- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI responded to that point at the outset. My objection still stands and you have not at all addressed it. All you have done here is spout lots of assertions. I do not at all take is for granted that religious organisations should judge by a homosexual's abilities rather than by their sexual orientation. The Catholic motivation for adoption is different to the state's. If we grant the right of freedom of religion, then how can the state dictate what criteria a religious organisation should employ? For the state to make such edicts would seem to be a violation of church-state separation. You have not explained what constitutes religious freedom, what the limits to such freedom are, to what extent secular authorities can regulate religious organisations and what their grounds could be. When posed with these questions, all you have done is go on and on about the KKK. Have a look at the thread; you are the one who derailed it.
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:
[quote]Sounds like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals ...[text shortened]... stops in your effort to "play the victim". Theatre major?
The comparison with the KKK again makes no sense. As I have explained several times now, the KKK is not even an official organisation, and so does not fall under the purview of equal opportunity legislation in America, does not run any social welfare institutions like the Catholic Church, and is a grossly emotive example to choose. It doesn't belong in this thread because I have already acknowledged that there should be limits to religious freedom and that the state has a legitimate right to suspend such freedom for the sake of public interest. It is not hypocrisy at all to denounce violent racism on the one hand but to approve of the right of religious organisations to employ those who will uphold their core religious values in a non-violent way.
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou seem to have not understood the reason for my post and therefore the points made therein or have chosen to ignore them. I suspect it's the latter rather than the former. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in that?
I responded to that point at the outset. My objection still stands and you have not at all addressed it. All you have done here is spout lots of assertions. I do not at all take is for granted that religious organisations should judge by a homosexual's abilities rather than by their sexual orientation. The Catholic motivation for adoption is different to th ...[text shortened]... ions to employ those who will uphold their core religious values in a non-violent way.
As I've said several times in both directly and indirectly: It seems pointless to continue the discussion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou seem to have not understood the reason for my post and therefore the points made therein or have chosen to ignore them. I suspect it's the latter rather than the former. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in that?
You seem to have not understood the reason for my post and therefore the points made therein or have chosen to ignore them. I suspect it's the latter rather than the former. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in that?
As I've said several times in both directly and indirectly: It seems pointless to continue the discussion.
I have quite understood. You wish to exonerate yourself from the charge of intellectual dishonesty. You attempted to do this by showing how you have actually raised two arguments, contrary to my claim that you have raised only one. However, this putative second argument is, as I said, just an assertion; it is in fact just your contention. It is not an argument to say 'homosexuals should be protected from discrimination' when this is in fact the very proposition being questioned. I think it is bleeding obvious that the assertion of P is not an argument for P, unless the speaker possesses the charism of infallibility or has unquestionable credibility (which I do not think applies to you.) So you haven't at all given two arguments.
Now even if we did grant that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination, this doesn't quite address the point I want to discuss, which is whether the state should curtail religious freedom in their favour nor does it quite get to the heart of the question I posed you, what is the minimal requirement of religious freedom?
Now for all your protestations that you do not wish to continue the argument you repeatedly demonstrate that you really do wish to. Why else do you continue to return to this thread? You really are a freak.
29 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KNow for all your protestations that you do not wish to continue the argument you repeatedly demonstrate that you really do wish to. Why else do you continue to return to this thread? You really are a freak.
[b]You seem to have not understood the reason for my post and therefore the points made therein or have chosen to ignore them. I suspect it's the latter rather than the former. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in that?
I have quite understood. You wish to exonerate yourself from the charge of intellectual dishonesty. You attempted to do this by sh y do wish to. Why else do you continue to return to this thread? You really are a freak.[/b]
This just gets more and more absurd all the time. You can claim to have understood my post, but the evidence shows otherwise. If you understood the least bit of my post, you'd realize that I have no interest whatsoever in "[continuing] the argument". What's more, if you'd understood my other posts you'd realize that I haven't for some time for the reasons I've repeatedly pointed out.
My only interest on this thread at this point is to defend myself against false accusations by pointing out some of the deceitful tactics you've used to make them. As I said, I could point out more, but I've already made my point.
Evidently your ego defense mechanisms are in overdrive. Once again, you really have a lot to learn about yourself and the world in general. Once again, good luck to you. It becomes more and more apparent that you're really going to need it.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis just gets more and more absurd all the time. You can claim to have understood my post, but the evidence shows otherwise. If you understood the least bit of my post, you'd realize that I have no interest whatsoever in "[continuing] the argument". What's more, if you'd understood my other posts you'd realize that I haven't for some time for the reasons I've repeatedly pointed out.
[b]Now for all your protestations that you do not wish to continue the argument you repeatedly demonstrate that you really do wish to. Why else do you continue to return to this thread? You really are a freak.
This just gets more and more absurd all the time. You can claim to have understood my post, but the evidence shows otherwise. If you underst ...[text shortened]... d luck to you. It becomes more and more apparent that you're really going to need it.[/b]
But clearly not! You continue to come back for more.
My only interest on this thread at this point is to defend myself against false accusations by pointing out some of the deceitful tactics you've used to make them. As I said, I could point out more, but I've already made my point.
Haha. Yeah right. I am sorry that I was so deceitful when I didn't the "I said so" as your major argument.
29 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]lol. If nothing else, you're consistent. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were intentionally acting dense.
[b]This just gets more and more absurd all the time. You can claim to have understood my post, but the evidence shows otherwise. If you understood the least bit of my post, you'd realize that I have no interest whatsoever in "[continuing] the argument". What's more, if you'd understood my other posts you'd realize that I haven't for some time for the reason sorry that I was so deceitful when I didn't the "I said so" as your major argument.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you say so. I however have put forward my arguments; I have each time responded to your comments directly; I have not chosen ad hominem attacks over reason and at least I am genuinely interested in teasing out this issue. It really astonishes me that you think you have presented an intellectually honest discussion and have the temerity to accuse me of egoism.
lol. If nothing else, you're consistent. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were intentionally acting dense.[/b]
29 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou've shown your irrationality time and again. Wouldn't surprise me if you actually believe those claims. More's the pity.
If you say so. I however have put forward my arguments; I have each time responded to your comments directly; I have not chosen ad hominem attacks over reason and at least I am genuinely interested in teasing out this issue. It really astonishes me that you think you have presented an intellectually honest discussion and have the temerity to accuse me of egoism.
You're all ego, kid. Hopefully someday you'll come to realize it. Best of luck to you.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf I have been irrational, you are welcome to demonstrate how. I will not shy away from debate; indeed, I revel in it as a chance for my own views to be tested and refined. You however are averse to any sort of critical debate and, while you may think I have been irrational, you have not defended that accusation. You are just a pompous prick.
You've shown your irrationality time and again. Wouldn't surprise me if you actually believe those claims. More's the pity.
You're all ego, kid. Hopefully someday you'll come to realize it. Best of luck to you.
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou are just a pompous prick ??????
If I have been irrational, you are welcome to demonstrate how. I will not shy away from debate; indeed, I revel in it as a chance for my own views to be tested and refined. You however are averse to any sort of critical debate and, while you may think I have been irrational, you have not defended that accusation. You are just a pompous prick.
I have been termed an obnoxious prick, a twat, a tosser and something else that escapes my memory today, on the basis of some glib throwaway comment, i guess our tolerance reaches a zenith and we just can stand no more and out it comes. Maybe people are under more pressure this time of year, i dunno, it was fairly hurtful at the time, but i am sure ill get over it. As it stands you guys have reached a kind of plateau, further and further from the initial post and which is portending towards a personal battle of justification for things completely unrelated. It seems to me reminiscent of those people who shout at others from the relative safety of their cars because the offending party has violated some highway etiquette, as if they themselves have never made any mistakes. Justified we may be, never the less, all things are lawful but not all advantageous 🙂
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KActually your irrationality's been demonstrated a number of times. There's a pretty wide gulf between what you seem to believe about this discussion and reality. Several things have already been pointed more than once and like I said, "There are easily several other things I could point out, but I think I've made my point." You really should look into ego defense mechanisms. You're in denial. "The truth will make you free". But first you'll have to learn to how to set your ego aside so that you'll be able to see it. Once again, good luck to you.
If I have been irrational, you are welcome to demonstrate how. I will not shy away from debate; indeed, I revel in it as a chance for my own views to be tested and refined. You however are averse to any sort of critical debate and, while you may think I have been irrational, you have not defended that accusation. You are just a pompous prick.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, there is a huge difference between claiming that you have proven something on the one hand and proving it on the other. I believe that I have addressed your accusations, to which each time you have replied condescendingly that your point has been made or that it is quite obvious enough. You may think you have proven your point but unless you properly respond to criticisms, you haven't done so.
Actually your irrationality's been demonstrated a number of times. There's a pretty wide gulf between what you seem to believe about this discussion and reality. Several things have already been pointed more than once and like I said, "There are easily several other things I could point out, but I think I've made my point." You really should look into ego ...[text shortened]... to set your ego aside so that you'll be able to see it. Once again, good luck to you.
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, this just gets more and more pointless if that's possible. Like I keep saying, "Good luck to you".
Well, there is a huge difference between claiming that you have proven something on the one hand and proving it on the other. I believe that I have addressed your accusations, to which each time you have replied condescendingly that your point has been made or that it is quite obvious enough. You may think you have proven your point but unless you properly respond to criticisms, you haven't done so.
30 Nov 10
2 edits
Not taking sides or anything but assuming this little battle is going to continue perhaps it is no great expense in either posters time to post the relevant chain of posts and responses (by both parties) with annotation showing what points have been neglected. This might allow others, with an unbiased stance (though perhaps not me), to adjudicate. :]
Often when I do this the other side scarpers or changes the subject