|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 11:49:49 GMT
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. You do against some, at least. I had a stream of insults from you lately.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2018 12:11:12 GMT
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. You do against some, at least. I had a stream of insults from you lately. You're a deranged condescending leftist idiot. Nothing to do with your atheism.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 12:16:24 GMT
You do against some, at least. I had a stream of insults from you lately. You're a deranged condescending leftist idiot. Nothing to do with your atheism. Hit a nerve there I see lol Is it to do with my irritating habit of standing up to Islamophobia, Cody?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:42:21 GMT
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? Espero numero uno o dos Si, tu, es verdad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:46:08 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 phludowin on Feb 9, 2018 15:50:52 GMT
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? As long as you don't care too much about the opinion of someone who can't even count to five...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:55:07 GMT
Which leg? Moi? mean? As long as you don't care too much about the opinion of someone who can't even count to five... Got me
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 9, 2018 16:01:33 GMT
geeeesh.
only nine votes!?!
this place truly is going down hill. the word usually gets out to all these post-once-a-year believers who swoop in to tell of 'fleet and his tragic outcry against the american negro'. or the time fleet used the word abortion and the virgin mary in the same stanza.
ftr: generating blasphemy is not something i take lightly. it's sort of like hauling around a ginormous wooden T on your neck while pointing a finger towards it until everyone sees. . . oh wait a minute, that's christianity. my bad.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 22:00:48 GMT
Which leg? Moi? mean? Espero numero uno o dos Si, tu, es verdad. I am sorry, I don't speak Swahili!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 22:22:24 GMT
Espero numero uno o dos Si, tu, es verdad. I am sorry, I don't speak Swahili! Good thing it wasn't Swahili!!!!
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 11:59:15 GMT
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. So does that mean that you have abandoned your initial assertion that there's a difference between people demanding gay rights and religious proselytizers, which prompted me to engage with you in the first place? If not, then why did you go off on this tangent? Do you think when goz stated "there is a difference between exercising free speech and proselytizing to an unwilling audience" that she was referring to people talking in movie theaters rather than arguing the particular point I was trying to make? If not, then why would you jump in with this irrelevancy in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 12:08:35 GMT
Yes, phludowin has a problem when Christians try to exercise their freedom of speech, and rightly so. Well done for accepting a point which phludowin appears totally unable to admit to - you have my respect for that - but the " and rightly so" part is the bit where you and I could not possibly disagree more on a fundamental point of principle. In my ideal world, freedom of speech is a right that should be given to everybody - even to people you disagree with - and it is fundamentally wrong of anybody to have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 13:47:21 GMT
I can explain many things to you that you are neither willing to listen to, nor capable of accepting on the basis of your prejudice. So explanation with the intent of "changing your mind" becomes an irrelevant exercise in futility. Something I can do that would be more effective in steering the conversation would be to point out in so many ways just how flawed your perspective is on this issue. The question is, will your pride allow you to consider other perspectives? And that's something only you can answer. Now, here is why your moral equivalency argument fails: I never claimed that my rights were being threatened by a proselytizing Christian. This is a straw man argument that misses my point altogether. People are free to believe in anything they want to, and be a giant dick in public by condemning people they don't like or disagree with. You are absolutely right that I am at liberty to walk away from a Christian who stands on a street corner with a sign saying "God Hates Fags", and "Homo Sex is Sin". The question you need to be asking yourself as a Christian is does that actually make the world a better place? And if you answer no, then the moral equivalency you should be making is between these proselytizing Christians condemning other people, and smokers blowing smoke in people's faces. The only difference between the two is that the Christian is INTENTIONALLY targeting the innocent victim, while the smoker is just being inconsiderate. The people I am actually talking about are the Christians who are actively trying to influence laws and take actions that mostly affect gay people. People like this: <various links> You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're not entitled to your own "facts". And the fact of the matter is, there is nothing "bigoted" about my position because it doesn't meet the textbook definition of the word "bigotry" (which you obviously don't know). So let me help you: Bigotry 'n': intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneselfAs I made clear at the beginning of the discussion, I tolerate Christians just fine (including all of those I am related to and interact with on a regular basis). I'm tolerating you right now, even though I disagree with you. I'm not calling for you to be banned from my country, or my neighborhood, I'm not calling for your rights to be restricted in any way, I'm not out there on the street with a sign saying Christianity dooms America, and I'm not calling Christianity a mental illness. Those are all things that Christians do to gays! Not all of them, but many of them. I'm not claiming that you actually did any of these things, nor do I claim to be a targeted victim. I'm speaking abstractly about the LGBT community. The "you" in this case is referring to people who follow religion, not you specifically. Forgive me for being unclear. My point stands. I'm aware of that. But criticizing hate speech is not "bigotry". That's what hate speech is! And when religious people use religion to hide behind hate speech for things they are intolerant of, that is something that creates actual problems in society, not gay people. Several things here to address, so let me try to keep it short and to the point. Let me know if I left anything out. 1. You appear to accuse me directly of stuff and then quickly back-pedal and claim you are "speaking abstractly" as soon as I challenge you on that. Then you immediately start blurting out vague accusations to me yet again, this time that I am prejudiced, pig-headed, proud and unable to view things from any other than my own flawed perspective, without actually bothering to cite any specific evidence as far as I can see. So if you want to engage with me then either piss, or get off the pot. Clarify what it is you are specifically accusing me of and explain precisely why, or shut the fuck up. Oh, and address your accusations at me, not to the type of person you think I am. "Your type of people" is the stock phrase of choice for bigots and tyrants the world over, which they rely on to justify their various ambitions for social ostracization, apartheid and genocide. 2. You say I need to be asking myself whether Christians exercising freedom of expression "actually make the world a better place". I'm sure in many cases they don't. But I obviously need to repeat a variation of what I said before: the right to freedom of speech is not, nor ever will be, limited by your (or my) opinion whether or not the speaker makes the world a better place. You said you got this, but it seems that you still don't. Christians, just like everybody else, have the right to question and lobby their representatives for changes to the law and take the opposite side from you in political campaigns. And two of your links refer to Christians who broke the law and were subsequently penalised, so their attempts to "actively influence the law" didn't even succeed. Now let me ask you a question in return: when a Christian uses their right to freedom of expression to try and influence the law in a way that you believe will not make the world a better place, how should you respond? The mature way, where you use your own right to freedom of expression to argue the point and try to convince people why you believe that Christian is wrong, or the immature way, where you childishly wish for the eradication of Christianity, the sooner the better, including all Christians who might have taken your side? Which of these two reactions do you believe would make the world a better place? 3. You keep saying that you tolerate Christians just fine, so I have to keep calling you are a liar and saying I simply don't believe you. Nobody tolerates Christians just fine and at the same time, voluntarily and unprompted, wishes for their worldwide eradication, the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 10, 2018 14:30:00 GMT
Let me know if I left anything out. Oh, don’t worry...I’m sure I will. Well that’s probably because as I predicted, you’re not actually willing to “see” anything other than what you want to assume in the first place. You are responding with emotion, which means you’re not even considering what I’m saying or even reading it properly. I don’t recall ever saying you were “pig-headed”. I’m pretty sure you just made that up yourself! DIDN’T YOU? The evidence that you are prideful and have a limited view of other perspectives is THIS response (in addition to your previous one). Again, EMOTIONS preventing you from even communicating in a reasonable, respectful way. I don’t think I need more “clarity” than the evidence you continually provide here. For the record, I’m accusing you of creating a straw man argument to attack, instead of actually considering my real perspective and addressing that instead. And I believe I’ve demonstrated that. That one WAS. Be that as it may, they do not own the copyright to the phrase, because it also applies to THEM. In case you didn’t know, bigots are also a type of people who share similar attitudes against other types of people. This obviously includes you in a way that you are unable to admit. And that’s why you’ve got your parties in such a bunch right now. No, that’s NOT what I asked you mister straw man argument! I asked you whether those Christians standing out on street corners condemning people (you know, the ones I could just walk away from according to you) were making the world a better place. But again, you don’t actually listen to what other people are saying. You are so dead set on defending the indefensible that you have to keep creating these straw men. You are ignoring my actual argument because you find it easier to speak to the irrelevancies in the discussion. So does the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. What’s your point? That what they do is okay and not harmful because they have the legal right to do it? Gimme a break! Yeah, and the OTHER link refers to Christians who legally contributed to changing the law to discriminate against the LGBT community. Their attempt to actively influence the law succeeded (prop 8 passed). Yes it was eventually struck down as unconstitutional, but the whole point is these are obstacles for the LGBT community that they have to continually fight because of the bigotry and intolerance of these Christians. It shouldn’t take a national, legal case so that a gay couple can get a damn wedding cake! I shouldn’t take a national, legal case so that they can get a marriage license after being denied! It wouldn’t have happened in the first place if not for Christians. Which is exactly what I’ve done. Attacking another straw man with selective reading I see. I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote instead of continually misrepresenting my position. I believe that we wouldn’t have to wrestle with questions like these if religion didn’t pervade and infect American society at every level for hundreds of years. I think IF religion was actually kept in the church and in the house where it belonged (like in Norway and Sweden), then society would be much more prosperous, and we wouldn’t have to evaluate the supposed morality of Christianity or any other religion. Alas, it’s NOT like that at all in the United States, which is why your question has to be asked in the first place. And that is the ultimate point I’ve been trying to make since the beginning. Don't really have much of a choice there since the country I live in is majority Christian, and subjected to Christian politics and Christian morality. As long as I live here, I have to tolorate it. I’m not interested in your “beliefs” because I’m not convinced that you even know what the word tolorate means, much less that you have fairly and accurately represented my position. But considering the other responses from different posters here, I’m satisfied that I’ve made my point. I’m not a Christian “hater” because I’m not out there lobbying for Christianity to be made illegal (again that’s what Christians do to gays). I believe that you as a Christian have the right to your freedom of speech, and that you have the right to practice your religion (in a way that doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others). And if you can do that, I have no problem with you all. That is what makes me tolerant of Christianity. Ultimately, I believe that ALL religions are more harmful to society than good, and I don’t single Christianity out as being any worse than the rest. But if me having an opinion about religion standing in conflict with your views towards Christianity makes me a “hater” or a “bigot” in your mind, then that only proves that you don’t know what any of these words mean and your whole argument looses any credibility. Disagreement is not hate or bigotry. Treating other people like they are less that you is. Try to learn the difference! Anything else you want to ask me?
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 17:22:55 GMT
Well that’s probably because as I predicted, you’re not actually willing to “see” anything other than what you want to assume in the first place. You are responding with emotion, which means you’re not even considering what I’m saying or even reading it properly. I don’t recall ever saying you were “pig-headed”. I’m pretty sure you just made that up yourself! DIDN’T YOU? The evidence that you are prideful and have a limited view of other perspectives is THIS response (in addition to your previous one). I respond in accordance with how I am addressed. You are the one who started by saying you had problems with me and then making nasty personal digs. You don't like that I respond in kind? Then don't start off making it personal in the first place. And "pig-headed" stems directly from your comment: "You are neither willing to listen to, nor capable of accepting on the basis of your prejudice. So explanation with the intent of "changing your mind" becomes an irrelevant exercise in futility." "Pig-headed" is a perfectly adequate summary for that piece of verbal diahorrea so stop pretending otherwise and making yourself out to be the wounded party. If you want to indulge in trash-talking, expect a response in kind. I don't give a shit how emotional you think it is. If you want respect, then show some fucking respect yourself, you nasty Christian-hating little troll. Your "real persective", as far as I can make out, is that you don't like the fact that some Christians exercise their freedom of speech to "actively try to influence laws and take actions that mostly affect gay people" and therefore you want to eradicate them from the planet. That's about it, is it not? If you want to use that phrase, to firmly establish your intolerance and bigotry and make my argument for me, then you have that right. I repeat, either spell out exactly what "other types of people" I have an attitude against, or shut the fuck up. What part of "piss or get off the pot" did you fail to understand? Are you completely stupid? "those Christians standing out on street corners condemning people" ARE the ones I was referring to who are exercising their right to freedom of expression, you fucking cretin! Do you understand what an straw man argument is? I don't think you even have a clue. I'd have thought my point was obvious: people are legaly entitled to do that because that's what freedom of expression allows. Have you understood ANYTHING about my freedom of expression argument? I don't think you have. Don't be so naive. Some people don't like the law and try to get it changed. People are allowed to do that, even Christians. I thought I had made this point, so I have no idea where you think you are trying to go with this. Your quote was "The sooner we get rid of religion, the sooner we can begin to heal the world. Religion has cause more devastation and suffering in the world than any other phenomenon in human history!" you nasty religion-hating, genocidal maniac. And yes, you later clarified that that included Christianity. So much neater and tidier to impose a "final solution" and get rid of them all, is that it? Or am I making another straw man argument here? So you tolerate it because you can't think of any easy way to eradicate it, is that what you are saying? Or is that another straw man argument? They are not beliefs; they are based on what you have told me (see your quote above). You don't just disagree with Christianity, you want to see it eradicated, the sooner the better. You even said so yourself. Not really. I think I've learned about as much about you as I want to.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 10, 2018 19:33:55 GMT
I respond in accordance with how I am addressed. You are the one who started by saying you had problems with me and then making nasty personal digs. No, actually I didn’t. You just took it that way. I didn’t. You just took it that way. Translation: you put words in my mouth. Got it! It is not. But as I’ve already stated (and you’ve now confirmed) trying to explain this to is a waste of time because you’re not capable of being reasonable in this discussion. So I’m not going to bother trying to explain it to you anymore. Yeah, I think we are done here. Good for you. As far as I’m concerned, there is ONE person here who’s responses are filled with profanity, and ad hominem, and immaturity, and hypocrisy. I think your responses speaks for itself (as do the votes), so I’m going to rest my case on that basis. May your god “bless” you!
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 10, 2018 23:18:06 GMT
So does that mean that you have abandoned your initial assertion that there's a difference between people demanding gay rights and religious proselytizers, which prompted me to engage with you in the first place? If not, then why did you go off on this tangent? There is a difference: No gay person has ever tried to proselytize to me, in order to convert me to homosexuality. I have lost count about how many times religious people have proselytized to me in order to convert me to their religion. So the difference between religious propagandists and homosexual propagandists is that the latter don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 10, 2018 23:33:20 GMT
So does that mean that you have abandoned your initial assertion that there's a difference between people demanding gay rights and religious proselytizers, which prompted me to engage with you in the first place? If not, then why did you go off on this tangent? There is a difference: No gay person has ever tried to proselytize to me, in order to convert me to homosexuality. I have lost count about how many times religious people have proselytized to me in order to convert me to their religion. So the difference between religious propagandists and homosexual propagandists is that the latter don't exist. A valiant effort phludowin, but no matter how hard you try, the indoctrinated simply don’t get that. They are going to believe what religion taught them to believe, and nothing else. That’s the problem with religion, and that’s why they continuously try to draw these moral equivalencies that always fail in the end.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 23:38:00 GMT
No, actually I didn’t. You just took it that way. Yes, actually you did, as soon as you said "And that’s the problem that I have with you, and others like you." Stop trying to shirk responsibility for the nasty personal comments you make, you craven little turd. No, I paraphrased the words you actually had in your mouth, but you are too stupid to see that and want to play the victim instead. Because you've given up trying to deny you are advocating genocide by calling for the eradication of religious people worldwide? While tryig to pretend you are a normal guy and don't have a problem with them? And you think it is unreasonable of me to draw attention to this? You are so transparent. But of course that is not going to stop you from continuing to reply to try to justify your pathetic religious hangups and pretend you are somehow the normal one here. I accept I have my faults, but at least I'm not calling for genocide, or inquisitorial indoctrination of religious people to stop them from being religious, or whatever the fuck you think you have in mind in your ambition to "get rid of religion" as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 10, 2018 23:42:59 GMT
There is a difference: No gay person has ever tried to proselytize to me, in order to convert me to homosexuality. I have lost count about how many times religious people have proselytized to me in order to convert me to their religion. So the difference between religious propagandists and homosexual propagandists is that the latter don't exist. So you are not going to explain why you brought up the whole movie theater analogy even though it was a complete red herring, and you are not going to address my argument about the right to freedom of expression? Well, knock me over with a feather. What else was I expecting? At least goz agrees with me that you have a problem with the right Christians have to freedom of expression, even if you seem to be in complete denial about this yourself.
|
|