A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

You know, the adjective is "Democratic."

The proper use of grammar in this country has declined considerably over the last few years. It's sad, really.

InaniTy
 

If you're positing that the contention that "not blasphemous" under Christian doctrine equals "should not offend" Christians, then, with that assumption, the 4th statement is contradictory.

I would disagree with that (and I assume that Ty does too), but I understand the position--if a Christian takes offense at some insult (for lack of a better word) to some element of Christianity, it is, by definition, blasphemy. Thus, Ty saying it isn't blasphemous means he is also saying that other Christians should not take offense. Relies on a very broad definition of blasphemy.

InaniTy
 

Of course, you can only posit that if you assume that I didn't mean anything at all when I refered to Christian doctrine. Alternatively, you might think that I meant something when I used those words, and that I was trying to draw a distinction concerning the nature of the offense.

I agree that if you don't bother reading some of my words, they may appear contradictory. Caveat emptor.

South Dakota moves to ban abortion.
 

My sister says KELO in Sioux Falls is reporting:

The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

InaniTy
 

This is pathetic. I simply quoted what you said. It is totally obvious why I think they are contradictory. I am going to cut them down to the essence. I am not changing what they say in any way, or changing their meaning.

Claim:

"I haven't said other Christians .....shouldn't be offended."

Prior statements:

"..but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense

"But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"


"Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"

Does any one besided Ty not see the contradiction? Does anyone think the way I edited them changed their meaning nor mislead the reader as to their original meaning?

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Actually you are wrong. It is the Democrat party not the Democratic party.

When a cause is brought forth by the Democrat party, I call it a Democrat cause. When a cause is brought forth to increase democratic representation it is a "democratic" cause.

If you read my prior posts I am consistent. I always refer to the Democrat party and Democrat causes.

When I refer to causes not having anything to do with the Democrat party but are used to implement more direct representation I call them democratic.

In addition, when referring to the party or its causes the word is capitalized: like Democrat Party, or Democrat causes. But when you are talking about more direct representation then the word is not capitalized: as in - "We need to implement more democratic reforms so the people are better represented."

InaniTy
 

It's contradictory if you think that "blasphemy" = Christians taking offense to it.

Given the carefree use of the term in today's society -- Pat Robertson probably thinks that everything short of reading the King James and only the King James version is blasphemous -- I can see how you'd equate the two concepts.

But Ty is trying to make the point that blasphemy can be, and more properly is, a narrower therm than that. Agree or disagree with the argument, but don't refuse to acknowledge the point.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Actually, then it would be called "democratic."

This seems to be a badge of honor for you, but it's a bit of a baffling one. Would you call GOP activities "Republic" activites? Should we the capitalized term "Republican" only for those activities related to representative democracy?

InaniTy
 

Bullshit, Spanky. You are editing these quotes to delete language (see italics) that says exactly what I keep telling you I meant:

• "I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.
  
  "I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"
  
  
  "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
  The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"

Give me a fucking break. If you were really trying to understand what I'm saying, you wouldn't keep editing this stuff so it doesn't make any sense.

For about the fourth fucking time: Anyone might be offended by a depiction of a religious figure in urine or dung. But no Christian doctrine that I'm aware of specifically makes that blasphemous.

InaniTy
 

No I think you have that wrong.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virign mary offend Christians for obvious reasons. I think it does.

Does the fact that the Koran particularly proscribes putting Mohammeds face on something and that the bible does not particularly proscribe Christians from depicting Jesus in urine or Mary covered in feces, make one clearly offensive to Muslims while the other not clearly offensive to Christians. Or does it also imply that the Mohammed depiction would be more offensive to muslims than the Christ and Mary depictions to Christians because one is particulary proscribe by the Koran and the other not particular proscribed by the Bible. I don't think it does.

Following all those assumptions the above statements are erroneous and contradictory - am I wrong?

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

www.democrats.org Read the top. It is called the Democratic Party.

Have Fun, RT
 

Spoken like a good soldier. Mussolini would be proud.

Um ...
 

With interludes to go the toilet. Um, or not.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

It is the Democrat party and it is the Republican party. Not the Republic party. You are either a Democrat or a Republican. Not a Democratic or a Republic.

When you have a Republican cause. That is a cause pushed by the Republicans. When you have a cause that is promoted to have indirect representation that is a "republican" cause.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Am I an America citizen instead of an American citizen? Your concept of adjectives is fascinating.