296d
@fmf saidNeither. That analogy was to show silly it is to equate two unrelated concepts just because they're both "discrimination". That's what you're doing with Suzi.
No you didn't.
Here it is again: In your peculiar analogy, which matter is analogous to child molestation, and which is analogous to antisemitism?
@fmf saidSo what? Does she agree that their rights should be denied?
You are still employing the same sleight of rhetorical hand. She demeans people's faith in Jesus on a spirituality forum rather than merely offering "criticism against a political party".
Or is your problem that that she's rude to people who overturn civil liberties?
296d
@vivify saidIf one is talking, on a Spirituality Forum, about prejudice and intolerance rooted in religious faith, then the comparison/juxtaposition is not "silly". I notice you have now attempted a new sleight of rhetorical hand by introducing the word "equated" into the conversation. Your word, not mine.
Neither. That analogy was to show silly it is to equate two unrelated concepts just because they're both "discrimination". That's what you're doing with Suzi.
296d
@fmf saidOkay.
No, I didn't.
This is what I said:
"The issues, on this forum, as I see it are prejudice and tolerance. The issue is whether the anti-gay Christians are walking the Christian walk, not whether SCOTUS has just given them a legal foundation for their prejudice-in-action."
Suzi is still right to attack people denying civil rights, Christian or not.
296d
@vivify said1. No.
So what? Does she agree that their rights should be denied?
Or is your problem that that she's rude to people who overturn civil liberties?
2. The problem is prejudice and intolerance, not "rudeness".
If you want to talk about "law and politics", I suggest you take that stuff to the Debates Forum.
296d
@vivify saidStop shifting the goal posts in this exchange. I was talking about Suzianne’s hypocrisy not levels of legal or illegal discrimination.
Not all discrimination is invidious discrimination. There are valid reasons why some forms of discrimination are illegal and others are not.
Most importantly, Suzi isn't saying Republicans should be denied legal rights; if she was, then she'd be a hypocrite. She is not. Merely having a negative opinion of Republicans isn't the same as Republicans overturning civil liberties.
This is all just a semantic game.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
296d
@fmf saidThe issue I'm responding to is Suzi being called a "hypocrite" for defending gay rights. I couldn't care less if this is a relevant forum topic.
If one is talking, on a Spirituality Forum, about prejudice and intolerance rooted in religious faith, then the comparison/juxtaposition is not "silly". I notice you have now attempted a new sleight of rhetorical hand by introducing the word "equated" into the conversation. Your word, not mine.
296d
@divegeester saidExcept it's not hypocrisy. You're just playing semantic games.
Stop shifting the goal posts in this exchange. I was talking about Suzianne’s hypocrisy not levels of legal or illegal discrimination.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
296d
@vivify saidThere you go again, shifting the goalposts.
Okay.
Suzi is still right to attack people denying civil rights, Christian or not.
Suzianne was being hypocritical in that she herself holds a discriminatory belief against republicans in claiming that a Republican cannot be a true Christian.
Just because you are a left-leaning person and want to agree with her, and that you highlight that her mindset is not “illegal”, does not detract from the fact that her statement was discriminatory, and would be called out as such in a Christian church.