innocent homosexuals in Orlando. I have done exactly the opposite. The American legal system is emphatically not grounded in the notion that consent justifies anything and everything so long as only the consenting parties are affected.

Jordan

The TEXT, re: "Rob Jordan"

........can't say I'm in the least bit surprised, either.

Rob, ....you care to respond to any of this ?

GTC


Modoc County Sheriff's Office
February 3 ·
Hello again to everyone,
A lot going on right now within your Sheriff's Office.
First I want to let the citizens of Modoc County know a few critical and very important things that you will not hear elsewhere. I have been very quiet on this subject for some time now, but enough is enough. My question to the people of Modoc County is just how long are you going to allow an unethical, untruthful, vindictive defense attorney pose as your District Attorney?????
Your DA has had an ax to grind against the Sheriff's Office since before our "We know what is best for you, so just sit down and shut up," board of supervisors appointed him to fill Chris Brooke's vacated position. He has particularly been focused on one specific employee as per his add in the paper, he is more than willing to accept anything he can get his hands on period, as long as it pertains to and is damaging to the Sheriff's Office specifically. He has not only dismissed serious criminal charges, but invited suspect/s to his home for a visit, provided them with evidence against them and encouraged them to file complaints per suspects own statements and surely to file law suits against the County and your Sheriff's Office, for all I know he has even referred them to attorneys that might be interested in suing the county. We in fact have been sued by the suspect in this case the county settled for nearly $100,000 dollars. An outside nationally recognized legal expert in this field of law was consulted, studied the case in great detail and rendered the opinion that there is no merit to the Colts claim and that no responsible county would have settled this case, but rather would have defended it with utmost zeal. These types of settlements only encourage further such claims at the expense of the county and create undue ill-conceived damage to the reputation of the Sheriff’s Office and the public servants involved. I have also been informed by numerous subjects that these are all things the DA believes necessary if he is to “Get the Sheriff”.
Investigations and records indicate that Jordan Funk has checked out inmates from the jail that he personally prosecuted and then under prior management checked them out of the Jail at $10.00 a day, so that he can pay them under the table to help construct and do work around his personal residence. He has written letters to the United States Attorney's Office that are not truthful; he has tried to extort the Sheriff's Office with quid pro quo correspondence. He has hired an Investigator contrary to County Code and Peace Officer Standards of Training guidelines, who is being paid by you the tax payers. This man’s job appears to be for the sole purpose of digging up any "dirt" he can find on the Sheriff, Sheriff's Office or its employees. This man has interviewed many, many people attempting to find some "chink in the armor" and he has threatened the Sheriff with obstruction of justice and arrest. God only knows how many citizens he has coerced or attempted to coerce derogatory statements from in order to attempt to satisfy the DA's personal dislike for the Sheriff and its employees. If you have been contacted by this so called DA investigator and feel that you have been unduly coerced or pressured to make statements against your will please contact the Sheriff’s Office.
Last week the DA summoned potential jurors from the registered voter rolls and selected a Criminal Grand Jury in an attempt to prosecute Deputy Nessling. This stemming from a case of Assault with intent to produce great bodily injury responded to by multiple agencies and investigated by the Sheriff’s Office, against a local career criminal, which occurred November of 2014. The DA has publicly put Deputy Nessling and his family through a living hell for some fifteen months now. Why? Because he has some preconceived dislike for him? Meanwhile accused murderers continue to sit in our dilapidated jail, child molesters, domestic violence cases, drug cases, elder abuse cases, assault cases are dropped or dismissed and criminals continue to walk the streets and recidivate. Cases are rejected, for reasons such as, "Not worth my time". Now don't get me wrong not every case warrants prosecution, but I believe we work for you the people, your crises becomes our crises. We try to never forget that if it is real enough for you to call we are going to show up and attempt to help with the situation. Every call has some citizen that is or at least truly feels like a victim. I could go on and on and on with this subject. I'm certain that most people have no idea of what is or has been occurring. If you have seen any of this or follow any of this in the local paper then you can be sure that unfortunately you only have one side. The California Legal Defense fund PORAC is monitoring any developments regarding Deputy Nessling and the DA’s actions related to these proceedings and is fully prepared to defend Deputy Nessling should this travesty actually proceed.
We have asked an outside law enforcement agency to initiate a criminal investigation of Jordan Funk regarding these incidents and allegations. Three law firms have agreed to file a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct and various other violations of the law with the California State Bar.
Moral around the Sheriff's Office is low; our patrol deputies are reluctant to do their job, for fear that our district attorney's dislike for the Sheriff's Office will lead to more unwarranted action against them. We have had several good people and deputies leave the Sheriff's Office and the county, certainly for several varying reasons to include low pay, short staffing. You should know that during exit interviews the one major common denominator is their lack of trust in our district attorney. It saddens me to now have to inform you that we are losing our Under-Sheriff Ken Richardson. Ken "Has had enough" Ken will be retiring and moving out of the State of California at the end of the month. Again the primary reason is an absolute lack of trust and or confidence in the district attorney. Some other major concerns of Ken's are a CAO and Board that has no concept nor concern for public safety or the loyal county servants that sacrifice day in and day out to help keep the people of Modoc County Safe. No confidence in State government, unconstitutional gun legislation. We write letters stating our disapproval of bill after bill after bill, authored by rogue legislators aimed at eroding your second amendment rights. We agree that none of these will do a thing to curb gun violence. Add federal government over reach and lack of coordination and several other issues certainly
That leaves yours truly to be the Sheriff, Under-Sheriff and Patrol Sergeant as of March first. Guess I will just move a bunk into my office. As I have stated several times in the recent past, “I am telling you all of this because, the pace we are working at is NOT SUSTAINABLE!”
Thanks for your continued support. Sorry for the rant, but it is high time you were made aware of what we have been putting up with on our end. Too bad we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore.
Mike