It's gotten to a point where your sarcastic remarks really don't make a difference to anyone anymore, as we've all come to realize that in your eyes literally no desecration of anything sacred should be considered offensive. If this were Roman times, you'd be the guy mocking all the Christians complaining about how they were being fed to lions for the purpose of entertainment.

This^

Blanket statement because there is no way for you to know this and very few people actually have an urge to burn Harry Potter books.

Wow that's a crazy assumption if i ever heard one.

Well since I disagree with McKellen's action I must not go burn some Harry Potter books!

True, there is no way for me to know. However, the underlying logic is sound: those who hold Leviticus in high regard will generally condemn McKellen. Those who hold Leviticus tend to also be heavily conservative and fundamentalist in their beliefs, which is the general profile of one who burns books they disagree with. Therefore, one who condemns McKellen is more likely to be one who would also burn books.

I may have no way of knowing this, but I still contend the logic is sound.

That's the silliest thing ever.
One, I don't hold *Leviticus* in high standard. I hold the BIBLE and GOD in high standard. So, take it as you will, but he is defacing the Bible itself, not just one book in general. It's very disrespectful. You wouldn't like it if i walked into your home and ripped up your favorite book. And i may be conservative and what not, but it doesn't mean i'm going to go out and burn a book. One. It's pointless and makes you look completely stupid. Two. You'd have to actually own the book to burn it, which in turn means you are giving the author money. So, in a way, it's hypocritical. So no. the logic is not sound.

This.

Do you even have anything intelligent to say, mpok?

-Joins in with the chorus of "Soon and Very Soon"-

This post has been edited by Jarius245: Nov 5 2009, 05:06 PM

Not to defend mpok, because I don't really care either way, but saying "This" doesn't add anything to the discussion either.



Actually, the logic is sound. You're using an argument which essentially boils down too,

"I don't fit that category, therefore your argument is invalid!"

That's not a refutation, it's a simple statement of "not me! not me!".

This post has been edited by Aeterna: Nov 5 2009, 05:08 PM

Why hello thar, I see what you did thar. I did that once too!

Well, you know, had you not included everyone in that statement, i probably wouldn't have responded. Your mistake, not mine.

Did you miss all of those? They were specifically put in to drive home the point that I'm not talking about everyone.

This post has been edited by Aeterna: Nov 5 2009, 05:23 PM

But those are the most ridiculous statements ever with absolutely no basis.

Which statements?

That the people who oppose Ian McKellen ripping out the pages tend to also support Leviticus?

Or that those who heavily support Leviticus also tend to also be heavily conservative fundamentalists?

Or that heavily conservative fundamentalists have also burned books in the past, and are likely to do it again?

You've spent the past page saying that my assertions are ridiculous. Show me where.

Oh Gandalf how could you?

First there are many people who would be against McKellen's actions simply on the basis that the Bibles are not him and thus vandalism who are not fundamentalists. Second, being a conservative fundamentalist does not equal book burning. You are using a small portion to say that they are all (or most) like that. It's rude, insulting, and uneducated.

This post has been edited by AwedbyTruth: Nov 5 2009, 07:34 PM

<3 Ian McKellen

So... Where did those pages in the Bible he ripped out go? o_O Did he smoke it?

And I specified they weren't the ones I was talking about, now was I?

Again, "those who hold Leviticus in high regard will generally condemn McKellen", is one of the points I've continually repeated.



This is true. However, I'm positing that it's more likely for a conservative fundamentalist to burn a book than a liberal cafeteria Christian. If you have something that argues against this, enlighten me.



I'm only referring to a small portion and pointing out their hypocrisy. If you are not part of them, then you can safely exclude yourself.



So far I've been civil, I'd suggest that you remain the same, because suggesting my ideas are rude, insulting, and uneducated are not the wisest idea given how little you've done to refute them.

This post has been edited by Aeterna: Nov 5 2009, 07:49 PM

Lol well seeing as I am not indeed a fundamentalist, I would not be included it that group. I will however defend them because I don't walk around saying that cafeteria liberals are the ones most likely to deface public property.

Then that's your choice. However, until it negates my logic, it will remain a choice.

But you have given no logic to back up your assumptions!

You've got to be kidding me.

What do you think I've been doing the past page? I've written it out three times. The simplified form is:

Group A tends to support function B.
Function B tends to be supported by group C.
Therefore group A tends to coincide with group C.

Use that, go reread what I've said the past 10-20 posts.

My question exactly...

Ripping Leviticus 18:22 was uncalled for, even if it is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew Bible.