more religious discrimination

Originally posted by Conrau K
I bet if you called on anyone in this forum, they would agree with me. You really are a jerk.

I wouldn't. Not on this one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would extend it not only to this post but his entire posting history, this little mêlée is merely indicative of a much broader practice, that of evasion, condescension and a real lack of sincerity. Indeed if i could find one positive thing to say, I'd say, he's consistent, consistently dishonest. A thoroughly disreputable character best handled with a pole as one would handle a snake!

Oh STFU. Too is one of the most decent posters on here. Take your antagonism elsewhere.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I wouldn't. Not on this one.

Ok. Then I am genuinely dumbfounded. I apologise to ThinkOfOne. I clearly have no idea what counts as intellectual honesty on the forum, although clearly it isn't anything to do with acknowledging other people's arguments or anything to do with reasoned debate -- unless you can point out where he did this. As ThinkOfOne says, good luck to you. Maybe I should wise up and grow some maturity. Obviously I am a little confused about things, as he said, and don't know much about life. As he has also said, I am brainwashed by my Catholicism and am just a college student anyway.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh STFU. Too is one of the most decent posters on here. Take your antagonism elsewhere.

Serious question. What do you think was commendable about his contribution to this thread? This isn't intended rhetorically. I really want to know. I think there is a genuine issue about religious freedom here and I acknowledge that the balance between this freedom and equal opportunity is tricky. I want to tease out this problem; I am not being polemical here. But all ThinkOfOne has argued is that the KKK's also practiced discrimination, not even deigning to reply to my questions about and criticisms of the validity of this comparison. I really wanted to explore this issue further but have been completed stonewalled. Can you explain how he has acted in an intellectually honest way?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh STFU. Too is one of the most decent posters on here. Take your antagonism elsewhere.

or you'll do what? fire more cyber rockets from the comfort of your evil scientist laboratory safely hidden in the hills some-place, psyche me out with a mind ray, well tremble tremble! It has got what to do with you? nada, so shut upa yo face! Watch out for the third billy goat gruff, hes bigger and fatter and meaner than me and he just might come across this bridge looking for sweet grass to chew! Answer Conraus questions if you dare, i stand by my assertion, he is consistently dismissive, condescending, evasive and prone to self righteousness! I stop short of intellectually dishonest, but may resort to it if pressed! Find one post where he has apologised to someone and ill eat my words!

I personally used to have a good rapport with thinkofone, but he became embittered and his posts seemed to me to be filled with naught but vitriol! and assertions of lying when one disagreed with his point of view, etc etc Maybe hes a good guy inside, i don't know, its hard to tell from internet forums. Never the less out of the hearts abundance, the mouth speaks!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes ...[text shortened]... professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

Nonsense! Jesus had 2 fathers and he turned out okay. 😉

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Nonsense! Jesus had 2 fathers and he turned out okay. 😉

yes but he was also brought up in a heterosexual household which do doubt had something to do with his 'rounded out', personality. 🙂

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Nonsense! Jesus had 2 fathers and he turned out okay. 😉

Ha!

Originally posted by lausey
Well, to me, this is pretty clear cut. Contrary to her claim, she certainly is homophobic and the council were right in sacking her.

Rather than evaluate if a homosexual couple can bring up a child that will blend in and be successful in society, she decided that because they were homosexual, they weren't capable of doing so.

Her attitudes are an impedi ...[text shortened]... be interested to hear what makes her feel that children "did best" with heterosexual couples.

I agree.

I also think it's also important that the council (or the law, I don't know which) decided that homosexuality was not an impenetrable barrier then public officials must abide by those rules. If they cannot or will not, then they are not able to perform their duties according to what the council expects from them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. Then I am genuinely dumbfounded. I apologise to ThinkOfOne. I clearly have no idea what counts as intellectual honesty on the forum, although clearly it isn't anything to do with acknowledging other people's arguments or anything to do with reasoned debate -- unless you can point out where he did this. As ThinkOfOne says, good luck to you. Maybe I shoul ...[text shortened]... As he has also said, I am brainwashed by my Catholicism and am just a college student anyway.

Bull. You're consistently one of the best posters in Spirituality. That ToO fails to respond to your arguments, even after you've repeated them, rephrased them, explained them plainly, etc. is further indication that your talents are wasted here. Why do you think LemonJello, Lord Shark and I don't post here anymore? This forum has turned into a wasteland.

Originally posted by bbarr
Bull. You're consistently one of the best posters in Spirituality. That ToO fails to respond to your arguments, even after you've repeated them, rephrased them, explained them plainly, etc. is further indication that your talents are wasted here. Why do you think LemonJello, Lord Shark and I don't post here anymore? This forum has turned into a wasteland.

Careful. Your hope is showing.

Originally posted by bbarr
Bull. You're consistently one of the best posters in Spirituality. That ToO fails to respond to your arguments, even after you've repeated them, rephrased them, explained them plainly, etc. is further indication that your talents are wasted here. Why do you think LemonJello, Lord Shark and I don't post here anymore? This forum has turned into a wasteland.

you left in a fit of pique when beetle pointed out to you that your intolerance of others points of view was a reflection, not of the forum, but of yourself!

Originally posted by bbarr
Bull. You're consistently one of the best posters in Spirituality. That ToO fails to respond to your arguments, even after you've repeated them, rephrased them, explained them plainly, etc. is further indication that your talents are wasted here. Why do you think LemonJello, Lord Shark and I don't post here anymore? This forum has turned into a wasteland.

Thank you. I am not proud that I got drawn into this recent saga. However, I still enjoy posting here occasionally when I found I subject that interests me. I recall when I first came to this forum spouting creationist nonsense so I do have to be forgiving!

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Nonsense! Jesus had 2 fathers and he turned out okay. 😉

Would you say being whipped, carrying your own crucifix up a hill, being nailed to it; after receiving a crown of thorns through your skull; being displayed and humiliated, pierced in the liver and left to die at the top of the hill with your cross cemented firmly in place is 'turning out ok'?? 😲

That's a fair display of turning out ok, is it?

Christ, if my kids end up like that I'll blame their TEACHERS. 😀 (Nottt!)

Or, maybe, was Jesus just an ancient 'hoodie' 'that' just got what he deserved? 😛

Originally posted by Conrau K
Serious question. What do you think was commendable about his contribution to this thread? This isn't intended rhetorically. I really want to know. I think there is a genuine issue about religious freedom here and I acknowledge that the balance between this freedom and equal opportunity is tricky. I want to tease out this problem; I am not being polemical h been completed stonewalled. Can you explain how he has acted in an intellectually honest way?

For someone calling for "intellectual honesty" you don't seem to believe you need to adhere to it to make your case.

For example you say, "But all ThinkOfOne has argued is that the KKK's also practiced discrimination.." when in reality the following is what I argued:

Sounds like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation rather than judging their merits as parents.... Adoption programs, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be given the option of continuing to discriminate.

In short, homosexuals should be judged by their abilities rather than their sexual orientation. Bigotry is still bigotry even when camouflaged as "religious ideals". The point about the KKK was a sidebar. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in trying to portray it as "all ThinkOfOne has argued"?

I brought up the KKK to point out another group that attempts to "justify" discrimination under the pretense of "religious ideals". There is no justification for bigotry. You kept insisting in various ways that the point was about justifying "racism" rather that "bigotry" in various ways: "Look, clearly you are not mature enough to engage in civilised debate, evidently feeling the need to resort to comparisons with racism...You drew similarities with the discrimination practiced by the KKK. Now unless you believe that I am justifying racial prejudice, I really fail to see the relevance...". I made attempts to correct you and finally said, "Once again, I have said nothing about racism. YOU are the one who insists on bringing it up." You responded with "You brought up the KKK" at which point I decided that it was pointless to continue the discussion. Even after that you still were saying things like, "your basic argument has simply been to compare me with the KKK". Where is the "intellectual honesty" in any of that?

It wasn't until after I decided that it was pointless to continue the discussion that you pulled out questions that were buried in a lot of other rhetoric and kept repeating them as I was trying to beg off. So even your charge of my "evading" your questions does not include the whole story.

There are easily several other things I could point out, but I think I've made my point.

Seems like you've really pulled out all the stops in your effort to "play the victim". Theatre major?