Non Footy Chat Thread II

[phantom eel]

But that's exactly what I claimed you said. And then I showed you why you're wrong.

See above.

Fixed it for you - see below.

"But that's exactly what I claimed you said. And then I showed you why what I claimed you said was wrong."

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Please quote the post where I said that your self-admitted revulsion to male homosexuality was due to a religious leader...

Sure:

That's ok. I was mainly responding to Avenger and Pou - including Avenger's claim that his faith/Jesus' words were against homosexuality/marriage equality, and Pou's statement that he finds male homosexuality revolting!

Here you were referring to an earlier post of yours:

I'm not a vindictive atheist. I'm an agnostic, if anything (and if labels matter).

I'm "pushing an assault" on people here who have claimed Christianity (and even the "words of Jesus") is on their side in choosing to make a no vote. Christianity/Christian faith does not mandate a vote against anything homosexual or any changes to the current (recent) ideas of marriage, so for those people claimining Christianity is their reason for voting no, something else must be at play... I'm just drawing it out.

You quite clearly believe 'Christianity' is being used to justify a matter of taste. Certainly the case for Avenger but as I have pointed out to you many times (conveniently dismissed by your self-congratulatory 'template'), it is not the case for me. To quote a source even more authoritative than wikipedia (if it were possible):

So you're barking up the wrong tree there.

 

[phantom eel]

Hmmm, that's a very long bow (i.e. insufficient evidence) to claim that I had said your revulsion about male homosexuality stemmed from the words of your church leaders.

I was explaining to Haynzy the style of my posts, with reference to teh styles of the people I was discussing the issues with. I think you've cross-pollinated what I was saying about Avenger's stated reason for his voting intention, with my shock that people who are revolted by homosexuality still exist (in my discussions with you)?

I'm happy to discuss your take on religion with you, but I was quite clearly trying to draw out your reasons for your revulsion at homosexuality. The second post you've quoted was entirely about Avenger and people of his ilk (the ones that "like" his posts on the matter).

You hadn't claimed they were due to your religion, and neither had I. Another strawman response blown away with a gust of wind!

 

[Suitman]

This discussion would have to be the biggest dick measuring contest in this forums history.
It's no surprise that primarily, there are only two combatants, those being the usual two suspects.

 

[phantom eel]

I think there's a microscope available in the PD, for those who need assistance with their rmeasurements.

 

[Suitman]

I rest my case.

 

[Avenger]

This discussion would have to be the biggest dick measuring contest in this forums history.
It's no surprise that primarily, there are only two combatants, those being the usual two suspects.

Absolutely. I don't know where they get the energy. Pou will take the opposite view on anything. Forget about what he initially said and use circular logic to contradict himself.

Phantom Bart will basically react to anything you (Suity) posts, anything about the gays and Jarryd Hayne.

It's all very boring and one of the main reasons why this forum has gone to shit.

 

[phantom eel]

Lol, peanut gallery out in force for this one...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Hmmm, that's a very long bow (i.e. insufficient evidence) to claim that I had said your revulsion about male homosexuality stemmed from the words of your church leaders.

I was explaining to Haynzy the style of my posts, with reference to teh styles of the people I was discussing the issues with. I think you've cross-pollinated what I was saying about Avenger's stated reason for his voting intention, with my shock that people who are revolted by homosexuality still exist (in my discussions with you)?

I'm happy to discuss your take on religion with you, but I was quite clearly trying to draw out your reasons for your revulsion at homosexuality.

Why does anyone need a reason to be revolted by something? It's a reaction not a choice. Or to put it in terms you might find familiar 'I was born this way'.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Absolutely. I don't know where they get the energy. Pou will take the opposite view on anything. Forget about what he initially said and use circular logic to contradict himself.

Providing both sides of an argument isn't circular. It is a standard tactic for stealing some antagonistic merkin's thunder.

You should also know that just because I argue a position doesn't mean I agree with it. Most of you merkins just give the impression that everything is cut and dried. I'm here to show you it's not, and I haven't even gotten started yet, son.

 

[Suitman]

Providing both sides of an argument isn't circular. It is a standard tactic for stealing some antagonistic merkin's thunder.

You should also know that just because I argue a position doesn't mean I agree with it. Most of you merkins just give the impression that everything is cut and dried. I'm here to show you it's not, and I haven't even gotten started yet, son.

That's funny because it's true.
You at least can back up your arguments with logic, although at times flawed logic. Still, your thoughts are a far more interesting read and there's one thing I've never thought you do, and that is personally troll individuals.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

This forum is beyond parlous. It's through the looking glass.

 

[Bazal]

This forum is beyond parlous. It's through the looking glass.

Did you know that Carroll probably wrote Alice's Adventure in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass as a way of expressing his distaste for "new" mathematics?

Kind of puts a more boring spin in the whole thing tbh

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I thought it was because he was a pedophile trying to impress a little girl.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

What is new mathematics? And why would you need to distract little girls from it?

 

[phantom eel]

Why does anyone need a reason to be revolted by something? It's a reaction not a choice.

In interested about why (In a modern, pluralistic and secular society) that people still have that reaction to other people's sexuality, a reaction that no doubt colours their choices and opinions.

Here's what a lot of us were thinking about sexuality in 1991, some 26 years ago...

I'm wondering why people like yourself have the reaction that you've admitted you have.

 

[phantom eel]

Providing both sides of an argument isn't circular. It is a standard tactic for stealing some antagonistic merkin's thunder.

What does that have to do with you providing only one side of the "marriage has always been part of religion" argument?

I'm here to show you it's not, and I haven't even gotten started yet, son.

Thank heavens you're here to do that for us... even if you are just as subjective as the next person on here, lol.

 

[phantom eel]

That's funny because it's true.
You at least can back up your arguments with logic, although at times flawed logic. Still, your thoughts are a far more interesting read and there's one thing I've never thought you do, and that is personally troll individuals.

Looks like we have a volunteer judge, in the contest which only a few posts away he was complaining about...

 

[Bazal]

What is new mathematics? And why would you need to distract little girls from it?

Community service? Everyone wants to be distracted from mathematics

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Community service? Everyone wants to be distracted from mathematics

I know I do. Until I need to know if something will fall down.