I support Manny's stance ,Do you?

[tangalog2200]

Check this out...

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

Many more publications on this topic.

thanks, buddy....and read this...sir isaac newton on creation...

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2
Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God.

[fanofslug]

This site has turned into a forum for gays and sexual deviants. Come for our boxing news, Stay for our gayness....yuck

[Zaroku]

thanks, buddy....and read this...sir isaac newton on creation...

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2
Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God.

I agree completely. Darwin was a divinity student and not a scientist.

[Furn]

show me where i said that....

The bible says that.

[zerosixthree]

in your view, then, knocking off one's teeth is more aggravating than taking out one by one a man's source of livelihood....

the hatred pac got himself into is like a train gone berserk....

pac has to answer for his mistake...

but some people are stretching this issue near breaking point...

for their own agenda....

In my view no but then what's the alternative here? You either accept free speech or you don't. What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association.

It's unfortunate for Pacquiao but the fact is he is not entitled to a living. Just like you should not be able to force me to give you a job or a business should not be able to force you to buy it's products, Nike and others should not be forced to give Pacquiao money nor should people be forced to pay to watch him fight.

Obviously, you're free to disagree but understand that you're advocating elevating one man's right above the rights of others and as such arguing against the very idea of freedom.

[tangalog2200]

The bible says that.

show me the verse in the bible that says that...

[tangalog2200]

In my view no but then what's the alternative here? You either accept free speech or you don't. What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association.

It's unfortunate for Pacquiao but the fact is he is not entitled to a living. Just like you should not be able to force me to give you a job or a business should not be able to force you to buy it's products, Nike and others should not be forced to give Pacquiao money nor should people be forced to pay to watch him fight.

Obviously, you're free to disagree but understand that you're advocating elevating one man's right above the rights of others and as such arguing against the very idea of freedom.

"What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association."

where from my posts do you get the above conclusions?

[zerosixthree]

"What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association."

where from my posts do you get the above conclusions?

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here;

One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income.

Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money.

By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two.

Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.

[tangalog2200]

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here;

One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income.

Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money.

By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two.

Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here;

One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. I agree with this...i stated in my posts pac did wrong in his "animal" snafu...lgbt has right to air grievances...but airing grievances should not be equated to full hate vengeance....more so pac apologized for it and such overkill a retaliation will not also reflect back well for the lgbt...

Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. i never said that...

By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. not necessarily...read again above...

Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.

now consider this;

equality, no doubt, is paradise on earth...it is a very noble idea....that man must pursue to realization...a very sweet aspiration...a dream.....

but it is something beset by man having different beliefs, culture, ;religion, laws, way of life, national interests, etc etc etc...

what rights one can enjoy in say, usa most likely you will not get everywhere....

the prevailing conditions on earth is making that dream an impossible dream...

[zerosixthree]

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here;

One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. I agree with this...i stated in my posts pac did wrong in his "animal" snafu...lgbt has right to air grievances...but airing grievances should not be equated to full hate vengeance....more so pac apologized for it and such overkill a retaliation will not also reflect back well for the lgbt...

Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. i never said that...

By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. not necessarily...read again above...

Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.

now consider this;

equality, no doubt, is paradise on earth...it is a very noble idea....that man must pursue to realization...a very sweet aspiration...a dream.....

but it is something beset by man having different beliefs, culture, ;religion, laws, way of life, national interests, etc etc etc...

what rights one can enjoy in say, usa most likely you will not get everywhere....

the prevailing conditions on earth is making that dream an impossible dream...

Fair enough.. two things, though..

Firstly, freedom isn't always pretty. Pacquiao's comments and the resulting backlash to them is testament to that.

Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights. If not you then many people in this thread have advocated that those opposed to Pacquiao stay silent and indeed many of those opposed to Pacquiao have done the same. Ironically, the only way to stay consistent is to allow both sides the right to advocate stripping others of their rights but point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of taking such a position which is what I've tried to do. Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely.