Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Poupou Escobar]

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

New mathematics is a more inclusive mathematics, that gives voice to traditionally oppressed, vulnerable people, and doesn't privilege cishet white male mathematicians. This article explains it pretty well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-system-of-oppression/?utm_term=.742d5472705c

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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.

Dunno. But I had a similar reaction to the picture of the ugly hetero couple Gronk posted a few pages back. I dare say the reason why is encoded in my DNA. Or I've been socialised to have that reaction. Or it's somewhere in between.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

I guess I just wanted to take away your joy of throwing around accusations of circular logic.

 

[phantom eel]

Dunno. But I had a similar reaction to the picture of the ugly hetero couple Gronk posted a few pages back. I dare say the reason why is encoded in my DNA. Or I've been socialised to have that reaction. Or it's somewhere in between.

Just interested, do you know any gay men? Did you have any friends who later came out as gay men, and what was your reaction to this? Have you formed any friendships with gay men, or have you chosen to avoid this?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

New mathematics is a more inclusive mathematics, that gives voice to traditionally oppressed, vulnerable people, and doesn't privilege cishet white male mathematicians. This article explains it pretty well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-system-of-oppression/?utm_term=.742d5472705c

I got through about half of that. It's just a different way. Some of which I use.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

What's wrong with the world? Can we get back to motorbike racers suffering gruesome injuries again but speaking English on the way to the emergency department?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Just interested, do you know any gay men? Did you have any friends who later came out as gay men, and what was your reaction to this? Have you formed any friendships with gay men, or have you chosen to avoid this?

Of course I've had gay friends. One of the blokes at work is gay. I don't ask him about his sex life and he doesn't ask me about mine. He's a bit young and immature but does a good job. He's not in the closet but you probably wouldn't pick him as gay when you first meet him. After a few days you'd start to have your suspicions though.

And a whole bunch of my school mates came out after high school. I found it confronting but they were still my mates. I just don't want to hear about bum sex. And that voice annoys me - the one that magically appears. But I guess they need to find each other somehow.

I have another mate who I suspect is gay but I'm really not sure. He lives in Canberra, if you know what I mean. As you can probably tell, I'm not inclined to get real close to people, but I kind of assume gays are everywhere. It's supposedly about 10% isn't it?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Just kidding. Congratulations Dovi and Ducati.

 

[Gronk]

The Archbishop of Sydney has made a contribution to the SSM marriage debate. He is worried that those who are NO voters could be subject to harassment.

He needs to read the legislation and take comfort in the built in protections for his church.

With respect to their right to teach the "traditional" views in marriage, I think that their curriculum will remain unchanged in Catholic Schools. After all they are not harrassed when teaching traditional views on evolution.

............

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney says the push to legalise same-sex marriage could lead to people with traditional views being 'harassed' and 'coerced'.

Anthony Fisher has told The Australian the protections for faith-based institutions are unclear.

He says religious schools, charities and hospitals could be 'coerced' to comply with the new view of marriage if there is a 'Yes' vote in the government's postal ballot.

He's asking whether teachers will be free to follow church teaching on marriage, or whether they'd be forced to teach a more politically correct curriculum.

.........

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...arriage-may-lead-to-coercion--archbishop.html

 

[Gronk]

Former Liberal Party minister Amanda Vanstone has taken aim at Tony Abbott.

 

[Gronk]

Eric Abetz is on Q&A tonight. This is a wonderful opportunity for him to put the NO vote position forward. In particular I am keen for him to explain his claims that SSM will open a pandora's box of polyamory.

The slippery slope argument is quite unconvincing. As pointed out many times, in NZ all that happened after SSM was legalised was that a bunch of people got married and they ate cake.

 

[Gronk]

 

[strider]

Eric Abetz is on Q&A tonight. This is a wonderful opportunity for him to put the NO vote position forward. In particular I am keen for him to explain his claims that SSM will open a pandor's box of polyamory.

The slippery slope arguement is quite unconvincing. As pointed out many times, in NZ all that happened after SSM was legalised was that a bunch of people got married and they ate cake.

Nothing is a good opportunity on Q&A ... its a biased, stacked room full of hyped up merkins

 

[Gronk]

Nothing is a good opportunity on Q&A ... its a biased, stacked room full of hyped up merkins

Well the alternative is for Paul Murray to run a forum in an RSL stacked full of Tony Abbott supporters.

Gee merkins go after the ABC in particular since NewsLtd have been campaigning against them. The accusation of bias is pushed by Murdoch journos bc the ABC offer free content in opposition to his paywall.

Id love to see actual evidence of bias. @7.30 report go after everyone. Those who are game to be interviewed by Leigh Sales anyway. 4 corners the same. They go after everyone. They slap down the Greens tonight.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Polygamists have the right to get married. Only once, but there is nothing saying they can't marry at all like same sex couples. They just can't marry five people. Which I also disagree with btw. Of someone wants five wives or five husbands and everyone involved is happy, who am I to say they shouldn't?

Gay people have the right to get married. Only to people of the opposite sex, though. There is nothing saying they can't marry at all like heterosexual couples.

The point? Not the marriage they wanted. Same with polygamists.

Your last point is the valid one - who are we to say their love isn't real? So who are we to deny them the rights to the marriage they want? It's all about the moral position of "Equality", remember?

Talking about polygamy is a diversion and only gives traction to the pandora's box slippery slope argument.

No, it's not. It's a legitimate discussion in regards to "Marriage Equality".

You see, the reason I'm voting no is because of the moral hijacking the left are engaging in in order to manipulate people into getting their way. Under "Marriage Equality" polygamy should be included. Yet it won't be, and the official position of Labor and the Greens is that it won't ever be.

So it's not in any way marriage equality.

So why is the term being misused? Well, the morality of the term equality is being hijacked, misappropriated in order to guilt people into submitting to the views of the left.

"Don't you believe in equality? What are you, a bigot?"

The specifics of the situation do not matter to me. I cannot in any way endorse moral hijacking.

It's too late to drop the term "Marriage Equality". The damage from the moral hijacking is done. So, the only option is to put polygamy on the table. Do that and there's a legitimate moral position. Fail to do it and it's all lies and manipulation and I will not vote for that.

 

[Gronk]

So, the only option is to put polygamy on the table. Do that and there's a legitimate moral position. Fail to do it and it's all lies and manipulation and I will not vote for that.

Hold on, if both SSM and Polygamy were on the table you would have voted YES ?

So why not just vote YES and give SSM people equal rights and reserve the right to have the shits about the rest ?

You see, the reason I'm voting no is because of the moral hijacking the left are engaging in in order to manipulate people into getting their way

Seems to me that you are really just taking a political stance like @Delboy.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Hold on, if both SSM and Polygamy were on the table you would have voted YES ?

So why not just vote YES and give SSM people equal rights and reserve the right to have the shits about the rest ?

I said it would be a legitimate moral position. That means I'd be willing to listen to the arguments. At present, I am not.

So, why not just vote yes now? Because the left are lying and manipulating the public to push an agenda and I cannot condone that. The specifics of the situation are ireelevant.

For the record, I would have been happy with a position that was just SSM but did not talk about "Marriage Equality". That position would have been able to hold some water. Even if polygamy was questioned and the left said "Nope, not interested in that" and thus identified themselves as bigots, it would not have deligitimised the position if the morality of equality was not being falsely injected into it.

But that's not the case, is it? Morality has been hijacked and that is undeniable.

Seems to me that you are really just taking a political stance like @Delboy.

No.

My position relates to the integrity of the system, first and foremost. We cannot condone a system that is built on lies, manipulation and hypocrisy.

"I'm ok with the system being corrupt as long as I can use it to get my way" is not the way I want this country to be run and it's not the way I want the public treated. At present, I don't care about the specifics of the situation as the integrity of the system must come first.

 

[Gronk]

I said it would be a legitimate moral position. That means I'd be willing to listen to the arguments. At present, I am not.

So, why not just vote yes now? Because the left are lying and manipulating the public to push an agenda and I cannot condone that. The specifics of the situation are ireelevant.

For the record, I would have been happy with a position that was just SSM but did not talk about "Marriage Equality". That position would have been able to hold some water. Even if polygamy was questioned and the left said "Nope, not interested in that" and thus identified themselves as bigots, it would not have deligitimised the position if the morality of equality was not being falsely injected into it.

But that's not the case, is it? Morality has been hijacked and that is undeniable.



No.

My position relates to the integrity of the system, first and foremost. We cannot condone a system that is built on lies, manipulation and hypocrisy.

"I'm ok with the system being corrupt as long as I can use it to get my way" is not the way I want this country to be run and it's not the way I want the public treated. At present, I don't care about the specifics of the situation as the integrity of the system must come first.

Bullshit smokescreen. You have your eyes on those twins who want to marry the one guy.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If I wanted something like that I'd just buy two blow-up dolls.

What do I really want?

Gay polygamy. I'll then get 52 other blokes and have a gay polygamous wedding. We'll all wear shirts that say 53men.

 

[phantom eel]

Of course I've had gay friends. One of the blokes at work is gay. I don't ask him about his sex life and he doesn't ask me about mine. He's a bit young and immature but does a good job. He's not in the closet but you probably wouldn't pick him as gay when you first meet him. After a few days you'd start to have your suspicions though.

And a whole bunch of my school mates came out after high school. I found it confronting but they were still my mates. I just don't want to hear about bum sex. And that voice annoys me - the one that magically appears. But I guess they need to find each other somehow.

I have another mate who I suspect is gay but I'm really not sure. He lives in Canberra, if you know what I mean. As you can probably tell, I'm not inclined to get real close to people, but I kind of assume gays are everywhere. It's supposedly about 10% isn't it?

Fascinating response, and choice of language.

Thanks for your honesty, I probably had similar opinions as a teenager/30 years ago.