Originally posted by vivifyLike I said, that's not my question.
Like I said, that's not my question. There's a reason I edited my question (before you responded to it); clearly, you understand why, since you're afraid to answer it.
Here's a challenge: answer my question, and I'll answer any point you claim that I'm "dodging".
You won't answer my question, though, because you know what point it's making.
Like I said: that question was all I needed.
lol. I guess we can add outright lying to your avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for you), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc.
First you posted the following:
"At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK member."
And in your next post you asked the following:
"Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?"
You and I both know that you asked the question and I addressed it. It's in the "Originally posted by vivify" box in my response to you on page 2. That you later edited it out is irrelevant. It's right there for any and all to see.
Thinking logically isn't exactly your forte, is it?
Why don't you just admit that you're out of your depth?
Well, enough of this nonsense. You really need to grow up kid.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122227
17 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyIf someone came to an interview for a job cleaning the toilet at the offices of the campaign for women's rights theme park, and in the interview said they didn't believe in women's rights, and because of that statement were refused the job of toilet cleaner, then they would have a case of unfair recruitment (or whatever it is), because one does not need to believe in women's rights in order to be a satisfactory toilet cleaner.
Thinkofone
Should women's rights groups be forced to hire those who don't believe in women's rights
this game of "Watch Thinkofone make excuses to dodge questions"
Same at Ham's mega-Ark enterprise. One can clean the toilets quite adequately without being a believer in Jesus Christ. Therefore to not employ them solely on that bais, is not only unfair requirement (or whatever it is) but also religious discrimination.
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by vivifyumm i think chess is an ideology or at very least chess players harbour certain ideologies about the game, for example Spassky believed in a big centre, Fischer did not, surely this is an ideological approach?
Interesting, that you dodged my question about a women's rights organization hiring those who believe in women's rights. The fact that you did this shows you understand why the point is correct.
Chess isn't an ideology, or fundamental belief like a religion is. Therefore, your chess analogy fails.
17 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterThat's true. But are there any positions that a women's rights organization can say they only want those who share their beliefs to have?
If someone came to an interview for a job cleaning the toilet at the offices of the campaign for women's rights theme park, and in the interview said they didn't believe in women's rights, and because of that statement were refused the job of toilet cleaner, then they would have a case of unfair recruitment (or whatever it is), because one does not need ...[text shortened]... that bais, is not only unfair requirement (or whatever it is) but also religious discrimination.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneActually I think neither are true, and you are just being your usual ass of a self.
Vivify is either just trolling or incapable of logical thought.
Either way, it's not a good thing.
I'm not saying that he is right, but it's not him derailing the conversation, it's you.
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by vivifylol. And the penny might be finally dropping for vivify. Given vivify's RC-like performance thus far, little chance that he'll ever admit that he's been on the wrong side of the argument and has been avoiding addressing salient points ever since.
That's true. But are there any positions that a women's rights organization can say they only want those who share their beliefs to have?
From vivify's response to the OP on Page 1:
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.
Vivify is clearly supporting AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.
D64's response to vivify:
So would Vivify approve of a women's rights organization employing only women?
Vivify's response to D64:
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.
Vivify clearly continues to support AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.
Which is where I came in with my response to the above:
Do you need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.?
While there may be jobs there which are primarily to "promote Christianity", clearly there would be jobs which are not .
I'm clearly against AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.
Vivify's response to me:
Since the theme park is evangelistic in nature, the job of everyone there would be to contribute to evangelizing, even if it's indirectly, like with having what Christians consider a "Christ-like" attitude.
Vivify clearly continues to support AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.
Anyone wanting a good chuckle should read through the rest of my discussion with him in detail. About as RC-like a performance as you're likely to get - complete with outright lying, avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for [him]), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc. It's really quite amusing
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by googlefudgelol. You're really too funny GF. Being able to comprehend discussions and thinking logically have never been your strong points.
Actually I think neither are true, and you are just being your usual ass of a self.
I'm not saying that he is right, but it's not him derailing the conversation, it's you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI disagree.
If someone came to an interview for a job cleaning the toilet at the offices of the campaign for women's rights theme park, and in the interview said they didn't believe in women's rights, and because of that statement were refused the job of toilet cleaner, then they would have a case of unfair recruitment (or whatever it is), because one does not need ...[text shortened]... that bais, is not only unfair requirement (or whatever it is) but also religious discrimination.
Let's have the example of a battered women shelter. [and let's say for this example in a predominantly
black area of New York]
Now let's say that a perfectly qualified white supremacist misogynist applies for janitor/toilet cleaner.
Your position would say that the shelter has to hire that guy.
I say that's nuts.