NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Autumn Wind wrote:So he managed to survive the Dallas cowgirls for 30+ years but Shakira and Jlo were a bridge too far?

If Shakira’s hip challenged his faith, how did he fail to fall when he saw Janet Jackson’s boob?

The timely intervention of three priests, six pastors, four reverends, and nine popes.

---

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
But he has already made a fool out of himself. He should go all the way.

God loves a trier.

Well... true.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Autumn Wind wrote:
Infinitely preferable. But that would require them to be money-lusting charlatans rather than murderous fanatics.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. I'd bet the lawyers who'd have to deal with such lawsuits might long for the sweet release of death.

By Allah you infidel swine shall pay for your disrespect to allah, the most gracious and merciful. Mohammed, peace be upon him, would be highly displeased. tomorrow we shall strike. We will take you to court and file a lawsuit, the likes of which you have never seen! We shall have our revenge against you you heretic, and we will drink your salty tears as all your money and probably your house and car are taken from you! Allah Akbar! We will see you in the 5th district court house tomorrow!

-Anwar Jibadi Al-Islam Kidari al-jihadi mustafa Mahmoud, second in command of the Islamic front for Uzbekistan

Ifreann wrote:

Albrenia wrote:I'm a little concerned that so many cats are talking in this thread.

Cats love the NFL, well known fact. Far less interested in XFL.

Meow.

Rojava Free State wrote:She always would use these big words to describe me like "exotically handsome" and honestly a wise man once warned against this kind of lamguage.

So are you saying you thought what she said was racist and offensive?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The problem with saying "I like Christians, but fundamentalists should be ridiculed" is that the definition of fundamentalists tends to malleable. In a secular crowd you might be fine doing such ridicule, but to religious people it just makes it look like you're making fun of people with intense faith. I would no doubt be labeled a "fundamentalist" for a few of my religious positions, despite being Catholic.

Is it not possible to be a fundamentalist catholic?

I don't know. "Fundamentalist" is less a concrete term in modern discourse, and more a pejorative used by secular people to make fun of religious people. It's why I'm suspicious of the "fine with Christians, not with fundamentalists" reasoning.

Cantelo wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The problem with saying "I like Christians, but fundamentalists should be ridiculed" is that the definition of fundamentalists tends to malleable. In a secular crowd you might be fine doing such ridicule, but to religious people it just makes it look like you're making fun of people with intense faith. I would no doubt be labeled a "fundamentalist" for a few of my religious positions, despite being Catholic.

When people begin taking their religion and trying to force it upon others by basing laws on their beliefs (sale of alcohol, homosexuality, etc) then it becomes a problem. Someone that has intense faith isn’t a problem and in fact can be admirable. That changes when said person is both intensely religious AND tries to force the people around them to follow the same religious observations and rules.

It doesn't just have to be coercion to be harmful either. Embryonic stem cell research funding used to be opposed on religious grounds. Even though it wasn't outright criminalized, denial of funding could have done all kinds of untold harm.

Sundiata wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:So I can have your soul for free, then? Sweet, another one to add to my collection!

Not my soul but my service. How can I serve you?

Giving me your soul?

Bienenhalde wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:She always would use these big words to describe me like "exotically handsome" and honestly a wise man once warned against this kind of lamguage.

So are you saying you thought what she said was racist and offensive?

What?

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Is it not possible to be a fundamentalist catholic?

I don't know. "Fundamentalist" is less a concrete term in modern discourse, and more a pejorative used by secular people to make fun of religious people. It's why I'm suspicious of the "fine with Christians, not with fundamentalists" reasoning.

Well, im fine with Christians so long as they don't force themselves on others or advocate violence. If you wanna ask Jesus daily for guidance then you do you. I don't believe what you believe and would rather live in a world without religion, but I don't personally have issues with you as a person. I wouldn't tell everyone "man so and so is an evil horrible sick fuck, because he's a christian!"

Bienenhalde wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:She always would use these big words to describe me like "exotically handsome" and honestly a wise man once warned against this kind of lamguage.

So are you saying you thought what she said was racist and offensive?

...huh?

Cantelo wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The problem with saying "I like Christians, but fundamentalists should be ridiculed" is that the definition of fundamentalists tends to malleable. In a secular crowd you might be fine doing such ridicule, but to religious people it just makes it look like you're making fun of people with intense faith. I would no doubt be labeled a "fundamentalist" for a few of my religious positions, despite being Catholic.

When people begin taking their religion and trying to force it upon others by basing laws on their beliefs (sale of alcohol, homosexuality, etc) then it becomes a problem. Someone that has intense faith isn’t a problem and in fact can be admirable. That changes when said person is both intensely religious AND tries to force the people around them to follow the same religious observations and rules.

See, now you're not even talking about fundamentalism. You're talking about the relationship between religion and government, and private or public practice. Which, once again, makes me suspicious of "only" hating fundamentalism, because my Church teaches religion should part of public society, else it isn't actually religion.

NFL should counter-sue for his eye, for if it causes him to sin it would be better if he were to pluck it out.

Hakons wrote:
See, now you're not even talking about fundamentalism. You're talking about the relationship between religion and government, and private or public practice. Which, once again, makes me suspicious of "only" hating fundamentalism, because my Church teaches religion should part of public society, else it isn't actually religion.

He has defined his terms, and you are nitpicking. Please keep your gods out of our lives.

If you have any spare Shakiras, please feel free to send them to evangelize.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
If you think about it, Lot's daughters raped him

Eh, I'm not sure how drunk a guy has to be for who becomes the rapist to be reversed. That one might be more a question for a lawyer. Off to the legality of moments in fiction thread!

Either way, it goes against the "Christianity only supports married/procreative sex" narrative.

What makes you think God or the writer of Genesis condoned their actions? Being less bad than the other people of Sodom doesn't mean they were innocent or without sin.

Yeah, SJW and leftist crazies are a big problem today, but I'm not really strongly against or for scantily gladness or suggestiveness by itself. We are not the Middle East/Islamic world where they actually by law restrict clothing.

O...k... secularism vs. theocracy could probably be saved for a different thread. I want to bring this... back on topic? Almost back on topic? Sort of back on topic? Not sure what this counts as...

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Some people are so ridiculous.

And hypocritical too. When the Maroon 5 bloke took off his shirt with skinny jeans that were low cut, no one bitched. No one cried “but muh morals!” when he did it.

I doubt any males could complain about that without being dismissed as "just jealous." As well, I doubt there's any objective metric of equal arousal when male and female arousal are measured in different ways.

It's pretty telling that women usually only object to scantily-clad males in the context of using this to dismiss all concerns about the reverse. There is no such thing as "gender-neutral."

So the first sentence of this post as addressed; along with the second paragraph; by mentions of criticisms of this particular halftime show coming from women too. But that still leaves behind the second one from the first paragraph.

How do you measure how to compare "scantily-clad" in males and females? Do you measure it by how much arousal it causes in the opposite sex? If so, on what basis do you compare different forms of arousal measured differently?

Arthenius wrote:Yeah, SJW and leftist crazies are a big problem today, but I'm not really strongly against or for scantily gladness or suggestiveness by itself. We are not the Middle East/Islamic world where they actually by law restrict clothing.

What does the bolded have to do with the price of tea in China?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:How do you measure how to compare "scantily-clad" in males and females? Do you measure it by how much arousal it causes in the opposite sex? If so, on what basis do you compare different forms of arousal measured differently?

If the pubic area shows, it's scantily-clad.

Bienenhalde wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Eh, I'm not sure how drunk a guy has to be for who becomes the rapist to be reversed. That one might be more a question for a lawyer. Off to the legality of moments in fiction thread!

Either way, it goes against the "Christianity only supports married/procreative sex" narrative.

What makes you think God or the writer of Genesis condoned their actions? Being less bad than the other people of Sodom doesn't mean they were innocent or without sin.

The Bible is notoriously open to interpretation, contradicting itself frequently, being of disputed translations, etc... if one interpreted that story as condoning incest those interpreting it otherwise wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Cantelo wrote:
Christians are cool, but Christian Identity sympathizers and fundamentalists are awful and deserve nothing but ridicule

Christian identity isn't even normal evangelical protestantism. It's racism trying to mix religion into its tenants. They claim black people are pre Adamic soulless mud people, which is strange considering how black people seem to have as much of or as little of a soul as whites, but go figure. They also think the original Israelites were the ancestors of the Europeans and that modern Jews are the spawn of satan. What a bunch of weirdos

There also happens to be many atheists and non-Christian White identity racialists. Go figure that out.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:What makes you think God or the writer of Genesis condoned their actions? Being less bad than the other people of Sodom doesn't mean they were innocent or without sin.

The Bible is notoriously open to interpretation, contradicting itself frequently, being of disputed translations, etc... if one interpreted that story as condoning incest those interpreting it otherwise wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.

Sure they would have a leg to stand on. There are multiple Bible verses condemned rape, promiscuity, drunkeness, and incest. This is only ambiguous if you take the story completely out of context.

Cekoviu wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:How do you measure how to compare "scantily-clad" in males and females? Do you measure it by how much arousal it causes in the opposite sex? If so, on what basis do you compare different forms of arousal measured differently?

If the pubic area shows, it's scantily-clad.

Still leaves behind the question of "how much of" the pubic area.

Also, how opaque does whatever is used to cover it need to be?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:If the pubic area shows, it's scantily-clad.

Still leaves behind the question of "how much of" the pubic area.

The threshold is 0%

Also, how opaque does whatever is used to cover it need to be?

Opaque enough that somebody standing next to you can't see your pubic hairs or genitalia.

Seems like some fucker's peepee was confused.

The thing is, I don't care. Watch some porn and get over it.

Hope this lawsuit Is laughed out for the stupid nonsense it is. Better yet, can somebody crowdfund a bunch of scantily-clad dancers to greet him as he goes into court? Always works well I find.

I wish the American right would stop with this obvious lie about not expecting sexiness at the Super Bowl and just admit they didn't like the subtle jabs JLo and Shakira made at the current treatment of Latino immigrants.

But I suppose they've had yet to give a straight answer regarding the morality of that issue so far ("But Obama did the same! But they broke the law!"), so why start now? Just blame the butts instead.

First off, he's wasting his time, and this is the stupidest thing someone could sue over. I mean, if he's gonna sue over scantily clad women at an NFL game, then why stop there? Why not go on to sue the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders? They wear some pretty skimpy outfits.

Second, this quote from the NY Post:

“J.Lo is 50,” he said. “You go on a porn website, you’re not looking for 50-year-old women.”

Really Dave? And you would know this how?

Iridencia wrote:I wish the American right would stop with this obvious lie about not expecting sexiness at the Super Bowl and just admit they didn't like the subtle jabs JLo and Shakira made at the current treatment of Latino immigrants.

But I suppose they've had yet to give a straight answer regarding the morality of that issue so far ("But Obama did the same! But they broke the law!"), so why start now? Just blame the butts instead.

As someone who personally knows a lot of conservatives, trust me. It has nothing to do with criticism of the current treatment of Latino immigrants. It is definitely all about the risqué dancing and sexy clothing.