Only Christians can Work at Theme Park

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously GF.

Do you really not understand that that particular post is bringing up points that were made earlier within a given context and need to be understood as such? Once again you've flown off the handle like you usually do.

Do you really not understand that you've completely ignored the salient points of the post to which you just responde ...[text shortened]... post, you continue to prove my points.

You're too funny GF.

You really need to get a grip.

Salient... You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Salient... You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

He also seems quite keen for you to 'get a grip'.

I have no salient point here.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
He also seems quite keen for you to 'get a grip'.

I have no salient point here.

Good Grip

YouTube

Sometimes one should be careful what one wishes for 😉

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
He also seems quite keen for you to 'get a grip'.

I have no salient point here.

Always liked a good cat fight 😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This theme park has apparently priced itself beyond the budgets of most working-class American Christians.

Amen!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Then maybe you didn't make that point in a way sufficiently convincing to him.

I mean I look at your to-and-fro and I don't find your arguments convincing and I agree that they
shouldn't be able to discriminate in this case.

More to the point you seem to me to be clearly misunderstanding where he is coming from.

Let's look at the exchange in question...

Originally posted by vivify
This makes sense. That organization has the goal of promoting Christianity, and should be allowed to have members that are like-minded. If it was merely a business owned by Christians, that would be different; but since this the organization is evangelistic in nature, wanting only Christians makes sense.

Originally posted by Duchess64
So would Vivify approve of a women's rights organization employing only women?

Originally posted by vivify
You don't need to be a woman to promote women's rights; you simply need to believe women should have the same rights as men. However, it makes no sense to promote Christianity if you don't believe in it.

Originally posted by Duchess64
So does Vivify believe that Christian organizations must hire only Christians to represent them in public relations?
If I were working in public relations, I would advise a Christian organization if it paid me enough.
I suspect that some Christian organizations have been represented by non-Christians in public relations.

Originally posted by vivify
So does Vivify believe that Christian organizations must hire only Christians. . . ?

"Must"? No. Should they have the option to? If their goal is specifically to spread Christianity, then yes.

Should a women's rights organization be allowed to hire only those that believe in women's rights?

Originally posted by Duchess64
"However, it makes no sense to promote Christianity if you don't believe in it."
--Vivify

Does Vivify admit that his statement is wrong? Would Vivify regard it as nonsensical for a
Jewish public relations person to work for a Christian organization that paid him or her enough?

If paid enough, some people would work to promote chess even though they don't play
chess and have no interest in learning chess.

Vivify opens by talking about 'allowing an organisation with the goal of promoting an idea/ideology to be able to require
members be 'like minded' and follow that ideology'...

And so you respond with a question asking if he would approve of an organisation that promotes an ideology to be
able to only hire one gender.... Which misses the point, showing you didn't clearly understand it.

Vivify makes this clear with his response where he improves the analogy, by making it about belief in the ideology and
not about something irrelevant to the ideology, in this case gender.

You then come back with a second question that makes it clear again that you don't get what he's driving at.
This time you ask if an organisation with an ideology MUST hire people that agree with it...
Which is clearly not what he's driving at and again he politely and calmly clarifies.
And then asks a simple exploratory question...
"Should a women's rights organization be allowed to hire only those that believe in women's rights?"

To which you give no answer, and further you go on to ask if he 'admits' that an earlier statement of his is wrong...
And that ""admits"" is where you really go wrong... You have not anywhere in this given him [or me] any reason
to suppose that this statement is wrong. And as he made it, and hasn't contradicted it, and you have clearly not
refuted it... He has no reason to believe that it is wrong and thus has no need to 'admit' that it is wrong like its
something he knows and is hiding.

YOU went antagonistic after, [as far as I am concerned] not grasping quite what he was driving at, and instead of
asking exploratory questions, or trying arguments from a different angle, or ... well really anything else... you go
strait to basically accusing him of lying...

And you wonder why things go south from there...



Reveal Hidden Content

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Various other writers like No1Maurauder have referred to Duchess as an "a##hole", and others have called her a "lying whore".

Other posters should keep this in mind when considering if Duchess' personal atacks have any value.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I expect Googlefudge, of course, to support almost every apparent enemy of mine.

That's because you know next to nothing about me, despite your claims otherwise.
I criticise you and/or your opinions when I think you/they are wrong.

I support you when I think you are right.

I do the same with just about everyone else.

I don't support people for opposing you.

ThinkofOne and Suzianne both comprehended what I wrote and criticized Googlefudge for misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I wrote,

This is indeed true, although the part you missed is that Suzianne retracted her criticism, and
that all three of you were wrong. I have before taken the time to find the posts, you can do it this
time as I'm not doing it again. [or shut up about it, whichever]
I am amused that you still think that claiming that others happened to agree with you is anything
more than an ad populum argument.

but I don't expect Googlefudge to admit that he's wrong.

That's because I'm not wrong. I have this thing about not admitting to being wrong when I'm not just
because someone tells me to.

I did apparently misunderstand the intended meaning of something you wrote. And I admitted as much.
However what you always fail to admit is that it was reasonable and possible for me to do so.
Because you could never possibly write anything that could possibly be interpreted in any way other
than the way you intended... Which is your arrogance, and biggest flaw.

My critical view of Googlefudge has remained essentially unchanged since then.

Your failure to update mental models when new information becomes available is known and noted.

My main bone of contention with Vivify is his statement:
"It makes no sense to promote Christianity if you don't believe in it."
--Vivify

Vivify's claim is clearly false.

No, I can see several different ways in which that statement is clearly not false.

This is because unlike you I can see multiple different meanings and interpretations of the same thing.
I have an imagination, you apparently do not.

Now the way you have apparently taken to interpret that sentence it is false.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that that was the intended meaning of Vivify.

Particularly given that YOU accuse Vivify of being unclear in his meaning and reading comprehension
[although you make this claim so often it's become almost meaningless] I point out that YOU should
take that into consideration and consider that MAYBE YOU have failed to precisely understand his
meaning and that maybe YOU should consider that possibility before accusing others of what amounts
to lying.

These writers have learned that it's a waste of time to keep arguing with Vivify.

If that is your attitude then perhaps you should just shut up and not fill the thread with snide remarks
about Vivify and his posts. Or you could accept that not everyone will live up to your personal standards
of clarity and take that into account when debating. It would certainly make you sound far less stuck up,
than you currently do. That and not talking about people in third person.

Also, way to be predictable. I won a bet with your post.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes... EVERYONE on these forums has people accuse them of being stupid, ignorant,
dishonest, arrogant, illiterate, etc etc etc.

Would you like me to list all the people who criticise you?

I didn't claim that ToO was the only person to criticise Vivify, nor did I imply it.

YOU are however implying that I did with this post.

I don't care how many people agree with you, they could all be wrong.