OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

You would have done, by the time I reached high school in the early eighties, it was pretty much done with as far as I can remember. Along with "god save the queen".

My high school experience was early to mid 90s. I remember that we had a religious studies subject that they tried to roll out one year. I got my parents to write a note saying I wasn't religious and therefore wasn't going to be attending. It worked.

 

[Gary Gutful]

next thing you will try and convince us you are not a marine biologist .... get f**ked, Gary the marine biologist

Sorry.

 

[Bandwagon]

My high school experience was early to mid 90s. I remember that we had a religious studies subject that they tried to roll out one year. I got my parents to write a note saying I wasn't religious and therefore wasn't going to be attending. It worked.

Yes, I had the same in the early eighties. It wasn't compulsory by then in NSW. Mind you there was no alternative class offered either, so it meant being one of a handful of kids in a classroom with nothing to do, almost as if you were in detention............

 

[hindy111]

My high school experience was early to mid 90s. I remember that we had a religious studies subject that they tried to roll out one year. I got my parents to write a note saying I wasn't religious and therefore wasn't going to be attending. It worked.

I went to a catholic christian brothers school. Religion was an actual subject. We just talked about life and listened to sounds of the ocean meditation music. How to treat people, not to laugh at people misfortunate, what things we enjoy. And how being mean effects people.

We did not read a bible or talk about GOD. We would often bring a song in to play that we liked.
I still recall Closer - nine inch nails which led to my strapping.

 

[crocodile]

Yes, I had the same in the early eighties. It wasn't compulsory by then in NSW. Mind you there was no alternative class offered either, so it meant being one of a handful of kids in a classroom with nothing to do, almost as if you were in detention............

I'm a bit older. In the '70s it was compulsory. Every Thursday morning. I remember telling the school that I was a Christadelphian ( total horseshit of course ) and there's no class for my religion. Got to sit in the library for the period. Beats the hell out of listening to the God botherers.

 

[Gronk]

Yes, I had the same in the early eighties. It wasn't compulsory by then in NSW. Mind you there was no alternative class offered either, so it meant being one of a handful of kids in a classroom with nothing to do, almost as if you were in detention............

Because of my agnosticism, my HS religion teacher said once in my report that I was "troubled". When I attempted to shirtfront her <giggity> she suggested that it was unhealthy for me to share my scepticism.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Identifying with a religion is also a singular position on religion, so we're now at 70/30, a position you yourself dismissed, and one I never attempted to to hold ................

No because there are multiple competing religions.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I went to a catholic christian brothers school. Religion was an actual subject. We just talked about life and listened to sounds of the ocean meditation music. How to treat people, not to laugh at people misfortunate, what things we enjoy. And how being mean effects people.

We did not read a bible or talk about GOD. We would often bring a song in to play that we liked.
I still recall Closer - nine inch nails which led to my strapping.

I also went to a Catholic school and in religious studies we learnt about Zoroastrianism and obscure Christian sects. Almost nobody at the school was religious though most 'identified' as Catholic.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Thats a fair point. Some absolute merkin behaviour that is inexcusable.

But equally there are plenty of good people of faith who shouldn't be punished because of the actions of the religious heirarchy.

Of course not. I'm just not sure that they need any specific new legal protections. But I'm open to being convinced.

 

[Bandwagon]

No because there are multiple competing religions.

...........as there are multiple reasons and beliefs behind responding as not belonging to any religion.

And just as many ideas behind that.

At any rate, it was Christianity which was being referred to, and despite there being many different churches, there is also a hell of a lot of commonality in their believes. It's what enables us to group them under the umbrella of Christianity.

Under that umbrella, they are not a minority. this is fact.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

...........as there are multiple reasons and beliefs behind responding as not belonging to any religion.

The reasons and beliefs don't matter in this instance. All that matters is their opposition to the various religious groups.

And just as many ideas behind that.

At any rate, it was Christianity which was being referred to, and despite there being many different churches, there is also a hell of a lot of commonality in their believes. It's what enables us to group them under the umbrella of Christianity.

Under that umbrella, they are not a minority. this is fact.

The umbrella is as meaningless and offensive as the assumption that all 'Asians' or 'Africans' share the same ethnic identity.

Religious identity is likewise fragmented. When it comes to religious loyalties the respondents had eleven options, including a choose-your-own option. Despite this the largest group selected 'No religion', clearly showing their lack of religious nuance.

 

[Gary Gutful]

They also had a section of the survey which said 'Do not write here' and 74% of people wrote 'OK'.

 

[Bandwagon]

The reasons and beliefs don't matter in this instance. All that matters is their opposition to the various religious groups.

Where is the evidence of this hivemind opposition? Oh, what's that, you have none to offer?

Now there's a surprise.

The umbrella is as meaningless and offensive as the assumption that all 'Asians' or 'Africans' share the same ethnic identity.

Religious identity is likewise fragmented. When it comes to religious loyalties the respondents had eleven options, including a choose-your-own option. Despite this the largest group selected 'No religion', clearly showing their lack of religious nuance.

Assumes the nonreligious all share the same identity, then finds use of the word "Christian" to lump all Christians together as Christians offensive.

You couldn't write this shit.

But then you did.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Where is the evidence of this hivemind opposition? Oh, what's that, you have none to offer?

Do you think people with no religion are likely to be in favour of increased rights for everyone but them?

Now there's a surprise.

More jumping the gun I see.

Assumes the nonreligious all share the same identity

*religious identity, which is absolutely the case.

The intersection of that identity with their gender, racial, ideological and other identities seems to be what you're missing here. Or you assume that I'm missing it since I'm just a dumb religious type who 'talks to the sky' and no doubt believes without question everything I read in a millennia-old book.

then finds use of the word "Christian" to lump all Christians together as Christians offensive.

Less than 3% of respondents to the census described themselves as Christian without providing a denomination.

You couldn't write this shit.

But then you did.

I get the feeling you don't appreciate that we are acting on different assumptions.

I'm a very smart person mate, as are you, no doubt. The difference is that I respect your assumptions because I know where you're coming from. If you're not going to act in good faith here then there's no reason to continue. Misrepresent me, tell yourself I'm an idiot, then go about your day.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Pou f**ked it again. What an idiot.

Goodnight everyone...

 

[Bandwagon]

Do you think people with no religion are likely to be in favour of increased rights for everyone but them?

No, but then that's not the argument you were making, I mean do you think any group ( apart from maybe the secret brotherhood of masochists ) would be in favour of this?

*religious identity, which is absolutely the case.

That's demonstrably false, think agnostic vs atheist.

The intersection of that identity with their gender, racial, ideological and other identities seems to be what you're missing here....

Not at all, there's a commonality among shared beliefs. I don't claim them to all be of the same mind, only that they share some common beliefs, this allows us to group them firstly as religious, secondly as Christian, and so on. I accept there is sub group followed by sub groups of sub groups, right down to the individual. At no point as my arguments against this bill relied on the"cartoonish hive mind" or whatever it was.

Or you assume that I'm missing it since I'm just a dumb religious type who 'talks to the sky' and no doubt believes without question everything I read in a millennia-old book.

Your argument regards this whole "grouping" thing is contradictory and self defeating, I have explained why. Now that is a judgement of your argument, not your intelligence. Plenty of smart people make dumb arguments.

Less than 3% of respondents to the census described themselves as Christian without providing a denomination.
I get the feeling you don't appreciate that we are acting on different assumptions.

I think it's pretty obvious we are.

I'm a very smart person mate, as are you, no doubt. The difference is that I respect your assumptions because I know where you're coming from. If you're not going to act in good faith here then there's no reason to continue. Misrepresent me, tell yourself I'm an idiot, then go about your day.

Please don't play the victim card, it's very unattractive and serves no real purpose.

If we boil it down to brass tacks, all we have here is difference of opinion as to what may constitute a group of people for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not that might then further constitute a minority ( or majority ) .I should probably take the time here to note that we haven't really discussed what a minority in this sense might actually be, although I do note that in arguing that the 30% who reported as non religious are not strictly a minority, we can comfortably agree that it is more about the level of representation within the community than it is raw percentage.

Where I take exception to your argument, as I have previously pointed out is your selective use of reason. You point out that there are differences between Christians, so we can't group them together, which logically is fair enough. However you then go on to make arguments that the same does not apply to those who report as non religious by attributing common positions, or socio economic commonalities, here, here, and here. That is logically inconsistent. Transparently so. And that is without taking into account that those very same commonalities you point to are at best unsupportable, assumptions, and really for the most part demonstrably wrong.

As far as arguing in good faith goes, I most certainly have been. To be honest I feel that describing the pointing to the flaws in your logic, and the dismissing with ridicule your use of demonstrably unsupportable assumptions as bad faith arguments is a tad of a stretch, what is debate if not pointing out errors in logic and or fact?

 

[Bazal]

Does anyone else smell Nandos?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No, but then that's not the argument you were making, I mean do you think any group ( apart from maybe the secret brotherhood of masochists ) would be in favour of this?



That's demonstrably false, think agnostic vs atheist.



Not at all, there's a commonality among shared beliefs. I don't claim them to all be of the same mind, only that they share some common beliefs, this allows us to group them firstly as religious, secondly as Christian, and so on. I accept there is sub group followed by sub groups of sub groups, right down to the individual. At no point as my arguments against this bill relied on the"cartoonish hive mind" or whatever it was.



Your argument regards this whole "grouping" thing is contradictory and self defeating, I have explained why. Now that is a judgement of your argument, not your intelligence. Plenty of smart people make dumb arguments.




I think it's pretty obvious we are.



Please don't play the victim card, it's very unattractive and serves no real purpose.

If we boil it down to brass tacks, all we have here is difference of opinion as to what may constitute a group of people for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not that might then further constitute a minority ( or majority ) .I should probably take the time here to note that we haven't really discussed what a minority in this sense might actually be, although I do note that in arguing that the 30% who reported as non religious are not strictly a minority, we can comfortably agree that it is more about the level of representation within the community than it is raw percentage.

Where I take exception to your argument, as I have previously pointed out is your selective use of reason. You point out that there are differences between Christians, so we can't group them together, which logically is fair enough. However you then go on to make arguments that the same does not apply to those who report as non religious by attributing common positions, or socio economic commonalities, here, here, and here. That is logically inconsistent. Transparently so. And that is without taking into account that those very same commonalities you point to are at best unsupportable, assumptions, and really for the most part demonstrably wrong.

As far as arguing in good faith goes, I most certainly have been. To be honest I feel that describing the pointing to the flaws in your logic, and the dismissing with ridicule your use of demonstrably unsupportable assumptions as bad faith arguments is a tad of a stretch, what is debate if not pointing out errors in logic and or fact?

I have made clear that my definition of the groupings regards loyalty and not ideology. Of course no two people have the same ideas, regardless of their religious identity/affiliation. These identities were made explicit in the discrete categories listed on the census. If you disagree you should take it up with the ABS.

 

[T.S Quint]

No, but then that's not the argument you were making, I mean do you think any group ( apart from maybe the secret brotherhood of masochists ) would be in favour of this?



That's demonstrably false, think agnostic vs atheist.



Not at all, there's a commonality among shared beliefs. I don't claim them to all be of the same mind, only that they share some common beliefs, this allows us to group them firstly as religious, secondly as Christian, and so on. I accept there is sub group followed by sub groups of sub groups, right down to the individual. At no point as my arguments against this bill relied on the"cartoonish hive mind" or whatever it was.



Your argument regards this whole "grouping" thing is contradictory and self defeating, I have explained why. Now that is a judgement of your argument, not your intelligence. Plenty of smart people make dumb arguments.




I think it's pretty obvious we are.



Please don't play the victim card, it's very unattractive and serves no real purpose.

If we boil it down to brass tacks, all we have here is difference of opinion as to what may constitute a group of people for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not that might then further constitute a minority ( or majority ) .I should probably take the time here to note that we haven't really discussed what a minority in this sense might actually be, although I do note that in arguing that the 30% who reported as non religious are not strictly a minority, we can comfortably agree that it is more about the level of representation within the community than it is raw percentage.

Where I take exception to your argument, as I have previously pointed out is your selective use of reason. You point out that there are differences between Christians, so we can't group them together, which logically is fair enough. However you then go on to make arguments that the same does not apply to those who report as non religious by attributing common positions, or socio economic commonalities, here, here, and here. That is logically inconsistent. Transparently so. And that is without taking into account that those very same commonalities you point to are at best unsupportable, assumptions, and really for the most part demonstrably wrong.

As far as arguing in good faith goes, I most certainly have been. To be honest I feel that describing the pointing to the flaws in your logic, and the dismissing with ridicule your use of demonstrably unsupportable assumptions as bad faith arguments is a tad of a stretch, what is debate if not pointing out errors in logic and or fact?

I didn’t read most of this, but what I did take from it is that Bandwagon called Pou “unattractive”.

That was funny.

 

[Bandwagon]

I have made clear that my definition of the groupings regards loyalty and not ideology. Of course no two people have the same ideas, regardless of their religious identity/affiliation.

I don't feel you have made that all that clear until now. Mind you I don't think you can easily separate the two at any rate. There's a definite relationship there.

These identities were made explicit in the discrete categories listed on the census. If you disagree you should take it up with the ABS.

They are traditional denominations of Christianity, why would I have a problem with that?

They still report them all as Christians, that's where the 52% figure came from.

52% Christian, then broken up by denomination.