What if you didn't do the thing the State says you did, or IOW the State is wrong? Is that not killing spree?
If the State can justify collateral damage (killing people who are not technically enemies), then sure we can justify other killing sprees.
I honestly don't see how it is tough to...
With the overriding commandment of "do not kill," I see no difference. But I do see the inconsistency, and how that could lead to justification for killing spree.
I see sex trafficking as part of human trafficking. Everything I google puts sex trafficking as primary example of human trafficking. For the other, I'd want to hear examples of it, and more than one. I know it exists, but admittedly, I would see some of that as not responsibility of government...
Context: Some people don't have discernment and believe a demiurge is God.
"Wait, didn't you say do not kill, and now you want us to kill someone? Inconsistent much?"
I'm not sure of a short answer that can satisfy such an inquiry and longer ones would seem to miss the mark in all possible cases of trafficking. But I'll try one avenue. Sex trafficking being one of the branches of human trafficking, I think government not making that a legal market (legal...
Hence your discrimination. Which in turn justifies the other. There is clearly reasons for (literally) all businesses to discriminate, and all of them do. When they are discriminatory, it raises red flags for some, but that's going to continue. And when new laws are passed that violate some...
In a legal market, I tend to agree. In an illegal market, I think responsibility is on the government that made it illegal, knowing there is a demand. Hence why I think the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Government realized it done screwed up with the 18th Amendment.
So, you're afraid to speak to the hypothetical? Why?
When SSM wasn't the law of the land, were those who were afraid of it, proper (as you are now in refusing to answer) in their discrimination? Depending on how you respond to this, would seem then that the goal would be to change the law, not...
I don't think every adult knows exactly what that is. I think there are preconceptions, some of which are within domain of such behavior, but arguably a whole lot that isn't. Such that if two males are in a relationship and both are strictly against anal sex, I think it would confuse a few...
So, if marriage between a 52 year old male and a 15 year old male were the law of the land, you'd be totally okay with making it so any business that wishes to discriminate (by not providing goods and services to this legal couple) are forced to provide their business service or product to that...
I have witnessed to CDC making up statistics and conclusions based on reported statistics. I'm sure for many/most, citing CDC works wonders in confirming so called evidence. For me, it is a highly questionable source. I take all such citings with a grain of salt.
Here is challenging argument in favor of homosexuality and marriage.
Let's say two people are of the same gender and attracted to each other. Both have made it known to anyone that cares that their attraction is homosexual. And both have taken a vow of celibacy. So both homosexual and neither...
Wrong again.
So, you go with the Progressive version of Word. Thus every book written, all of it is Word of God. Good to know you agree on that front. Therefore when Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 7:12) "But to the rest I speak (not the Lord)" it is God speaking, and you get this is God, because...
May as well be asking, "so a video didn't cause the violence in Benghazi? Cause Secretary of State, Potus, and National Security Advisor all concluded as much. They can't all be wrong."
I'm going with DNC emails were leaked, not hacked.
Let me know which parts specifically, I'll be happy to clarify.
Hurt us how? Please provide examples.
He knows we are sinless. He knows we are Perfect as we are (in Spirit). He knows we are incapable of truly rendering ourselves as less than perfect, but understands that we see our own...
I'm unaware of any facts that are not also filtered through individual thoughts about that data. Such that the 'fact' itself is plausibly only based on what I think it is. Elevating it to 'fact' strikes me as inherently biased. Or (as you've heard me say before), things in my night dreams could...