Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 05, 2016, 11:40:47 PM
-
Nothing to see..
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/05/gov-bryant-signs-religious-objections-bill/82654578/
-
What I got was:
OOPS!
This page exists to tell you
that this page doesn't exist.
Disappointing but not the end of the world as you can tell us what was written! Please. 'Sounds' interesting.
-
Try this?
http://tinyurl.com/zk95hdb
-
Oh I see
To protect the rights of the Christian sincerely held beliefs of a few it is OK to trample on the rights of others.......That's religion for ya. Yaal have a nice day now.
-
Oh I see
To protect the rights of the Christian sincerely held beliefs of a few it is OK to trample on the rights of others.......That's religion for ya. Yaal have a nice day now.
The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.
-
The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.
There are a few, not many. And they don't have to be pandered to.
-
There are a few, not many. And they don't have to be pandered to.
I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim. I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.
-
I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim. I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.
But they're dying out. No bad thing either or we'd never see progress in the world.
Cohort replacement in action, as the sociologists call it.
-
I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim. I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.
I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.
My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.
-
I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.
I'm over thirty (just ... and change) and don't know anyone at all who has a problem with equal marriage, including people in their eighties.
It's not that most people of my acquaintance don't have a problem with it; nobody does.
Just about every single survey/opinion poll I've ever seen is quite clear that support for liberal and progressive measures aimed at the betterment of society and happier individuals is lower in the older cohorts, but we do people a grave disservice if we take this to reflect more than it actually does. It shuffles all older people into an amorphous mass of at best hidebound, unthinking and change-fearing oldsters and at worst a bunch of cramped and narrow bigots. Anybody of 50 today will have grown up in a society not only where homosexuality was legal but where its social visibility and acceptance increased and improved leaps and bounds. The older cohorts may perhaps be partially excused for having grown up prior to that era, but there's nothing at work in less enlightened attitudes that the willingness to be rational, thoughtful and flexible of mind can't tackle.
-
It's interesting; I do know a handful of people who make anti-gay comments, but even they aren't actually against gay marriage.
My mother is in her seventies and has had gay best friends for as long as I can remember. She's been to more gay clubs than I have.
-
I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.
My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.
All that of course depends on who you actually mix with and whether you are at a good school in a middle class area.
I would move that there are pockets of reactionary attitude which don't overlap your territory but overlap that of the great unchurched.
-
All that of course depends on who you actually mix with and whether you are at a good school in a middle class area.
I would move that there are pockets of reactionary attitude which don't overlap your territory but overlap that of the great unchurched.
I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.
I grew up on the edge of East London. All pie and mash and COYI.
-
I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.
Also I think what plays a very large part is that young people, by definition, have had less chance to be exposed to and to take on homophobic ideas which are ultimately predicated on the belief that difference (including or especially minor difference, e.g. sexuality, skin colour, etc.) is wrong and bad.
People learn to be homophobic. It has to be absorbed from the outside, wherever that may be. You can see this very clearly at work in racism, for example.
-
Bryant also denied claims by opponents that the bill would allow restaurants or governments to deny normal services to gay or lesbian people unless it was in the performing of a wedding ceremony. He cited a restaurant as an example, saying that a restaurant would not be allowed to deny serving a gay patron but could deny allowing a wedding to take place in the restaurant.
However, the bill says people can deny services or goods for the "celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction," which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations, opponents argue.
From the article.
I just checked with my 16 year old. I asked her if we were trying to arrange a wedding ceremony for her wedding at a hotel, which refused our booking because the owner had a deeply held moral conviction against celebrating women covering their heads or against verses in the Quran that would be recited or against segregation based on gender during the recitation or prayers, whether my daughter thought the owner should be entitled to refuse us service on those grounds, and she said yes.
I then told her about the bill in the US about gay marriages and she said same principle - deeply held moral convictions trump disappointment and hurt caused by rejection of service. Since there is no objective view on what trumps what, I don't think you can assume all young people think that celebrating gay weddings or any weddings take precedence over the rights of business owners to turn away business because it goes against their moral convictions. She didn't care if the issue was related to gays, mixed race or any other variation in terms of weddings - she just thought freedom of the business owner in scenarios related to weddings were more important.
No doubt there will be some slippery slope fallacies in response - which I will disagree with as being remotely relevant to my view on this. I agree with my daughter's views.
-
I just checked with my 16 year old. I asked her if we were trying to arrange a wedding ceremony for her wedding at a hotel, which refused our booking because the owner had a deeply held moral conviction against celebrating women covering their heads or against verses in the Quran that would be recited or against segregation based on gender during the recitation or prayers, whether my daughter thought the owner should be entitled to refuse us service on those grounds, and she said yes.
Of course no one would know if the owner just had a 'thing' against Muslims (or any particular race or religion or creed) but dressed up the objection using any of the 'legit' reasons above?
Not that you would want to give them your business anyway!
-
I think a 'thing' against anyone is usually, though not always, based on some reasoning and some emotion - the emotional response of moral convictions is a response to certain facts. So despite the women at a Muslim wedding consenting to covering their heads or wanting segregation, it might just feel wrong and against moral principles that are very important to the business owner. I think the 'thing' they have against Muslims would be based on thinking and perceptions, which people are not always able to articulate.
This bill seems to me to be about how much freedom to allow the business owner - given that a job takes up a large part of your day and thought process and in the case of a business owner, takes up a large part of your life and can be like your child and often takes precedence over your actual children, I can understand giving business owners some freedom.
I think market forces may lead to many business owners being practical and setting aside their deeply held moral convictions in the interests of profit. And not just in this scenario.
-
I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.
I grew up on the edge of East London. All pie and mash and COYI.
At the moment you are located in the longest river in Africa.
-
I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim. I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.
Hope, your views about gay people are vile.
ippy
-
Now why would you hope that, Ippy?
-
Now why would you hope that, Ippy?
You're right Brownie, I missed a comma, I've put it in now.
ippy
-
The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
-
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
Because God said so.
Actually it is because they are small minded fuckwits who are scared of people who are a bit different.
-
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind. I think it was trentvoyager (apologies if wrong) who said recently however that religion if it permeates society for long enough can allow its own homophobia to filter into wider society and thus rub off even on the non-religious. Sounds about right to me.
Fortunately for the good of right-thinking people everywhere, this sort of influence wanes and finally fades away as the generations thus influenced die out.
-
But they're dying out. No bad thing either or we'd never see progress in the world.
Cohort replacement in action, as the sociologists call it.
Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing. For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.
-
I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.
My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
Why, what business is it of theirs?
If they don't want a same sex relationship then no one is forcing them to have one.
-
Hope, your views about gay people are vile.
ippy
But, by no means uncommon. I and others - including some non religious people - would regard your views about religion and religious people, as vile.
-
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind.
They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.
-
They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.
Oh no they don't.
-
They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.
Such as?
-
Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing. For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.
No, that's perfectly true. But in this case ... much as my inner spelling/grammar/punctuation/syntax Nazi fulminates, I can let a few people go who mix up you're and your and who don't know the difference between uninterested and disinterested over homophobes.
-
They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.
And what might these be then?
-
But, by no means uncommon.
That's not an argument. "Lots of vile people with despicable views," even if true (and in this case it isn't), is no recommendation.
A Rizla away from the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum, however.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
Apples not falling far from the same despicable tree there, I see.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
Congratulations on spreading your misery and bigotry to your children. You must be proud.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
I simply cannot understand this.
What is it that is not to be celebrated about loving relationships?
I recently attending a ruby wedding. Under no circumstances would I have wanted to have sex with the wife, at any age in her life. However, it wasn't about me, it was to celebrate a happy and fulfilling life together.
Good on them and good luck in the future, is what I toasted.
Presumably if they had been a same sex couple you would have wished them bad luck for the future.
-
But, by no means uncommon. I and others - including some non religious people - would regard your views about religion and religious people, as vile.
Such as?
-
Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing. For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.
Well we all know your God is the absolute pits when it comes to getting it's message across clearly. Maybe you should take it up with him?
-
Such as?
You're the third to have asked that question.
That doesn't mean third time lucky - this is Hope the notorious question-dodger we're dealing with here, after all - but I'm very interested to see if he even makes a stab at outlining what these supposedly "scientific and objective arguments" are.
-
You're the third to have asked that question.
That doesn't mean third time lucky - this is Hope the notorious question-dodger we're dealing with here, after all - but I'm very interested to see if he even makes a stab at outlining what these supposedly "scientific and objective arguments" are.
It is absolutely beyond me. We can't raise a glass to two people who have a loving relationship :(
However, I have to say since joining I have been delighted and uplifted by the attitude of other Christians, namely Gonnagle and Brownie. I might not share their faith but their attitudes to their fellow man are to be applauded.
-
Our views are more common than you think, Stephen. The anti brigade are far less common.
(Now I will stand back and see what Sririam makes of my use of the word ''common'' :) )
-
Hope, you've made writing about almost everything you would like to express on the forum considerably more difficult for yourself, the absence of the well known evidence you say you have and especially now you have added these foul comments about ordinary decent gay people to your repertoire.
You've condemned yourself to be doing some pretty elaborate dance steps when you write here in future, in order to circumvent yourself around both of these pretty serious inadequacies you have exposed about yourself.
Looks to me you've got some very hard rides ahead of you Hope, all your own fault, I can't say you don't deserve it.
ippy
-
Ok but let's face it - being given a rough ride on an anonymous Internet forum is like being attacked by marshmellows - at least it is if you grew up in an era that was pre-social media and mostly socialised in the real world.
If I am discussing something that is not connected to Islam with JP, his views on Islam are irrelevant. Similarly if I discuss something with Hope his views on unrelated topics - LGBT or otherwise don't have a bearing. If you want to bring LGBT into every discussion - if that is a meaningful occupation for you on this forum - that's your call. My impression is that Hope seems more than capable of brushing off the consequences of not falling in line with other posters about LGBT.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
How awful, I would be disgusted if any of my children (40+) regarded such relationships as unacceptable. It is in the same category as regarding Black people as lesser mortals! >:(
-
How awful, I would be disgusted if any of my children (40+) regarded such relationships as unacceptable. It is in the same category as regarding Black people as lesser mortals! >:(
Yes Floo, Hope's attitude on this is exactly similar to racism, it doesn't sit that well with his generally holier than thou persona.
ippy
-
Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing. For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.
With respect, that is a really infantile argument.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
I find your children's attitude non-acceptable.
-
Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.
Yes well you raised them on your interpretation of your Big Book of Bigotry, didn't you?
-
With respect, that is a really infantile argument.
Well done on the respect there, Jeremy. I was going to say that Hope's argument is such a load of complete and utter shite so cringeworthy to read that you want to chew your own fist off in embarrassment.
-
Yes Floo, Hope's attitude on this is exactly similar to racism, it doesn't sit that well with his generally holier than thou persona.
ippy
A lot of Christians would have backed the slave trade, or been involved in it. >:(
When I was a kid a couple of missionaries came to talk to our pentecostal church about how they were converting the heathen in Africa. They used the 'N' word frequently, and it was clear they didn't think of them as the equal of Caucasians!>:( I was only about 8 or 9 at the time, but remember feeling uncomfortable about the way they presented their mission.
My Mother's aunt married a Ghanaian living in the UK, and they had a little girl. This was regarded as totally shocking in the early 30s; they were shunned by their neighbours and not welcome at the church my Great-Aunt used to attend before her marriage. >:(
-
Well done on the respect there, Jeremy. I was going to say that Hope's argument is such a load of complete and utter shite so cringeworthy to read that you want to chew your own fist off in embarrassment.
Better duck Hope - low flying marshmellows :)
-
Better duck Hope - low flying marshmellows :)
Birds of a feather.
I note your support for people who would wish to discriminate against me as a gay man - and presumably against yourself as a Muslim woman if I have read your previous posts correctly.
The only thing I can think of to say is be careful what you wish for.
-
Better duck Hope - low flying marshmellows :)
You aren't funny! >:(
-
Well done on the respect there, Jeremy. I was going to say that Hope's argument is such a load of complete and utter shite so cringeworthy to read that you want to chew your own fist off in embarrassment.
With respect, you do know that prefixing a sentence with "with respect" means you are about to trash the other person in a disrespectful way but adding "with respect" at the front makes it all OK again.
Hope has, unfortunately, recently been ill so I expect he is taking a lot of drugs to keep him well. But OMG CRACK COCAINE IS A DRUG! Therefore, according to his "logic" all drugs are bad.
-
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Doesn't work does it? Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.
You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?
-
Because God said so.
Actually it is because they are small minded fuckwits who are scared of people who are a bit different.
You mean like people who treat Christians that way?
Vicious circle if you ask me... may be hypocrit fits them all more aptly.
-
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
He doesn't.
The established state church trying to prevent secular civil marriage (i.e. absolutely none of their concern in any way whatever) - that's discrimination.
Criticising ugly, poisonous (or merely daft) beliefs isn't.
-
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Does he? Really?
In what way does Stephen discriminate against Christians?
-
Birds of a feather.
I note your support for people who would wish to discriminate against me as a gay man - and presumably against yourself as a Muslim woman if I have read your previous posts correctly.
The only thing I can think of to say is be careful what you wish for.
I have different priorities from you, and different outlook on the balance of competing freedoms and rights. My current view is that I prefer a world where people have the freedom to express disapproval of lifestyle or behaviour even if I'm the subject of their disapproval - so long as it is not vigilantism. I am ok with flocking with birds who feel the same way.
-
Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
I have to challenge this... it has been bothering me that the opening statement says "Gays aren't equal thing".
So I ask... Equal in what way?
They can live openly and without stress so they are treated equally to all as far as their sexual orientation.
I am not sure how them being homosexual would lessen their equality to all other human beings?
Is the writer of the thread making a statement that they are NOT equal. What is it that they claim Christians
are saying they are not equal in. Is it their homosexuality or themselves as human beings?
I really have to ask what the writer means and to explain themselves.
Thank you
-
I have different priorities from you, and different outlook on the balance of competing freedoms and rights. My current view is that I prefer a world where people have the freedom to express disapproval of lifestyle or behaviour even if I'm the subject of their disapproval - so long as it is not vigilantism. I am ok with flocking with birds who feel the same way.
even if that disapproval takes the form of back-door discrimination?
eg Sorry madam but you can't shop here, because I disapprove of your 'lifestyle'.
-
You aren't funny! >:(
I know - it almost makes you want to chew your own fist off in embarrassment for me.
-
even if that disapproval takes the form of back-door discrimination?
eg Sorry madam but you can't shop here, because I disapprove of your 'lifestyle'.
No, I was thinking of in the context of the bill - so i can't force a business to celebrate my lifestyle choices - so I can't hold a meeting in support of Britain becoming an Islamic state through peaceful dawah and conversion in a restaurant's private dining area if the owner doesn't support that belief.
-
A lot of Christians would have backed the slave trade, or been involved in it. >:(
It was a believer in God who called for the abolishing of the slave trade.
Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery is one of the central issues in American history.
Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories.
When I was a kid a couple of missionaries came to talk to our pentecostal church about how they were converting the heathen in Africa. They used the 'N' word frequently, and it was clear they didn't think of them as the equal of Caucasians!>:( I was only about 8 or 9 at the time, but remember feeling uncomfortable about the way they presented their mission.
Opinion and prejudicial. Eddie Murphy is black and used the 'N' word in Beverley Hills Cop 2. Does that make him a racist too?
At 8 I did not even know racism existed and I certainly had never heard the nigger word other than in a rhyme much later on.
"God made the little nigger boys he made them in a night. He made them in a hurry he forgot to paint them white."
No difference between black and white boys they were all made by God. True believers know that there is no black and white in the Kingdom of heaven. Do you never stop and think your bigoted point of views started early on?
My Mother's aunt married a Ghanaian living in the UK, and they had a little girl. This was regarded as totally shocking in the early 30s; they were shunned by their neighbours and not welcome at the church my Great-Aunt used to attend before her marriage. >:(
Really! Who performed the wedding ceremony then?
What was regarded as totally shocking in the 30's? Why would neighbours shun them?
I do not get it... Want to explain and tell us where they were married. Did you witness these things or are they hear say?
You were not even born in the 1930's in fact it is all hearsay, isn't it?
-
No, I was thinking of in the context of the bill - so i can't force a business to celebrate my lifestyle choices - so I can't hold a meeting in support of Britain becoming an Islamic state through peaceful dawah and conversion in a restaurant's private dining area if the owner doesn't support that belief.
..is it only the celebration that is being discussed then?
-
You were not even born in the 1930's in fact it is all hearsay, isn't it?
That's a keeper!
-
..is it only the celebration that is being discussed then?
That's what I understood from the link to the bill - I pasted a quote from it. Have I misunderstood the bill?
-
That's what I understood from the link to the bill - I pasted a quote from it. Have I misunderstood the bill?
I just hadn't spotted that, I'll have a look.
-
It was a believer in God who called for the abolishing of the slave trade.
Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery is one of the central issues in American history.
Opinion and prejudicial. Eddie Murphy is black and used the 'N' word in Beverley Hills Cop 2. Does that make him a racist too?
At 8 I did not even know racism existed and I certainly had never heard the nigger word other than in a rhyme much later on.
"God made the little nigger boys he made them in a night. He made them in a hurry he forgot to paint them white."
No difference between black and white boys they were all made by God. True believers know that there is no black and white in the Kingdom of heaven. Do you never stop and think your bigoted point of views started early on?
Really! Who performed the wedding ceremony then?
What was regarded as totally shocking in the 30's? Why would neighbours shun them?
I do not get it... Want to explain and tell us where they were married. Did you witness these things or are they hear say?
You were not even born in the 1930's in fact it is all hearsay, isn't it?
My Great-Aunt told me of her horrific experiences. She didn't get married in her family church but faraway in London with none of her family present! :o
As for hearsay well that is HILARIOUS coming from someone who believes the Bible to be true! ;D ;D ;D
-
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Doesn't work does it? Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.
You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?
Do I?
Can you point me to an example?
-
I have different priorities from you, and different outlook on the balance of competing freedoms and rights. My current view is that I prefer a world where people have the freedom to express disapproval of lifestyle or behaviour even if I'm the subject of their disapproval - so long as it is not vigilantism. I am ok with flocking with birds who feel the same way.
I admire your way of acceptance of anyone calling you boot nose, or worse and you don't give a fig about it, I'm much the same, by the way I'm not calling you boot nose, I have no reason to do so. If I did? (Supposed humour).
In Hope's case, he will do his best to convey this particular battering with marshmallows doesn't bother him in any way, but if you look back into his past postings they convey just the opposite.
Now if you in fact look into his posts on this thread it makes me wonder how anybody can make such horrible remarks as he does about and directly to gay people, there several gay people on this forum so I have seen where they have stated that they are gay, other than that, I have zero interest in anyone's sexuality whatever it happens to be.
I do however take offence at racial remarks, I have two mixed race sons and offensive remarks made against any other person that happens to be the way they are because that's the way they were born, as with my sons.
Hope, the paragon of virtue a prime example to his community, is another one of those unthinking brain dead locked in by dogma homophobes and hasn't got the strength of character to stand up against these disgusting views and be counted as one of the more enlightened ones in his group, maybe he hasn't got the guts to stand up and be counted on this issue.
I can't imagine why he seems to have some need to spit out this vile obnoxious bile of his, if it's his affiliation to whatever the religious beliefs of his group happens to be, it doesn't say a lot for them either.
ippy
-
That's a keeper!
It cuts both ways... ST so what now?
The comment you made not useful at all...
-
My Great-Aunt told me of her horrific experiences. She didn't get married in her family church but faraway in London with none of her family present! :o
As for hearsay well that is HILARIOUS coming from someone who believes the Bible to be true! ;D ;D ;D
Well Jesus Christ can confirm it is true by his presence. Can your aunt? Well not so hilarious after all. You are just your usual uninformed opinionated self. No change there then? ;D
-
Do I?
Can you point me to an example?
YOUR POSTS.... IS he for real?
-
Well Jesus Christ can confirm it is true by his presence. Can your aunt? Well not so hilarious after all. You are just your usual uninformed opinionated self. No change there then? ;D
My Great-Aunt was a real person whom I met in reality. Jesus died over 2000 years ago, you have NO evidence he resurrected!
-
It cuts both ways... ST so what now?
The comment you made not useful at all...
I does and I shall be happy to use the hearsay argument in future and you will of course be in full agreement with it when used, wont you?
It was useful to me. So you are wrong in that regard.
-
Well Jesus Christ can confirm it is true by his presence. Can your aunt? Well not so hilarious after all. You are just your usual uninformed opinionated self. No change there then? ;D
Can you get him to confirm it to me right now please?
Can you?
Well not so clever after all are you?
You are just your usual assertedness self. No change there then? ;D ;D ;D
-
My Great-Aunt was a real person whom I met in reality. Jesus died over 2000 years ago, you have NO evidence he resurrected!
Which given the millions of Christians today, that being nearly a third of the worlds population I think it suggests you are wrong.
Jesus was a real person and still is a real person. As you are incapable of understanding the bible you are not in a position to judge if he resurrected or not. 2,000 years later people still believe he did.
-
I does and I shall be happy to use the hearsay argument in future and you will of course be in full agreement with it when used, wont you?
It was useful to me. So you are wrong in that regard.
It is pointless because with the believer they have faith and they know God. You don't so have no proof either way. Personal (like the believer does) or otherwise.
We know why we believer you have absolutely nothing to excuse your disbelief.
-
Which given the millions of Christians today, that being nearly a third of the worlds population I think it suggests you are wrong.
Which given the millions of non-Christians, that being nearly two thirds of the worlds population, I think it suggests that they might be wrong!
Next.......
-
YOUR POSTS.... IS he for real?
Well you shouldn't have any problem in pointing out where I have discriminated, or advocated discriminating, against Christians then.
-
Can you get him to confirm it to me right now please?
Can you?
Well not so clever after all are you?
You are just your usual assertedness self. No change there then? ;D ;D ;D
Oh YES he can confirm to you right now. The thing is you have to want to have the truth confirmed by searching for him in truth and sincerity. That is what you have to do. Obey his words and you will see it confirmed.
-
Which given the millions of Christians today, that being nearly a third of the worlds population I think it suggests you are wrong.
Argumentum ad populum/ad numerum.
Jesus was a real person and still is a real person. As you are incapable of understanding the bible you are not in a position to judge if he resurrected or not. 2,000 years later people still believe he did.
Lots of people believe lots of silly things and that's one of the sillier examples of that phenomenon. Belief remains exactly and precisely that - just a belief.
-
Which given the millions of non-Christians, that being nearly two thirds of the worlds population, I think it suggests that they might be wrong!
Next.......
But not non religious. That is just the one religion. Atheists are less than 10% of the world population.
Which suggests the rest of us who believe in God are correct...
Next.... no forget that last remark.... I really do not want the next ignorant and idiotic remarks from the uneducated.
-
But not non religious. That is just the one religion. Atheists are less than 10% of the world population.
Which suggests the rest of us who believe in God are correct...
Do you know what the argumentum ad populum (or ad numerum) fallacy is and why you've just given just about the best example of it to disgrace this forum in some considerable time?
-
It is pointless because with the believer they have faith and they know God. You don't so have no proof either way. Personal (like the believer does) or otherwise.
If someone has a perfectly strong held belief in something that contradicts your belief then they have faith in that.
You don't so have no proof either way.
Personal or otherwise.
::)
We know why we believer you have absolutely nothing to excuse your disbelief.
If I don't believe what you believe, that in itself is a perfectly valid reason to 'excuse my disbelief'. ::) ::) ::)
-
Well you shouldn't have any problem in pointing out where I have discriminated, or advocated discriminating, against Christians then.
It is a well know fact we see it all the time FROM YOU. Do you really believe the forum don't know?
Get a reality check... I don't have to show one post it is a well known fact. Like you never read your own post.
It is a fact and nothing will change it. No matter how you protest. I am not wasting time when you can just go and read your posts and see what the forum see all the time...
-
Look Shaker and Seb if you want to make yourselves look more silly than you already do THEN carry on.
I personally, will not help you look more silly than you already do.
-
Look Shaker and Seb if you want to make yourselves look more silly than you already do THEN carry on.
I personally, will not help you look more silly than you already do.
So you are therefore (a) obviously unaware that you've just committed one of the most egregious logical fallacies going and (b) are not interested in knowing how to identify it and avoid it in future.
Well, no surprises there, then.
-
It is a well know fact we see it all the time FROM YOU. Do you really believe the forum don't know?
Get a reality check... I don't have to show one post it is a well known fact.
Oh yes you bloody well do - your assertion doesn't cut it.
You made the statement that Stephen discriminates against Christians. Back it up (you can't because he doesn't and never has) or retract it with an apology. Show some of that humility that your excuse for a religion enjoins you to exhibit for once.
-
But not non religious. That is just the one religion. Atheists are less than 10% of the world population.
Which suggests the rest of us who believe in God are correct...
Next.... no forget that last remark.... I really do not want the next ignorant and idiotic remarks from the uneducated.
Ah some goalpost moving, I was wondering when the hard of reasoning would introduce that. Well two can play at that game.
Are you saying that all of the non-Christians (apart from the atheists) believe in exactly the same God as you?
I'm quite happy to continue discussions with the educationally challenged in the, perhaps forlorn, hope that something might sink in, eventually!
And hopefully make them look less of a plonker than they already do!
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Look Shaker and Seb if you want to make yourselves look more silly than you already do THEN carry on.
I personally, will not help you look more silly than you already do.
Sassy if you want to make yourself look more silly than you already do THEN carry on.
I personally, will be happy to continue to highlight any idiocy that you might portray in the future.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
It is a well know fact we see it all the time FROM YOU. Do you really believe the forum don't know?
Get a reality check... I don't have to show one post it is a well known fact. Like you never read your own post.
It is a fact and nothing will change it. No matter how you protest. I am not wasting time when you can just go and read your posts and see what the forum see all the time...
You need to withdraw the accusation and apologise or show where I have discriminated against a Christian.
I suspect you don't know what the word discriminate means. Not agreeing with someone is not the same as discriminating against them.
-
You need to withdraw the accusation and apologise or show where I have discriminated against a Christian.
I suspect you don't know what the word discriminate means.
Given the way she writes, Sass doesn't know what most words mean.
-
Not agreeing with someone is not the same as discriminating against them.
I suspect that is exactly the meaning that she attributes to it.
But never-mind all you have to do is keep that up and God will close down this Forum - because Sassy asked him to!
Wont be long now I suspect as all of the evidence will be in your posting history you know!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Given the way she writes, Sass doesn't know what most words mean.
She certainly doesn't understand what libel means.
-
She certainly doesn't understand what libel means.
She should as she quotes from it regularly!
Oh wait a minute..... :-[
-
She should as she quotes from it regularly!
Oh wait a minute..... :-[
;D
-
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind. I think it was trentvoyager (apologies if wrong) who said recently however that religion if it permeates society for long enough can allow its own homophobia to filter into wider society and thus rub off even on the non-religious. Sounds about right to me.
Fortunately for the good of right-thinking people everywhere, this sort of influence wanes and finally fades away as the generations thus influenced die out.
Presumably that applies to all ideas in society held by the non-religious - if they originally stemmed from religious people in the past they are the result of religion having permeated society.
-
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind. I think it was trentvoyager (apologies if wrong) who said recently however that religion if it permeates society for long enough can allow its own homophobia to filter into wider society and thus rub off even on the non-religious. Sounds about right to me.
Fortunately for the good of right-thinking people everywhere, this sort of influence wanes and finally fades away as the generations thus influenced die out.
I don't understand how an atheist can think that religious homophobia isn't created by people and so can be held by non religious people too. If there isn't a god then all the homophobia in religion is merely the homophobia we as a species produce. We manage to hate for so many reasons, this is just one more.
-
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind. I think it was trentvoyager (apologies if wrong) who said recently however that religion if it permeates society for long enough can allow its own homophobia to filter into wider society and thus rub off even on the non-religious. Sounds about right to me.
Fortunately for the good of right-thinking people everywhere, this sort of influence wanes and finally fades away as the generations thus influenced die out.
I think as a heterosexual its quite natural to have a 'yuck' reaction to two men getting it on, it follows from that. I was homophobic up until c. 16 but I couldn't rationalise it and any argument I made was pathetic and forced to change my view a full 180.
If I was religious I would have had an excuse to carry on with my view, religion is a friend of bigots everywhere, you never have to admit you are wrong!
-
I admire your way of acceptance of anyone calling you boot nose, or worse and you don't give a fig about it, I'm much the same, by the way I'm not calling you boot nose, I have no reason to do so. If I did? (Supposed humour).
You can call me boot nose if you want - if you feel it's justified :)
Now if you in fact look into his posts on this thread it makes me wonder how anybody can make such horrible remarks as he does about and directly to gay people, there several gay people on this forum so I have seen where they have stated that they are gay, other than that, I have zero interest in anyone's sexuality whatever it happens to be.
On this thread I only saw his remarks relating to the bill - maybe I missed the horrible remarks to gay people or I have a different definition of horrible. I accept you think they are horrible though.
I do however take offence at racial remarks, I have two mixed race sons and offensive remarks made against any other person that happens to be the way they are because that's the way they were born, as with my sons.
In real life yes. I don't usually feel upset about comments on an internet forum from people I don't interact with in real life. On here, personally I might think some comments offensive, but most of the time I would be more interested in picking apart the basis of those comments with them - it is also a more interesting read when other people are analytical. Though the forum caters to all needs and sometimes cutting sarcasm is good too.
Hope, the paragon of virtue a prime example to his community, is another one of those unthinking brain dead locked in by dogma homophobes and hasn't got the strength of character to stand up against these disgusting views and be counted as one of the more enlightened ones in his group, maybe he hasn't got the guts to stand up and be counted on this issue.
Maybe. Or maybe he holds views that sit comfortably with him and so far he doesn't see a need to change them even if they upset, annoy, anger other people.
I can't imagine why he seems to have some need to spit out this vile obnoxious bile of his, if it's his affiliation to whatever the religious beliefs of his group happens to be, it doesn't say a lot for them either.
ippy
It's an internet forum - it's for discussing and exploring ideas. Who knows what views he expresses in real life - we don't know him in real life - only his persona on here.
-
I think as a heterosexual its quite natural to have a 'yuck' reaction to two men getting it on, it follows from that. I was homophobic up until c. 16 but I couldn't rationalise it and any argument I made was pathetic and forced to change my view a full 180.
If I was religious I would have had an excuse to carry on with my view, religion is a friend of bigots everywhere, you never have to admit you are wrong!
This is all well and good but I know plenty of religious people who would say the same thing, and plenty of non religious people who would just say in their opinion, homosexuality is wrong.
-
You can call me boot nose if you want - if you feel it's justified :)
On this thread I only saw his remarks relating to the bill - maybe I missed the horrible remarks to gay people or I have a different definition of horrible. I accept you think they are horrible though.
In real life yes. I don't usually feel upset about comments on an internet forum from people I don't interact with in real life. On here, personally I might think some comments offensive, but most of the time I would be more interested in picking apart the basis of those comments with them - it is also a more interesting read when other people are analytical. Though the forum caters to all needs and sometimes cutting sarcasm is good too.
Maybe. Or maybe he holds views that sit comfortably with him and so far he doesn't see a need to change them even if they upset, annoy, anger other people.
It's an internet forum - it's for discussing and exploring ideas. Who knows what views he expresses in real life - we don't know him in real life - only his persona on here.
I can appreciate not being particularly interested or bothered about most comments made on line, we had a poster on this forum that said he was a football trainer he only trained youngsters, and he said that he enjoyed his work but wouldn't train any of these youngsters if he found that that they were gay, I don't need to hear anything more from people like him, whoever was doing the moderation at the time banned him from the forum, good decision from my pov, not needed on journey thank you very much.
Hope is tending to go in this direction, he's not as bad as that trainer yet, whilst I like your not so serious, not quite light and fluffy but going in that direction approach, there are some things that go that bit to far and need something done about them, homophobia so parallels with racism and any decent and fair minded person wouldn't want anything to do with racism.
ippy
PS Boot nose.
-
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Just FYI, holding Christians to the same standards and rules as everybody else does not count as discrimination.
-
Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
I have to challenge this... it has been bothering me that the opening statement says "Gays aren't equal thing".
So I ask... Equal in what way?
Equal in being able to book a hotel room and not be refused service, for example. Equal in having the right to get married to somebody they love for another example.
-
Just FYI, holding Christians to the same standards and rules as everybody else does not count as discrimination.
I am still waiting for an apology for that particular piece of libel she made against me.
I won't let it drop until I get one either.
-
I am still waiting for an apology for that particular piece of libel she made against me.
I won't let it drop until I get one either.
Don't hold your breath.
-
Don't hold your breath.
I don't mind if people disagree with me. I don't care if people don't like me.
I do care when people tell out and out lies about me though.
-
With respect, you do know that prefixing a sentence with "with respect" means you are about to trash the other person in a disrespectful way but adding "with respect" at the front makes it all OK again.
Hope has, unfortunately, recently been ill so I expect he is taking a lot of drugs to keep him well. But OMG CRACK COCAINE IS A DRUG! Therefore, according to his "logic" all drugs are bad.
With respect, I associate politeness with respectfulness, and your post to Hope was politer than I would have been - or than his post deserved, arguably.
-
I see Bruce Springsteen has pulled out of a concert in North Carolina because of this anti LGBT law. And that PayPall has withdrawn its plans to build a new office there costing the state 400 new jobs. Other major companies and sports organisers are also boycotting the state..... Hope this helps put the dinosaurs back into their closet. (see what I did there?) I like Bruce Springsteen now, clearly a man prepared to stand up for his beliefs despite the fact it will cost him loadsa money.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36000905
-
He's not short of a bob or two so I don't think he'll be taking a noticeable hit in the wallet but I agree, good on him (and PayPal). A man of principle, clearly.
-
I think as a heterosexual its quite natural to have a 'yuck' reaction to two men getting it on, it follows from that. I was homophobic up until c. 16 but I couldn't rationalise it and any argument I made was pathetic and forced to change my view a full 180.
If I was religious I would have had an excuse to carry on with my view, religion is a friend of bigots everywhere, you never have to admit you are wrong!
Whilst our perception can find fault that is truly hidden at times.
You see the big mistake is to think that one finding homosexuality not normal or right according to their own personal feelings does not make the person a bigot. A Christian who believes God says homosexuality is not the right way for his people does not make them a bigot.
Religion is not a friend of bigots... Racist bigots... -are not all religions inclusive of people from every creed, races and even nations?
It is too simple and unrealistic to make such comments when Homophobia is found in all races, and nations both atheist, agnostic and theist alike.
Homophobia is something people of every walk of life can be affected by.
Being a Christian, Atheist or Agnostic does not in themselves make a person homophobic.
-
Whilst our perception can find fault that is truly hidden at times.
You see the big mistake is to think that one finding homosexuality not normal or right according to their own personal feelings does not make the person a bigot. A Christian who believes God says homosexuality is not the right way for his people does not make them a bigot.
Religion is not a friend of bigots... Racist bigots... -are not all religions inclusive of people from every creed, races and even nations?
It is too simple and unrealistic to make such comments when Homophobia is found in all races, and nations both atheist, agnostic and theist alike.
Homophobia is something people of every walk of life can be affected by.
Being a Christian, Atheist or Agnostic does not in themselves make a person homophobic.
Being prejudiced against homosexuality makes a person a nasty bigot, as would it make god too. Bigotry is WRONG! >:(
-
He's not short of a bob or two so I don't think he'll be taking a noticeable hit in the wallet but I agree, good on him (and PayPal). A man of principle, clearly.
Hear hear. He is truly The Boss. Good on PayPal too.
-
Hear hear. He is truly The Boss. Good on PayPal too.
I agree.
-
Still waiting for Hope's "scientific and objective arguments" (#28) against homosexuality.
It's already on the ever-expanding list of Hope's dodged questions, but you never know.
-
Still waiting for Hope's "scientific and objective arguments" against homosexuality.
It's already on the ever-expanding list of Hope's dodged questions but you never know.
But there's an issue with scientific arguments isn't there in that scientific arguments are made which can be interpreted as being homophobic vis statistical normality and whether there is a vehicle for the promulgation of genes.
I'm not big on soliciting science to settle moral questions but I know atheists are
-
Hope is the one who invoked science here (see #28), not me, and he isn't an atheist as far as I'm aware. Take it up with him.
If he ever shows up here again.
-
Hope is the one who invoked science here (see #28), not me, and he isn't an atheist as far as I'm aware. Take it up with him.
If he ever shows up here again.
What's your view on science and morality?
-
I would ask in relation to what specifically but that would seem to be taking us way off topic.
-
But there's an issue with scientific arguments isn't there in that scientific arguments are made which can be interpreted as being homophobic vis statistical normality and whether there is a vehicle for the promulgation of genes.
The key word is "interpreted" - science doesn't tell us that statistical normality is right or wrong, it doesn't tell us that humans passing on genes is right or wrong, it doesn't tell us that human survival is right or wrong.
Science doesn't do right or wrong, in the moral sense, at all.
I'm not big on soliciting science to settle moral questions but I know atheists are
What atheists?
Science can't, by itself, answer moral questions.
-
... despite the fact it will cost him loadsa money.
Will it? When all the expenses are totted up, a single concert doesn't bring that much money in to a performer. Full, months-long tours may, when all added together, but there are so many other ways that stars like Bruce earn money as to make this pretty insignificant.
-
Still waiting.
-
I can appreciate not being particularly interested or bothered about most comments made on line, we had a poster on this forum that said he was a football trainer he only trained youngsters, and he said that he enjoyed his work but wouldn't train any of these youngsters if he found that that they were gay, I don't need to hear anything more from people like him, whoever was doing the moderation at the time banned him from the forum, good decision from my pov, not needed on journey thank you very much.
Hope is tending to go in this direction, he's not as bad as that trainer yet, whilst I like your not so serious, not quite light and fluffy but going in that direction approach, there are some things that go that bit to far and need something done about them, homophobia so parallels with racism and any decent and fair minded person wouldn't want anything to do with racism.
ippy
PS Boot nose.
I think we draw the line in different places. I personally don't want this forum to be a place where people can advocate killing people for self-identifying in a way that is different from others - whether they are self-identifying at a particular point on the spectrum of sexuality or self-identifying on a particular point on the spectrum of gender or self-identifying at a particular point on the spectrum of Christianity. Cym was banned for making an ambiguous comment about burning down a gay club - supporting violence to someone for expressing a part of their identity.
I don't think supporting that kind of violence is even remotely in the same category as expressing disapproval on a forum of how someone behaves when they are expressing their identity - whether that is their sexual identity, gender identity or their religiosity identity.
Also, I don't see the point of an anonymous internet forum if it is not to be able to discuss views that you wouldn't normally be able to discuss with a wide range of people in real life for fear of causing a person to feel under threat. The Internet allows for a degree of detachment that you can't get in real life, where the physical proximity of the person saying something controversial, offensive or insulting might make the listener feel threatened.
There are a significant number of people who don't advocate a liberal approach to sexual behaviour regardless of orientation, and would want more social pressure brought to bear on people to conform in terms of public behaviour, and who don't take the approach that the behaviour of consenting adults is none of their business, on the basis that they do feel uncomfortable about increasing sexual freedom. They shun the openness in media, advertising etc and would also shun their children if they publicly exhibited sexual freedom as part of their identity.
It would be weird and not representative of the population if some of those type of people weren't expressing their views on this forum - so I would want them on this journey as much as I want people who want to control Muslim behaviour or Christian behaviour or any other behaviour where people are expressing or making a statement about what they believe is their identity.
ETA: PS. Forgot - I know you are, but what am I.
-
Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468
-
Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468
I believe no one should refuse a service to another simply because of their sexuality.
This a politically correctiveness which is way beyond the pale when it comes to faith and God.
If they did this to all wrong doers then they would not be able to deliver to themselves.
Rather ironic that no one is really thinking and ticking the proper boxes.
We appear to go backwards in time and with very little learning from the way prejudice can cause harm.
Everyone needs to eat and buy and sell. I do not believe sexuality or anything of that nature should be a deciding factor.
I worry about the future of the world whilst people are making life difficult for others.
I can see how soon people will need a mark to buy and sell.
-
I can see how soon people will need a mark to buy and sell.
How will that work then? :-\
Oh and how soon is 'soon'?
-
Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468
He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country. All he has done is upset his fans.
-
He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country. All he has done is upset his fans.
Not seeing your point. So performers who didn't go to South Africa under the apartheid regime should just have carried on against their own principles?
-
He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country.
Straw man. Nobody even stated this. Nevertheless he's free to exercise his choice as to where he plays and doesn't play, which is exactly what he has done.
All he has done is upset his fans.
Some of them may be upset; others, being aware of his motivation for doing what he has done, may well be in support of him.
-
Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing. For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.
. . . and just who are you referring to in this comment, please?
. . . and don't say no-one in particular, it is just a general comment, because if you do, I will tell you in advance, that I would say that you would be lying in your teeth!
-
Not seeing your point. So performers who didn't go to South Africa under the apartheid regime should just have carried on against their own principles?
Queen played in South Africa in 1984. Surely Sud Afrika was rather nastier than this Mississippi law?
-
Queen played in South Africa in 1984. Surely Sud Afrika was rather nastier than this Mississippi law?
Certainly was, at that time.
Never been myself but I gather it's hardly paradise even now.
Nevertheless, that was then and this is now; and even if apartheid-era South Africa was nastier, this is still nasty enough that people feel entitled to make a principled moral stand over it.
-
In some aspects I think there is a need to respect someone's right not to participate in an action that runs against their conscience.
For example, the right to say you think it is wrong to terminate a life, and perform an abortion for example.
Or to practice euthanasia on patients if you don't agree with it.
But I do think there should be something in place to cope with that so people are not discriminated against because of it.
If you give a baby up for adoption you should be able to make choices to ensure a good start in life for that baby.
It could be anything, for example you might decide you don't want the baby to be indoctrinated with religion.
We should have some say, but overall it shouldn't prevent any groups from adopting another baby.
It's about having a limited personal say, and we are all different in what we think is important.
Ok so we can't discriminate in business, but we all discriminate in our private lives.
I think there should be some areas where we do get some say in our own actions and our right to abstain within certain limits.
Gay people should be able to adopt, if a few people wish to object against that or the idea of a single parent, so be it.
But it doesn't mean society should discriminate.
The choice of individuals, is just that.
Society should support the choices of individuals while being non discriminatory itself.
IMO adoption should be totally non discriminatory unless an central individual indicates otherwise.
An example would be a black couple who are unable to support another baby but want their baby brought up by a black couple of similar culture.
Or an atheist couple that want their baby brought up with an open mind and not a strictly religious background.
IMO that's OK to say so.
-
Being prejudiced against homosexuality makes a person a nasty bigot, as would it make god too. Bigotry is WRONG! >:(
Saying that something is wrong, or bad for society as a whole isn't being prejudiced, Floo. I realise that you (and others) like to use the term because of its emotive nature.
-
Saying that something is wrong, or bad for society as a whole isn't being prejudiced, Floo. I realise that you (and others) like to use the term because of its emotive nature.
It is if: a) you can't provide good grounds for the 'wrongness/badness' you assert, b) you're not in a position to speak for 'society as a whole' and c) you seek to use prejudice to discriminate on the basis of a human characteristic that isn't legally or socially proscribed.
That you don't approve personally is merely your personal opinion, and your opinion isn't binding on 'society as a whole', as must be obvious in view of the legislative changes in most parts of the UK.
-
. . . and just who are you referring to in this comment, please?
Those of us who went to school in the 50s, 60s and 70s were taught (almost put 'learnt' ;)) grammar and the rules of spelling. In the 70s, the Government decided that the teaching of grammar was not important, and that the concentration on spelling could be down-graded. This continued until the mid-to late-90s, meaning that those now aged between their early 20s and their mid-40s struggle with these elements of the English language - something that many schools and school headteachers have highlighted over the years. In fact, this was pointed out in the media back in 2014 - this from the Daily Mail highlights the knock-on nature of the issue - http://dailym.ai/1xbfiFc
. . . and don't say no-one in particular, it is just a general comment, because if you do, I will tell you in advance, that I would say that you would be lying in your teeth!
I have been learning such tricks of the trade from you, Owls, but I try hard to avoid falling into them as much as I can.
-
Those of us who went to school in the 50s, 60s and 70s were taught (almost put 'learnt' ;)) grammar and the rules of spelling. In the 70s, the Government decided that the teaching of grammar was not important, and that the concentration on spelling could be down-graded. This continued until the mid-to late-90s, meaning that those now aged between their early 20s and their mid-40s struggle with these elements of the English language - something that many schools and school headteachers have highlighted over the years. In fact, this was pointed out in the media back in 2014 - this from the Daily Mail highlights the knock-on nature of the issue - http://dailym.ai/1xbfiFc
I have been learning such tricks of the trade from you, Owls, but I try hard to avoid falling into them as much as I can.
So who PRECISELY was the comment "the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate" aimed at or referring to - which cohort who "can spell and use grammar correctly" have we lost!
Over the years you have made as many spelling and grammatical cock-ups as I have - so who were you talking about?
-
Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468
I understand why he is doing this but I think Cindi Lauper's response to the NC law was more constructive.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7333165/cyndi-lauper-donate-north-carolina-concert-lgbt-charity
Her concert went ahead but all the proceeds were donated to charities fighting against the bigoted laws.
-
How will that work then? :-\
Oh and how soon is 'soon'?
Don't pay much attention to anything but the chip as a way of explanation.
Just googled to give you an idea. I know nothing about the person it is an explanation of they might chip and what has been suggested so far for animals etc.
Take a look and see for yourself.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/chipcattle.htm
It is a time when things will change and will be frightening for a lot of people.
Though there is things like the above in the pipe line, we can see why the Government want to remain within the EU.
I am afraid for the rest you will have to study Daniel and Revelations.
-
I can appreciate not being particularly interested or bothered about most comments made on line, we had a poster on this forum that said he was a football trainer he only trained youngsters, and he said that he enjoyed his work but wouldn't train any of these youngsters if he found that that they were gay, I don't need to hear anything more from people like him, whoever was doing the moderation at the time banned him from the forum, good decision from my pov, not needed on journey thank you very much.
Hope is tending to go in this direction, he's not as bad as that trainer yet, whilst I like your not so serious, not quite light and fluffy but going in that direction approach, there are some things that go that bit to far and need something done about them, homophobia so parallels with racism and any decent and fair minded person wouldn't want anything to do with racism.
ippy
PS Boot nose.
I feel sometimes people are more drawn to debates on topics which divide.
Where is the person who once made those remarks and what age were those boys?
We live in a world which is divided a world where right and wrong has become so faint in the limitations lines drawn that we are
unable to reason about what is good.
A world of proud people who through pride do not take responsibility for their own lives and decisions.
Someone on her said they don't give a flying fig about what others are doing.
When it is terrorist and those that kill for causes not worthy of killing for then we should all give a flying fig.
Too much judge and jury rather than live and let live.
We all make our own decisions. Christs way is peace and love one another. That is what God wants.
But life isn't that simple for those without faith. We see strife over abortion and nuclear missiles.
We have a world where evil is becoming global.
The divisions on here are like a personality contest the 'likes' and 'no likes' more about the 'faith' and the 'no faith'.
My question is when did we cease to become humans? When did our likes and dislikes become about faith rather than the individual? A strange world where people divide because of faith. I see no reason for people to ditch their humanity for their beliefs about religion. Maybe a little strong... not suggesting all feelings ditched. But I would not see the faith or no faith issue when a person needed help. Just the need the person has.
-
Just FYI, holding Christians to the same standards and rules as everybody else does not count as discrimination.
That isn't right is it... Because swopping one prejudice for another one discrimination for another is a no win situation.
Who made you and your beliefs the right ones or the only ones to enforce on others.
Get my point now....
There has always been a right and a wrong way.
Sometimes the wrong ways condemn people to death. Do you propose to make murder legal for those who psychopathic killers etc. That is the problem isn't it. Because what feels right to another is wrong for us. You cannot make it go away by saying no one must do it. You cannot make it legal because it feels right for some.
We have lived since time began with some of the things man has done. But eventually we all know what is right and wrong for ourselves. The best we can do is obey the Laws of the Land if they do not impede the right to faith and good treatment of all and live and let live.
-
I am afraid for the rest you will have to study Daniel and Revelations.
Why?