I support Manny's stance ,Do you?

[lopetego]

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.

It's funny to see you delusional lunatics talking as if you were rational beings

religion is nothing more than a socially accepted form of insanity

at the end of the day, you're no different from nutjobs who still believe in santa claus at an adult age, and you have the exact same amount of evidence to support your irrational beliefs as them

[tangalog2200]

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.

freedom is always pretty....how one uses freedom is the issue...

"Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights."

you have a valid point up there.....

i guess we can add what follows with my earlier post:

the sensibilities of man depends on how he slept last night, what he took for breakfast, who told him his handsome, who he ate lunch with, what's for dinner, who will foot the bills, who won the ball games, which horse won, and now.....who to sleep with tonight?

oh my....very good exchanges though...

cheers!

[tangalog2200]

It's funny to see you delusional lunatics talking as if you were rational beings

religion is nothing more than a socially accepted form of insanity

at the end of the day, you're no different from nutjobs who still believe in santa claus at an adult age, and you have the exact same amount of evidence to support your irrational beliefs as them

sir isaac newton, insane?

carry on lad....

[Zaroku]

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.

Agreed, freedom isn't always pretty, it rarely is, and comes in stages! I agree that both sides need to be allowed to speak the truth that they understand, without limitation

Gimme a few examples of this thin line between criticism & curtailment. I don't think PAC interfered with one gay couple getting busy tonight. I want those in opposition to PAC to share their views from the deepest valley's to the highest mountains, all voices of opposition are welcomed every day, all the time.

I don't agree with stripping or curtailing anyone's point of view, ever. Please explain in detail the irony of removing free speech to enhance open discussions???

Best Regards,
Zaroku

[DARKSEID]

You know what this world is becoming way too ****ing overpopulated and it's having catastrophic effects on the planet. The earth just can't sustain an exponentially rising population.

I say the more gay people the better. It helps with overpopulation and the more gay dudes there are, the more *****es there are for me.

Also I am not threatened by lesbians in any way. If my wife/girlfriend wants a girlfriend she can have as many as she likes, i'd actually prefer it.

My heterosexuality is ****ing titanium welded, that **** is locked and unbreakable. Gay people don't scare or threaten me in any way.

[zerosixthree]

Agreed, freedom isn't always pretty, it rarely is, and comes in stages! I agree that both sides need to be allowed to speak the truth that they understand, without limitation

Gimme a few examples of this thin line between criticism & curtailment. I don't think PAC interfered with one gay couple getting busy tonight. I want those in opposition to PAC to share their views from the deepest valley's to the highest mountains, all voices of opposition are welcomed every day, all the time.

I don't agree with stripping or curtailing anyone's point of view, ever. Please explain in detail the irony of removing free speech to enhance open discussions???

Best Regards,
Zaroku

The irony is this; some people hold opinions that others find abhorrent and are often subject to attempts to censor them. Freedom of speech protects both those who hold opinions and ironically those whose speech is a call for censorship. My freedom of speech allows me to say that you should not be allowed to voice your opinion however if I go beyond speech to force my intolerance and censorship on you then that's a problem. As of now, I am not aware of any attempt, either by Pacquiao or those currently protesting his comments to actually curtail anyone's freedom of speech but there's been plenty of people on both sides advocating censorship.

[Zaroku]

The irony is this; some people hold opinions that others find abhorrent and are often subject to attempts to censor them. Freedom of speech protects both those who hold opinions and ironically those whose speech is a call for censorship. My freedom of speech allows me to say that you should not be allowed to voice your opinion however if I go beyond speech to force my intolerance and censorship on you then that's a problem. As of now, I am not aware of any attempt, either by Pacquiao or those currently protesting his comments to actually curtail anyone's freedom of speech but there's been plenty of people on both sides advocating censorship.

Agreed! Well put bruh.

Peace!

[stuff jones]

I am agree 100% with Manny's stance against ****sexualtiy ,cmon ****sexualtiy is just mental disorder, simply bull****.

****sexuality is abnormality,it is not a normal behavior.

This is disgrace to humanity.

Way to advertise that you're a small minded bigot.

[odogg8121]

Yes I agree its wrong, but I DONT agree to comparing them to animals and being disrespectful.

[odogg8121]

Wow, if you agree with his comment you are the one with a mental illness.

1. Humans are animals
2. alot of other species have ****sexual relationships

Seriously these religious nut cases need to read a book, a non-fiction book. Both his points are completely incorrect. Seriously how thick is manny?

humans are mammals dude.... geez no one reads books or went to school on this site?