Previous 11 - 20 Next
nope
No Herman you're wanting me to either argue from a premise I didn't state or to take your bait. I said what I said, not what you feel I said.
No. . . What it means is that I'll get back to them if I can Herman
How is citing a partial time line attempting to hide or coverup anything Herman? You said that Rome, even at the height of it's decadence. . . . I merely responded that Rome wasn't at the height of anything by 342AD & had been co-opted. So how is that obfuscation?
Oh. . . I understand now. You think I'm trying to hide things by reposting to the top your queries & my responses. I've done that for a long time because it's easier to find if the thread is short. If you think I'm doing it for nefarious reasons I'm not. . . .I've been doing it since I started on TH a number of years ago.
How am I starting new debates Herman? I am responding to different questions or responses tis true. But "new" debates? Could you cut & paste or explain what you mean by that?
By 342 Rome was no longer at the height of it's power Herman & had been conscripted by what would become the Catholic Church. Most of the Legions had left Britain by then & the Empire was pulling back to southern Europe.
Herman said. . . . You haven't at any time produced a society that flourished by embracing homosexuality. Just making random observations about different attitudes toward homosexuality is not embracing it. In every society that rejected it you are going to find elements that didn't agree, you are claiming that societies "flourished" by embracing homosexuality...and yet you produce none. __________________ What I said specifically was. . . . 'Societies have flourished with both views of homosexuality so long as personal rights & personal responsibility are foundational stones of the society.' Never said that the societies flourished because they embraced homosexuality & there was the qualifier about personal rights & personality responsibility. If you read my statement as you seemingly have that means you're putting your spin on my words. That is your onus Herman. . . . not my words or what I intended.
I didn't make the claim that they flourished by "embracing" homosexuality Herman. What I claimed is that the societies I mentioned were not harmed by allowing such legal unions.
HermanMunster said. . . . You cite a lot of thing in an effort to make no point. "obfuscation" perhaps? __________________ So answering your queries is now obfuscation Herman? I'm responding as best I can to your direct questions. Isn't that what debate is about Herman?
So you're saying that the Celts, even individually, were not flourishing societies Herman? That the Greeks didn't make a name for themselves? Even heard of the Book of Kells? The Mabignonian? The Book of the Dun Cow?
Previous 11 - 20 Next