|
Post by goz on Feb 7, 2018 21:57:50 GMT
you must realise that there is a difference between exercising free speech and proselytizing to an unwilling audience? No there isn't, any more than expressing that you are gay and proud to an unwilling audience, or discussing the evils of capitalism to an unwilling audience. The 'unwilling audience' part is totally irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting impinging on the rights of the speaker: my precise words were that phludowin has a problem when Christians try to exercise their freedom of speech, evidenced by his use of the terminology "acoustic pollution". Well done for spotting that! But make no mistake, the problem is entirely his and nobody else's. I cannot help butt liken it to the example of cigarette smoke, and I guess it comes down to 'geography'. No-one is preventing the expression of free speech, however it can be perceived as 'acoustic pollution' if it is in earshot or aimed at you with intent ( much like cigarette smoke which is noxious ) and you have no option butt to hear it before you can move away or worse on your own property which is the case with door to door religious conversionists. Yes, phludowin has a problem when Christians try to exercise their freedom of speech, and rightly so. It is not illegal, butt he and I and many others agree because to us it is indeed acoustic pollution and hence is offensive. If an evangelist of some kind is on a soap box or on TV you can easily absent yourself, however if you are the unwilling target of such 'expressions of freedom of speech' you have to either be rude, move out of earshot, or order them from your property, which is upsetting and shouldn't be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2018 22:14:47 GMT
Another thing I have a problem with is people putting words in my mouth and pretending I said things which I never said. Like in this case. I didn't even mention "basic freedom of speech". You didn't have to. Your exact words were, let me remind you: In short, you don't have a problem with them until they try to exercise their freedom of speech. Who do you think you are kidding, pretending you never said that? And here we have another case of putting words in my mouth. Congratulations. Where I live, libel and defamation is not protected by freedom of speech laws. But thanks for quoting me, and thereby proving that "basic freedom of speech" isn't mentioned there. To recapitulate: People can do whatever they want. But they can not expect me to be ok with what they do; or anyone. Here are examples of behaviours, to illustrate what I mean. I am restricting the examples to cases where I am present. Behaviours I don't have a problem with.- Wearing religious or other symbols that don't contain hate speech (examples: Cross, Kippa, headscarf, emblem of sportclubs)
- Walking hand in hand or kissing
- Vaping
Behaviours I find more or less annoying, but should not be prohibited in my opinion.- Talking about your religion constantly, about how great it is
- Noisy marketers in the street, who force you to make a detour when you walk (but not addressing you directly)
- Smoking in open air, in places not marked as non-smoker spots
Behaviours I find annoying, and where I agree with legal restrictions- Wearing clothes that contain hate speech (Examples: Swastika, slogans defamating groups of people or individuals)
- Wearing clothes that violate laws (Examples: Burqa, Birthday Suit)
- Harassing people on the street (this includes aggressive marketing, proselytizing or begging)
- Smoking in closed rooms
- Punching, grabbing or kicking people
I don't know where you live, but where I live, the behaviours in the last list are not protected by laws for "basic freedom of speech".
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2018 22:26:37 GMT
you must realise that there is a difference between exercising free speech and proselytizing to an unwilling audience? No there isn't, any more than expressing that you are gay and proud to an unwilling audience, or discussing the evils of capitalism to an unwilling audience. The 'unwilling audience' part is totally irrelevant. Did you really just say this? If yes, I have an experiment for you to make. Make a speech, in favour of something you hold dear, at a speaker's corner or in a forum. Doesn't have to be Hyde Park in London, but has to be public. Then, deliver the exact same speech in a classical concert hall or movie theater during a performance; or in a church during a service. I am 99% sure that you would find out that an unwilling audience matters very much.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 7, 2018 23:44:51 GMT
Did you really just say this? If yes, I have an experiment for you to make. Make a speech, in favour of something you hold dear, at a speaker's corner or in a forum. Doesn't have to be Hyde Park in London, but has to be public. Then, deliver the exact same speech in a classical concert hall or movie theater during a performance; or in a church during a service. I am 99% sure that you would find out that an unwilling audience matters very much. You are confusing a completely separate issue here. What if I stand up in a classical concert hall or movie theater during a performance and declare that gay rights are of paramount importance? Or that capitalism is evil? Or that we should care more about the environment? Are you saying that expressing concerns about the environment is just as much acoustic pollution as religious proselytising simply because one shouldn't be saying either of these things out loud in a movie theater? Basic fact: NOBODY has the right not to have to be told things they are unwilling to listen to. Does it offend you? If so, then in the words of Stephen Fry: "Well, so fucking what?"
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2018 23:52:22 GMT
What if I stand up in a classical concert hall or movie theater during a performance and declare that gay rights are of paramount importance? Or that capitalism is evil? Or that we should care more about the environment? In that case it would be acoustic pollution. Unless it's part of the performance. But this would be true for religious statements as well. Are you saying that expressing concerns about the environment is just as much acoustic pollution as religious proselytising simply because one shouldn't be saying either of these things out loud in a movie theater? Any disturbing of the performance is acoustic pollution. Basic fact: NOBODY has the right not to have to be told things they are unwilling to listen to. Does it offend you? If so, then in the words of Stephen Fry: "Well, so fucking what?" Sorry, but when I pay good money to watch a non-interactive performance, I expect others to let me enjoy it, and hope that they either shut up or get removed from the place.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2018 11:22:34 GMT
I think I can guess your age better now, and the sort of stories you like. Sure. Either that or I googled "Midnight character" because I was trying to figure out who this "Midnight" character was that you kept referring to in your responses to me and then posted the picture of what I found. While I appreciate the effort I doubt whether the male Fundie I have been disputing with elsewhere is at like this lol.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2018 11:39:27 GMT
Also, a reiterated 'retarded' is just another insult, revealing more about you than I. You didn't know, btw, that my I have an autistic brother. You do now. Winter: Are you suggesting your brother is retarded? Or that people with autism are retarded? Because I wasn't doing either. I am merely noting that 'retard' and derivatives is usually an offensive term, and wanted to alert you that anyone would find it so, particularly because of my close family. But as I said, you weren't to know. Then. But I do appreciate the effort above with the implied straw men. I forgive you. Even though you persist in repeating your attempts to rile, even now, knowing my personal circumstances. So now it appears you know, but don't care. I am sure your Jesus would be proud of you. Well I certainly care about my brother. But appealing to your better nature, I see, was wasted. Sadly, I am not surprised though. There is nothing hyprocritical in stating the simple truth. Fundamentalists, literalists, hardcore Biblical apologists and all do often dispute in the same way (not surprising since they usually think in the same way) - which normally ends in rudeness their end when pressed on details and the logic behind their claims. As we see. I am not a Christian weighed down with scriptural baggage, so do not suffer from a requirement not to judge anyone. And you have never really read me being politically incorrect; you'd know it when I was. But this extended diversion unfortunately means you have not answered my questions. I wonder why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 15:06:26 GMT
Sure. Either that or I googled "Midnight character" because I was trying to figure out who this "Midnight" character was that you kept referring to in your responses to me and then posted the picture of what I found. While I appreciate the effort I doubt whether the male Fundie I have been disputing with elsewhere is at like this lol. You never know. For many reasons, actually, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 15:23:13 GMT
Also, a reiterated 'retarded' is just another insult, revealing more about you than I. You didn't know, btw, that my I have an autistic brother. You do now. Winter: Are you suggesting your brother is retarded? Or that people with autism are retarded? Because I wasn't doing either. I am merely noting that 'retard' and derivatives is usually an offensive term, and wanted to alert you that anyone would find it so, particularly because of my close family. But as I said, you weren't to know. Then. But I do appreciate the effort above with the implied straw men. I am not responsible for the pc items du jour, nor do I care. I don't follow that stuff. I like the word "retard" and will continue to use it where I think there is cause to use it. I don't ever use it as derogatory term for humans with disabilities. I only use it to call out stupidity from those who should know better. That's nice, but preemptive. I'm not trying to rile you. I think you were being intellectually dishonest again, so I called you on it by asking if you were blind or retarded. I stand by that. It doesn't mean you were being intellectually dishonest or that you are blind or retarded. It's just my opinion. Correction: I know what you have conveniently claimed. And I know that in my many experiences in using the word "retard" during an internet debate with a sjw, everyone coincidentally has a brother or child with a disability. It's the great guilt trip trick and your ilk use it too often, based on the actual number of humans with mental disabilities. I don't know anything. And considering the fact that I wasn't referring to your brother, considering the fact that pc culture is like toilet paper to me and considering the important fact that I do not know anything about your brother, you're right: I don't care. Appealing to my better nature is usually not wasted, but yes, in this case, it is. Can't see the detail in your painting; the strokes are too broad. Lol, Christians aren't required to not judge anyone, either. Quite the opposite. But your ilk doesn't shy away from strawmanning the Bible, either. You keep making this claim. The thread shows otherwise. What's your 205th question that I didn't get to yet?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2018 15:57:06 GMT
I am not responsible for the pc items du jour, nor do I care. I wonder why then if, really you don't care about such things , just last message you were accusing me of "being.. awfully incorrect" when apparently you cared enough to ask? Make your mind up. Trying to mitigate things like this just makes it worse. But I guess you have to plead something. I always forgive where I can and hardly pre-emptive when you have used ad hominems instead of argument, three or four times now. Forgiveness, btw, is a philosophy of life once highly recommended by someone. See my words as to mitigating yourself, here edged with disingenuous special pleading, as already given above. Whatever. Ditto my last words on this subject. But keep going. It doesn't get any prettier from you, especially now you imply I am a liar. But I can see why, at this point, you need a distraction. QED then, and so thank you. QED, again. And so I thank you again.. Then learn to stand back a little. I have been disputing with believers in a preferred deliberate supernatural for years, and with the fundamentalists and literalists especially, the process is remarkably similar. Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-3) God alone, who gave the law, is the Judge. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. So what right do you have to judge your neighbour? (James 4:2) But then again perhaps these are to be included among those "all kinds of untrue claims ... made within the Bible" of your note? Or are they just "some quotes from Satan and hoisted up as "proof?" " lol You might also wish to note that 'ilk' is not an insult. And imitation is a form of flattery. What's the point? You have taken the diversion over how rude you can be, and why, as far as you can. And you don't care.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 8, 2018 16:26:10 GMT
I missed the vote, not that my one vote would make a difference.
No way I'd pick Fleet. He'd be the last one on the list I'd pick. He's an emotional atheist, not even a real Christianity hater. He even tries to live by the spirit of the Holy Ghost if his posts are honest. He does it in an irrational way, though.
But the other four are more "Christianity haters" than Fleet, I believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 17:08:32 GMT
What's your question? (I'm not going to parse your immature biblical deciphering about judgment. You and your ilk don't understand it and constantly misuse it. The Bible is very clear that we are commanded to judge. But I am not going to start a whole other mass waste of time with you.) You keep claiming something that doesn't seem to be true. You say I am dodging some question and every time I ask you to tell me which of your 208 questions I haven't answered, you never reply with a question. So I'll give you one last chance: What is this awesome question you want to ask me?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2018 19:11:59 GMT
Bryce, TickingMask exposed your hidden agenda. That's all there is to it. Uh no Cody, that’s NOT all there is too it. There is much more to it that you are intentionally ignoring, presumably because you don’t have a good argument that speaks to what I’ve actually said. I’ve done no such thing. This is an example of you missing the point, and then trying to reinterpret something I’ve said to fit your narrative. What you need to do is LISTEN to what people are actually saying, and then respond to that rather than responding to the straw man arguments you’ve created for them. I gave several examples of Christians engaging in anti gay behavior that negatively impacts the LGBT community BECAUSE TickingMask made a false assumption that my problem was with proselytizing Christians who don’t actually affect the rights of others. So my response (which only addressed LGBT issues) is perfectly in context with the question and assumption that precipitated it. But you decided to ignore all of that context so that YOU could narrow my argument down to “one thing”, which is completely disingenuous and part of your hidden agenda! In addition to homophobic bigotry displayed by you Christians (and yes in the past YOU have demonstrated yourself to be someone who espouses the same views as these spoken of), I also have a problem with them because they tend to condemn atheists, as well as people of other religions (Muslims in particular), AND because they often want to push their views onto society at large by advocating teaching things like intelligent design and abstinence only, and various other fundamentalist ideas. So no, it’s not just the one thing that YOU want to focus on that’s my problem with many Christians, and why I think society would be more beneficial without it. But you clearly don’t want to talk about all of those other problems with Christianity, you need to make it about homosexuality because that’s why YOU have a problem with. Don’t project your issues concerning the discussion onto me. Be honest and keep comments in their proper context! Again, that’s NOT the only reason I’d do away with it. Because the issues that many religions want to force onto the secular world affects more than just a minority. It affects everyone who does not recognize that particular religion. In the case of Christianity, the things you advocate for affect atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, other Christians who interpret scripture differently to you AND the LGBT community. When you add all those people up, it represents the MAJORITY of people, not a minority! Well I’m glad to see that you have inadvertently admitted that the average religious person (which logically includes yourself) is in fact bigoted and intolerant. Unfortunately, trying to pin that moniker on me because I disagree with your bigotry and intolerance simply doesn’t work. Being against bigotry does not make one a bigot. And wanted to prevent people from pushing their beliefs onto me does not make me intolerant. You use these words as though you actually know what they mean, but you clearly don’t as you’ve distorted the whole meaning behind them by applying them erroneously. Your argument is akin to saying that civil rights leaders who opposed white supremacists and the KKK were “bigoted and intolerant”. In other words, ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 8, 2018 19:52:43 GMT
captainbryceI meant the average religious person who happens to be a bigot. I'm not petty enough to deny that they exist. But you get bigots and intolerant people of all stripes from all walks of life, even atheists. Yes, there are in fact professed atheists who condemn abortion and oppose LGBT rights.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2018 21:32:09 GMT
captainbryce I meant the average religious person who happens to be a bigot. I'm not petty enough to deny that they exist. But you get bigots and intolerant people of all stripes from all walks of life, even atheists. Yes, there are in fact professed atheists who condemn abortion and oppose LGBT rights. Okay, well if that’s what you meant then I agree. But let’s not just throw around that term loosely to apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Bigot and intolerance have specific meanings, and apply to specific ideologies. Don’t say that I’m a bigot because I disagree with Christianity and I won’t call you a bigot because you disagree with atheism. Being intolerant and bigoted does applies to anyone who opposes LGBT rights, regardless of what they personally believe or not.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2018 22:37:06 GMT
I missed the vote, not that my one vote would make a difference.
No way I'd pick Fleet. He'd be the last one on the list I'd pick. He's an emotional atheist, not even a real Christianity hater. He even tries to live by the spirit of the Holy Ghost if his posts are honest. He does it in an irrational way, though.
But the other four are more "Christianity haters" than Fleet, I believe. Hi drystyx, I feel I have been sadly and unfairly maligned in this vote and thread. I don't 'hate' Christianity' so should be disqualified. I don't hate Christianity in exactly the same way as bigoted Christians 'don't hate' homosexuals. They hate the sin and love the sinner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 22:43:23 GMT
I missed the vote, not that my one vote would make a difference.
No way I'd pick Fleet. He'd be the last one on the list I'd pick. He's an emotional atheist, not even a real Christianity hater. He even tries to live by the spirit of the Holy Ghost if his posts are honest. He does it in an irrational way, though.
But the other four are more "Christianity haters" than Fleet, I believe. Hi drystyx, I feel I have been sadly and unfairly maligned in this vote and thread. I don't 'hate' Christianity' so should be disqualified. I don't hate Christianity in exactly the same way as bigoted Christians 'don't hate' homosexuals. They hate the sin and love the sinner. Oh c'mon! Admit it: a thrill ran up your leg when you saw your name on the list! Edit: but I am surprised you amassed three votes. You did not deserve those votes. You must have been particularly mean to somebody.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 0:10:20 GMT
Hi drystyx, I feel I have been sadly and unfairly maligned in this vote and thread. I don't 'hate' Christianity' so should be disqualified. I don't hate Christianity in exactly the same way as bigoted Christians 'don't hate' homosexuals. They hate the sin and love the sinner. Oh c'mon! Admit it: a thrill ran up your leg when you saw your name on the list! Edit: but I am surprised you amassed three votes. You did not deserve those votes. You must have been particularly mean to somebody. Which leg? Moi? mean?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 10:39:01 GMT
What's your question? (I'm not going to parse your immature biblical deciphering about judgment. You and your ilk don't understand it and constantly misuse it. The Bible is very clear that we are commanded to judge. But I am not going to start a whole other mass waste of time with you.) You keep claiming something that doesn't seem to be true. You say I am dodging some question and every time I ask you to tell me which of your 208 questions I haven't answered, you never reply with a question. So I'll give you one last chance: What is this awesome question you want to ask me? That 'ilk' really got to you, didn't it? LOL
If, as you say, the Bible is 'very clear that we are commanded to judge' and yet, also very clearly, says that "God alone" can judge, then I guess we can just chalk it up to one of those various contradictions in scripture. Incidentally contradictions, or disorder, within the text inspired by, and reflecting, your favoured deity would of necessity falsify one of your original claims of 'order' as a hallmark of God. I doubt it will effect your ongoing credulity one jot, and look forward to the inevitable special pleading to explain things away - but just sayin'.
I am not going to spend time cutting 'n' pasting the several passages which appear to have passed you by or been evaded. I suggest that, if you are serious about answering, then you look back yourself and find those still-open questions asked of you by me - including those only addressed in vague, sweeping generalisations - and come back to me. [The exaggeration of "which of your 208 questions I haven't answered" just makes you sound offhand and impatient, when the ball is in your court, btw] It is enough, otherwise, for me to note that you have spent far more time on unrepentant personal insults here than being productive with the issues in hand. But then again, you 'don't care' so I ought not be surprised...
Also, your
"You say I am dodging some question " then "I am not going to start a whole other mass waste of time with you" ? Can you see what you have done there? I can.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2018 11:41:46 GMT
captainbryce I meant the average religious person who happens to be a bigot. I'm not petty enough to deny that they exist. But you get bigots and intolerant people of all stripes from all walks of life, even atheists. Yes, there are in fact professed atheists who condemn abortion and oppose LGBT rights. Okay, well if that’s what you meant then I agree. But let’s not just throw around that term loosely to apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Bigot and intolerance have specific meanings, and apply to specific ideologies. Don’t say that I’m a bigot because I disagree with Christianity and I won’t call you a bigot because you disagree with atheism. Being intolerant and bigoted does applies to anyone who opposes LGBT rights, regardless of what they personally believe or not. You're an intolerant bigot because you're on record as saying you would do away with religion entirely. I have nothing against atheists. I just think they're wrong.
|
|