 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 02 Apr 14 - 08:52 AM Quiet.. Don't wake the moderators.... LET'S DISCUSS CREATIONISM AGAIN!!!!!!!! Your move. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Wesley S Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:14 AM It doesn't matter how we got here. What do we do now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:22 AM Are you trying to create a fuss? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:31 AM You can't create* You can merely convert. *If you ignore the work of Prof Higgs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:10 AM Do we know any bosuns who might join in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:18 AM "It doesn't matter how we got here. What do we do now?" The only thing that makes much sense: order pizza. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:27 AM Boson... You are going to have to visit this thread as well now, me old Co Messiah.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM Creationism is Star Trek for the closed minded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:34 AM OK Steve, you win. You said Bosun as a magnet to attract sailors.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:44 AM Just think what you could attract with a coxswain or a bulwark! BTW - Was this thread created or did it evolve? :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 14 - 10:56 AM Dave, I think this thread might turn out to be the poop deck. :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 14 - 11:22 AM You're all getting very nautical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Will Fly Date: 02 Apr 14 - 11:30 AM Criez, Jean! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 02 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM ... And all I need is a tall ship and a star to steer her by. Ok on the ship, but where did the star come from? and what day? one of our states wants to proclaim the wooly mammoth as their state fossil... but it's on hold while they squabble about the "created on the 6th day" language that got inserted into it.... third world, here we come... do not stop at Go and do NOT collect $200. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Apr 14 - 11:40 AM You said Bosun as a magnet to attract sailors.... Yes I did - and it bloody worked! What was the thread about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Apr 14 - 01:08 PM How closely do you think two tholes resemble a rollock? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:01 PM Rollocks to you too Richard! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:05 PM How many does it take to row, row, row your boat........... Never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, Trousers down, willy out, isn't life a scream? I think the last creationist thread ended with bearded Bruce explaining God to we mere mortals ? If anyone wishes to take up the cudgels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Bill D Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:39 PM "God is the tangential point between zero and infinity." Alfred Jarry...renowned 'Pataphysiican ...hard to say if that indicates any tendency toward causality... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:40 PM Any moment now we'll be hearing from those two famous crew members on board the Black Pig, skippered by Captain Pugwash. (Master Bates and Seaman Staines) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:44 PM Four gentlies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:45 PM Oops... shoulda rechecked out the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Donuel Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:45 PM My car says in back shhh...... I'm TEXTING yEAH I DREAD JACK THE BULLY especially to kids who are differently wired. but I know something he don't |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack Blandiver Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:56 PM (Master Bates and Seaman Staines) ...Not forgetting Roger the Cabin-boy. BUT all three are characters of Folklore, not Captain Pugwash. Funny how these things catch on! From WIKI : There is a persistent urban legend, repeated by the now defunct UK newspaper the Sunday Correspondent, that ascribes sexually suggestive names – such as Master Bates, Seaman Staines, and Roger (meaning "have sex with") the Cabin Boy – to Captain Pugwash's characters, and indicating that the captain's name was a slang Australian term for oral sex. John Ryan successfully sued both the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian newspapers in 1991 for printing this legend as fact. The origin of this myth is likely due to student rag mags from the 1970s. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:08 PM pugwash |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:13 PM Yes Jack, I did know their names were a spoof, but they still make me giggle! (I'd forgotten Roger the cabin boy.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 14 - 08:25 PM Dirty little nipper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST Date: 02 Apr 14 - 08:54 PM So, who wants what on the pizza? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:19 AM I'll have roast dinosaur, 6,001 year old smoked kangaroo, served on a bed of ark planks. Oh, and some water. Got this bloke here reckons he can turn it into wine. He sounds useful but says this will be the last time he does supper. Must like his beer though, he says he is going to get nailed tomorrow. Sounds like a good party in the offering. If you put some fishes on the pizza bread, he reckons he can make it stretch, so don't go buying garlic bread or chips. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:09 AM Musket, LOL!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:19 AM OK, well I haven't had very good Internet service this week. I typed out something offline very carefully, and then found the other thread closed when I wanted to post my profound thoughts. Here's what I said: I guess I get drawn into posting in these threads when I see something that just seems unfair, especially when the preponderance of the discussion consists of putting down what others hold sacred. I really don't want to defend what I believe. Defending my beliefs puts me in a position where I don't want to be, because I don't pretend to have to have possession of the Truth. My faith life is a life of exploration, pondering the questions and mysteries of life. I believe the Truth lies not in one answer, but in a delicate balance of many answers and many perspectives. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Pete and for many other born-again Christians. I respect their strict interpretation of the Bible, although I do not hold to it myself. They put their hearts into what they believe, and it makes a difference in their lives. Their dedication and their integrity is certainly admirable and inspiring. I have known conservative Jews and Muslims with this same dedication and integrity. I have also learned a great deal from atheists who look at life through a non-theistic perspective. They often come up with honest, profound answers that don't rely on platitudes or preconceptions. Their insights are often invaluable to me. I suppose I'm eclectic, fitting best into what are referred to as "mainline" Christians. I try to study every position I can come across, and learn from them all. Some may call me a "Cafeteria Catholic" (a term I despise) because I adhere to no one ideology, but in my eight years of Catholic seminary training, I was never taught that I was required to adhere to a single simplistic ideology. I prefer to see the truth wherever I find it - and most often, the answer is "both," or often "all of the above." I see wisdom in most of the longstanding religious and philosophical traditions. Though I may not espouse every one of them, I try to respect and understand each of them - even the conservative ones. To my mind, my religious beliefs and traditions need satisfy only one person - me. I can't understand why people seem to think they have the right to tell me what a horrible person I am for believing this or not believing that. Or, for that matter, condemning me or my beliefs for what some other Catholic did. I acknowledge the Inquisition. I acknowledge the child molestation scandal. I didn't do it, and I didn't support it. I went to a convention of 40,000 Catholics two weeks a ago, a gathering sponsored by the Archbishop of Los Angeles with the official blessing of Pope Francis. There were ultra-Catholics outside with newspapers and posters telling us what heretics we were. There were also born-again street preachers on the scene, telling us what sinners we were for being Catholics. We somehow didn't suit their particular ideology, so somehow we were terrible persons - despite the fact that we were Christians gathered to worship God. Now, there were 40,000 of us and maybe 15 protesters, so I guess we weren't all THAT bad. I know that for some people the main point of their religion is pointing out how horrible other people are for one thing or another, mostly for their beliefs or their sexual conduct. I feel bound to speak up when people do injustice or injury to others, but I don't see the private conduct of others is any of my business. The one thing I can't stomach, is those people who live to tear others down. Very often, they seem to have no thinking of their own - they only seek to destroy the thinking of others. There's a lot of that going on here at Mudcat. It's disheartening, and it serves to prevent a civil and constructive exchange of ideas. The bullies and naysayers beat everybody into defensive positions, and then very little good can happen. If Messrs. Blandiver and Musket and Shaw think I have insulted them by criticizing their endless attacks, so be it. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I don't think it's right to attack nonaggressive people for what they hold sacred. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:51 AM Good post, Joe. I, as I have often said before, have nothing against any religion provided it does not try to push it's own version of 'truth' down the throat of other people. Particularly the young and vulnerable. As I know that you are one of the good guys can I ask a favour of you? Maybe at a conference, like the one you describe, can you suggest that Catholic schools do not teach children that your faith is true? By all means teach the tenets of Catholicism and any other religion. But teach it as a 'this is what some people believe' type of lesson. Leave it up to the people, when they are grown up, to decide for themselves. Thanks in advance. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:06 AM You're right, Dave. I cringe particularly when I see Catholic youth groups wearing T-shirts that contend that the Catholic faith (or some other faith) is the "one true religion." As someone who has served as a catechist for almost 50 years, I've always thought it's far better to do a decent job of presenting things rationally, and then let the audience decide for themselves what's of value and what's not. And the best proof, is how people live their lives. I have seen people of all ways of thinking and all creeds and philosophies who live exemplary lives that's I've learned a lot from. That makes me think that what's in the heart is what's most important, not a person's way of thinking. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:03 AM "Their dedication and their integrity is certainly admirable and inspiring." Joe, I have the greatest respect for you as a person of integrity and someone with a deep and sophisticated faith, but I have to take issue with this line. Note this is not an ad hominem attack, I just need to make this point about integrity. In the creationist threads my fellow scientists have been constantly misrepresented, dismissed and been outright lied about. I know many people (palaeontologists in my case) who act in the best interests of us all, who are fervent believers in the democratisation of knowledge and work to the highest possible standards. Many are religious themselves, many are not. However they all have one thing inn common: integrity. They are motivated by the search for truth, no more or less than any religious advocate. The creationist advocates on this site have not acted with integrity, choosing instead to obscfucate, evade and deceive. To me, these people are teachers who should be engaged with, not to simply name-call them constantly but to try to discuss the points they raise, but in the end it's like herding cats and becomes tiresome. There is no real honesty, let alone integrity displayed by these people. They lack any desire for truth and question nothing, they are simply following a rulebook to the letter. They lack understanding and their opinions are lacking nuance; their arguments rely on false witness. I can't see much to admire there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:24 AM Thanks Joe. Like I said, one of the good guys. BTW - You up very early or very late? D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:35 AM I think your admiration for creationists is severely misplaced. These people are honest neither with themselves nor with others, and I find their attacks on science to be extremely offensive. As for your or anyone else's religious beliefs, I've said time and time again that I can respect them, as long as they are held privately and not used in any way to influence others to follow them. Explain your beliefs, great (very necessary, too), but that business of influencing others to follow the same beliefs is simply immoral. My bar for that immorality threshold is set very low. Telling young children that there is a God, making them attend faith schools and forcing them to worship by singing hymns and parroting prayers all fail my test abysmally, no matter how cosily they are wrapped up. And it would help if you didn't tell me I needed a shrink, though I can take that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:41 AM Thanks joe, and to assure you that ,though having a firm faith in the bible and obviously not taking your position that nothing can be known for sure about the subject, I would certainly not be protesting outside your conference ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 03 Apr 14 - 10:30 AM Joe says he was questioned by the fundamentalists but respects them. He then singles out those who don't share a faith and says not so nice things about us. Interesting. I have consistently waffled on the subject of live and let live but that makes me a militant something or other, (atheist apparently.) I fail to see where pointing out that religion and science is chalk and dog fur is a problem? People speaking of science don't try to justify it against religion. People of religion have a habit of trying to justify against science. pete being our pet example. Apparently I am wrong to point out the wars, misery and backwardness for civilisation that religion brings. People still, here in the c21 are prepared to kill and die in order to prove that their imaginary friend is better than someone else's. Joe speaks of the orthodox Catholics as if they were normal. Me? Managed to watch that new Judi Dench and Steve Coogan film at the weekend. You could weep at the callous actions of those wicked nuns. True story for that matter. Joe used to respect my views till he figured he was in the firing line. Now doesn't respect me for holding firm in my views. Sorry, but that says all you need to read. It's a bit like on the prick thread, where fair words and foul intent seem to be preferable to foul words with fair intent. Well, fuck me gently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 14 - 10:42 AM I admire pete for his determination and faith. I don't admire that he attacks science without bothering to learn what it is. I don't find his regurgitating the arguments of others to be an attractive aspect of his Mudcat persona. I like pete as a man very much. He has grit and patience and a dry wit. He argues like my grandfather did. How can I not find that endearing? I didn't believe most of what my grandfather said either. If taken with a grain of salt, a mixture of mischief and fundamentalism can be very amusing. Most of us can learn from pete's example. I think that Joe as hit upon some good points. It is useful to converse with someone with strong belief who is also willing to listen. It gives me some hope for humanity. Even the Mudcat mocking birds have their moments of lucidity and humanity. If they were to work on their humility, these threads would be one of the better and more stimulating places on the Internet to hang out. Now, I am not saying that I have no faults. I certainly do have faults. But I feel that they have been pointed out on these threads far too many times in far too much detail to be of interest to anyone not writing a thesis on abnormal Internet psychology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 11:07 AM Even the Mudcat mocking birds have their moments of lucidity and humanity. Wrong. We are all about lucidity and humanity. If you want to see what real inhumanity is, go and read some of the trash emanating from some of the crypto-fascists who post on the Israel thread, or in any thread which discusses homosexuality. That's the problem, innit. Have a go at people who call you names but ignore (as with them) or defend (as with pete) the unbalanced and the downright unsavoury. If you want a good forum with strong discussion, you have to give these people no quarter. Build an ethos that effectively excludes their notions (not them). Simple as that. Too many people who comment in these threads are choosing the wrong targets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 03 Apr 14 - 12:18 PM Although I am a 'believer' (CofE) and go to church every Sunday, I'm still angered by all the religions (mine included) which dominate and strait-jacket vulnerable, credulous peoples, usually (but not exclusively) in the so-called Third World, ordering them to contribute financially to gigantic, wealthy institutions when they can hardly feed themselves; forbidding contraception; enforcing bizarre practices such as Ramadan (no food or even water for all daylight hours in temperatures of 50C); FGM and circumcision of young babies/children without anaesthesia; eradicating many historical and cultural traditions and labelling them 'sinful'; imposing dietary laws which make no sense; shunning and persecuting all homosexuals; loading people with guilt and shame for lifestyles which harm no-one (for example, living with someone but not marrying them) and so on and on. Muslims, Christians, Jews and other worldwide religions all do these things, and I do not agree with any of them, neither does my Muslim husband. 'Religion' can be a heinous burden and scourge, and has been responsible over millennia for an unimaginable amount of suffering and death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 03 Apr 14 - 12:39 PM You know Eliza, if you can keep your faith without blind adherence to a controlling organisation, you have won and they have lost. Most people who profess a faith are too good for the scheming multinationals masquerading as religions. I was at a service last Sunday, (Methodist) and if you ignore asking my niece and her husband to fear God (christening) it was all good fun. Not my cup of tea and better as a metaphor than to take the chants and words at face value but I can well understand people looking forward to going. You mention the rat trap lurking under the cheese. If you can nibble the cheese anyway, good luck to you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 02:31 PM Steve Shaw says (03 Apr 14 - 07:35 AM):
Hi, Steve. I do not support or admire "creationism" or creationists. What I said is this (03 Apr 14 - 04:19 AM):
The conservative people I admire may not have a scientifically correct understanding of the origins of our universe. They may profess and express "creationist" ideas, but they make no attempt to impose their views on the rest of us, or on our taxpayer-owned schools. "Creationism" itself is a different ballgame. It is a desperate and aggressive power grab by fundamentalist leaders seeking impose their entire world view (Weltanschauung, if you will) by forcing their neo-traditionalist definition of creation upon the rest of us - particularly upon our schoolchildren. These people don't even take the biblical story of creation straight - they impose all sorts of phony "science" upon the creation story, in an attempt to make it look scientific. And they spend all sorts of money and use political muscle to force their phony science upon the rest of us. They're quite successful in places like Texas and the American southern and central states. They've even had some luck here in California, but not on a large scale. I live in a very conservative county near Sacramento, California. Our local school boards have often had to fight off attempts to impose "creationism" on our schools - along with the extreme right-wing agenda that goes with it. The excellent president of my stepson's junior college lost his job during a short period when the conservatives had a majority on the board of directors of the college. But I think those aggressive "creationists" are quite different from most religious conservatives, who don't try to force their religion on the rest of us. They're good people like Pete - generous, thoughtful, tolerant people. They believe what they believe - and in everyday life, it doesn't make much difference what they believe about the origins of the universe. They may buy into what the creationists are teaching, but forcing creationism on the world is not a concern for them. And yes, I admit that they vote and that their votes very often don't agree with mine - but that's democracy for ya. So, what I oppose is aggression, not any particular philosophy. Unfortunately, aggression and the drive to destroy and deride others, is alive and well on the Internet, including our bully-dominated discussions here at Mudcat. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:11 PM It's been very interesting over the years to find my husband feels the same as I do, although he's a Muslim and I'm a Christian. We've both found ways to honour God, live (we hope) a loving and good life, worship in our different places and try to 'walk the straight path' as he puts it, all without becoming 'fundamentalist' or overly dogmatic, and trying to understand and tolerate other views (not easy that one!) I reckon our 'joint religion' manages to circumnavigate the minefields of rules and regulations, bigotry and extremism. If this sounds horribly smug, I didn't intend it to, and sometimes I wonder if I should stay in my church (aa he does with his mosque). But we keep trudging on and concentrate on trying to be kind, pray for others and find joy in the natural world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:03 PM If you don't want bully-dominated discussions, don't tell me I need a shrink. You admire pete but not creationists, you say. But pete is a dyed-in-the-wool creationist, Joe. His mission is to propagate creationist notions. He doesn't necessarily say "I'm a creationist and you should follow what I say", but he does diss all the science, so hard-won, so honest, that shows how wrong he is. He is utterly disrespectful towards scientists, even the best of 'em, such as Charles Darwin, who made it his life's work to seek the truth about how the diversity of life got here. Pete dismisses them summarily, lazily and ignorantly, ignoring all evidence that doesn't suit him. That is not a position of integrity as I understand that word. He is a cad and a charlatan and you would do well to see it. Soft faces, hard cases. You are listening to the wrong people here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Stu in the ether Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:52 PM There certainly are bullies here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:33 PM Just so's y'all know what it is I said that Steve Shaw was so offended by, it was something I said in the "creationism" thread on March 27:
I just can't see that as "bullying." Maybe mildly naughty and perhaps not qualifying material for my sainthood, but it was just a gentle attempt at humor. I never dreamed that Mr. Shaw would still be offended by it a week later. I certainly wouldn't want to upset him so. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:51 PM attempts at constructive thinking I hope you don't mean to imply, Joe, that the "thinking"[sic] of the creationists is either constuctive or approximates actual intelligent thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.- Homer J. Simpson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:04 PM If I've said it once I've said it a dozen times, Joe. I do not take offence at what happens here. Ever. I wouldn't come here otherwise. I raise this comment repeatedly because it was a bloody stupid thing for you to say. You were rattled. I take delight in rattling people who seek to, and fail, to rattle me. That's the way I am. All you have to do is to admit that you were a complete twat for saying that I needed a shrink. I'd never mention it again. But, until you do, I'll berate you every single time you aspire to that moral high ground. Your call. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:24 PM Musket says (03 Apr 14 - 10:30 AM): Joe says he was questioned by the fundamentalists but respects them. He then singles out those who don't share a faith and says not so nice things about us. Well, Musket, it's like this: I object to the attack dogs, whatever their creed (or lack of creed) may be. No, I don't respect the fundamentalists who damn me to hell or report me to the bishop, or the ones who quietly (and successfully) pressured the pastor to fire me from my job as a religion teacher (and don't get me started on my opinion of that cowardly pastor who actually has a lot of good qualities). And yes, I freely acknowledge the existence all those who have done wrong in the name of religion. I've known some of those bastards, and I have no respect or affection for them - and certainly no desire to defend them. But I've also known many, many good people of faith to balance against the bad. As for atheists, most of the atheists I have known have been people who treat me respectfully and seriously, without condescendingly thinking I'm some sort of idiot for having religious faith. A condescending (or worse) attitude is a difficult foundation for meaningful discussion. You, Musket, have ended up in the "attack dog" category. You're not even condescending. You have constantly twisted my words, and falsely and insidiously accused me of twisting yours when I have been very careful to quote you accurately. So, it's not ideology I oppose - it's aggression. I gather that you do not understand that. Pete and Akenaton express ideas that you oppose, and my thinking on those subjects is very much in line with yours - but they are not aggressive or demeaning in expressing their ideas. They say what they believe, what's in their hearts, and it's hard for me to find fault in that although I disagree with them. And although I agree with your thinking to a great extent, I think that you destroy people and what they hold sacred in the process of opposing them, and I think that's wrong. Maybe, for balance, I should reply to this statement from Pete:
And Pete, I think you should reconsider your views of the stories of Genesis and the Book of Jonah. These are stories that are meant to teach important lessons, but they are stories. If they are viewed as such and studied for the sake of the lessons they teach, they have far greater value than they would have if they are viewed as stories in conflict with what is known by science. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:34 PM Hello, Steve. It's so nice to hear from you. I'm sorry you're in such a funk. You really should explore the idea of whether you need a shrink or not. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, and it might help you learn to deal with disagreement in a rational and peaceable manner. And if the shrink doesn't work, try drugs. Bless you, Steve, in your endeavors. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:41 PM I don't give a shit about what evil has purportedly been done "in the name of religion". You'll never hear me using that argument, basically because it's an argument that has been misused so often as to bring it into disrepute. You will also never hear me say that you are not entitled to your beliefs. As I've said here a dozen or more times, your private beliefs are your private business. Do note my use of "private", though, so that I don't have to rattle on yet again about how I can respect them only if you keep them to yourself. Unfortunately for most Christians (including you), and for people of other major denominations, that appears to be far too much to ask. You have a God for yourself for whom you have no evidence, yet you are happy to allow your children to be taught that he embodies deep truths. You are probably a very nice fellow, but that, to me, is utterly unacceptable. And hey, I don't need a shrink, honest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:47 PM Hello, Steve. It's so nice to hear from you. I'm sorry you're in such a funk. You really should explore the idea of whether you need a shrink or not. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, and it might help you learn to deal with disagreement in a rational and peaceable manner. And if the shrink doesn't work, try drugs. Bless you, Steve, in your endeavors. Cross-post. Jaysus, I should be so happy that you posted that, Joe, in that you let yourself down so badly. But it makes me feel rather sad, actually. Nighty night. (Incidentally, do note my coolness at all times. I know how irritating it might seem. I don't even know what "funk" is. Maybe I'll try it sometime. Have another vat of wine, Joe.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:53 PM Canadian Whisky is my preference, Steve....but you know, that shrink might really do you a lot of good. Or if we'd have a glass or two together, that might be better. Oh, could I ask about this statement? I can respect them [Joe's beliefs] only if you keep them to yourself. I guess that means I have no right to say anything about anything, huh? And if I refrain from expressing my opinion, you will refrain from denigrating me? How very generous of you, Steve! Maybe you'd better see that shrink.... love and yummies, -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST Date: 03 Apr 14 - 09:09 PM ...And God looked down on the burgeoning cesspool that was once a beautiful planet before human 'evolution' shat mightily over all its dominion and Said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, I'm through trying to help you guys out with a Buddha or a Mohammed or a Jesus, because y'all could fuck up a free lunch." --What I REALLY Think (Revised Ed.), God, Revelatory Press. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST Date: 03 Apr 14 - 11:29 PM Dear Guest of 03 Apr 14 - 09:09 PM For no particular reason I refute your post. Have a nice day. I had hoped this thread would be peaceful. Looks like I was wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:53 AM If Messrs. Blandiver and Musket and Shaw think I have insulted them by criticizing their endless attacks, so be it. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I don't think it's right to attack nonaggressive people for what they hold sacred. Thanks for the name-check there, Joe. Did you see my post of 31 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM in the Creationism thread? Likewise 01 Apr 14 - 07:59 AM? Which was not an April Fool joke - I happen to take such Forteana very seriously as an aspect of human folklore & fake-believe. However, these thread closures are making a nonsense of sensible discourse! Anyhoo, once more for the record... I'm not attacking anyone, just calling into question belief systems and their subsequent cultures. If people hold these things sacred, that's their beeswax, not mine; likewise if they choose to take offense at what I say about them, that is their right and entitlement. I do not set out to cause offense, much less do I take any - not seriously at any rate for as Stan Laurel said, life's not short enough. Anyway, little point in any of this because no doubt this thread will be gone before much longer. I'm not even bothering to read it much less get involved, just someone said you'd mentioned my name in a post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:15 AM Look: 1. Creationists and religious fundamentalists (and the tea-potty) are harmful in everything they say, do, think, and teach. The basis of their "thought" process is that ignorance is better than knowledge. They will do as much harm (maybe more) in their "private" lives (like, for example, MLC denying her children a proper education) as in their public utterances and their destruction of knowledge an learning. How should I respect them, any more than a person who in private dons KKK robes? 2. I do however admit to one fundamentalist view. Whisky comes from Scotland. Any other spiritous liquor is not "Whisky" - although if it comes from Ireland it may be "Whiskey" which can be just as nice although different. Things from the American continent with rye in are NOT whisky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM Hi, Jack- Generally, I think you've been quite fair and balanced in these threads. I have no quarrel with you. Cheers! --Joe- P.S. I spelled is "whisky" intentionally, to provoke discussion. And now I've switched to bourbon, which can be spelled only the French way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM Things from the American continent with rye in are NOT whisky. What about Norfolk? Or even Wales? Personally, I prefer a Jim Beam any day! Though an old housemate did turn me on to the delights of Talisker and freshly squeezed orange juice... Heretical in most eyes, but a fine thing of a warm summer evening. * Mudcat would be great if we could keep the personal & the personalities out of it. Cheers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:48 AM You can disrespect religion, but, please have the decency to respect my drink. whiskey-whisky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:06 AM Thanks for the long post Joe. I don't need to see a shrink it seems, you have done their job for them. You were doing alright till you said Akenaton hasn't said anything demeaning. After that particular nugget, you can't blame me for wondering if you understand other peoples' posts sometimes... You see, all it can lead to is me noting that homophobia isn't an issue to the catholic faith, so why am I not surprised? Of course I know in reality you can be as offended by bigotry as anyone, and you did says your views were in line with mine, but still.. If you can analyse my comments to the word, don't be surprised if I have issues with your stance regarding bigots. On the more fundamental level, it should be plain to see that if you have faith, you believe in at least something metaphysical, even if it is just that chance and probability isn't the driving force. (So much for religious take on quantum mechanics then...). If someone like me doesn't need such a crutch to get them through the day, then yes, I do ultimately have no problem with your words concerning idiots and faith. All the effort and determination over the years in perpetuating medieval superstition, leading to wars, bigotry and ill conceived government policy? Idiot might be too kind. If that effort had gone into curing ills rather than causing them, society wouldn't have need for fucking with peoples' minds, they'd be too busy trying to make the world a better place without the baggage that hampers them. I'm all for planting out a nice garden. Be buggered though to building a house for the fairies at the bottom of it. None of that, not a single word of it is condescending nor dismissive of faith. Just when faith gets organised and tries to interfere where it can do more harm than good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:28 AM the joy and diversity of drink:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Apr 14 - 09:45 AM Oh, could I ask about this statement? "I can respect them [Joe's beliefs] only if you keep them to yourself." I guess that means I have no right to say anything about anything, huh? And if I refrain from expressing my opinion, you will refrain from denigrating me? How very generous of you, Steve! Of course you may ask! here's what I said, er, yesterday, was it? As for your or anyone else's religious beliefs, I've said time and time again that I can respect them, as long as they are held privately and not used in any way to influence others to follow them. Explain your beliefs, great (very necessary, too), but that business of influencing others to follow the same beliefs is simply immoral. That's what I mean by keeping them to yourself. Maybe keeping them for yourself would have been better. You know full well that I'm not for keeping religion underground. In fact, the more public it is the more idiotic it will appear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 04 Apr 14 - 11:05 AM "From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer?" Thomas Payne, Age of Reason. The God of the creationists and literalists is a parochial deity, confined to this cosmic backwater in order to give cold comfort to his creations, which if they avert their eyes from the heavens and refuse to question what they see, feel small and lost and in need a shepherd to guide their solipsistic wanderings in the darkness. We are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself and inquiring into it's own nature. By expressing admiration for those who descry others who would investigate these mysteries then one aligns oneself with them, not with those whose system of enquiry is the scientific method. Here's the fundamental flaw of religion; to be religious one must assume everyone who doesn't adhere to one's own creed is totally wrong, because they deny the existence of the most fundamental aspect of ones faith: God.* There is an arrogance to that point of view, a lack of humility that despite the best intentions of any religious disciple is the idea that the rest of us are WRONG. As for science, I've tried to explain in my own clumsy way, but once more Carl Sagan can articulate it more than some gobshite like myself ever could: "In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind." Religion doesn't have the monopoly on spirituality, it just thinks it does. * Or other chosen deity, as applicable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 04 Apr 14 - 12:04 PM I suppose when those with faith use the term arrogance to describe my assertion that needing to believe fantasy is a measure of overall intelligence, my thoughts are not too far away from what Stu is saying. It is far more arrogant to pray. An assumption that a sentient being responsible for the supernova at the end of a telescope should answer your parochial prayer whilst checking out the funeral of a child or watching an elderly lady get abused by her "carers" is beyond me. Let alone allowing a type of worm live in the eye of an African child that blinds him. I guess the only time I can meet superstition half way is to say IF there is a sentient designer, it is indifferent to humans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:18 PM "It is far more arrogant to pray" I dunno, I think it can have benefits: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-find-one-source-of-prayers- Religion also offers genuine social cohesion; real communities with individuals working for the common good and being rewarded by being part of a group. Us primates are very social animals, and secular society tends not to offer people the same benefits of community in this day and age as we don't come together under the banner of a single cause. It's why many politicians are failures; Thatcher wasn't bright enough to realise it mattered although she understood all to well that destroying communities destroys collective will. This disunity has allowed capitalism to ruin rampant and (here in the UK) made the return to Victorian working practices very likely. There's a lesson religion can teach is all right there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:49 PM If you pray for your sick relative to get better, you're asking God to make overcrowding on this planet even worse. If you pray for your team to win, you're also praying that the other team will lose. If you give thanks to God for providing you with a bountiful harvest, don't forget to also give him a bloody good bollocking for failing to do so for billions of malnourished people the world over. These things are possibly best kept to oneself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:46 PM "It is useful to converse with someone with strong belief who is also willing to listen. It gives me some hope for humanity." You've backed the wrong horse if you think Pete listens. He hears what you say, but he is emphatically NOT listening. "And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they'd made, People talking without speaking, people hearing without listening, And the sign said "The words of the prophet are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls, Whisper the sound of silence".......Simon & Garfunkel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:55 PM "Mudcat would be great if we could keep the personal & the personalities out of it" Errr? nice sentiments Jack, but what about your vicious abusive posts which had to be deleted by admin? I suppose it would take forever to delete ALL the cursing and personal abuse, from just one member with several guest personas, but they do their best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:02 PM Poor, poor pitiful Pharoah..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:14 AM Of course, Musket, your contention that prayer is arrogant, depends on whether the rest of us accept your definition of prayer, and your definitions of God, faith, religion, and the rest of it. And what you define is not according to the thinking of intelligent religious people. A classic case of argumentum ad absurdum. I don't ask God for anything in prayer. I seek God in prayer. If nothing else, the silence does me a lot of good - but I think it does a lot more. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM Funnily enough, a post of mine didn't get there earlier where I defend the idea of prayer from a personal perception. (If it gives you peace of mind then great, it does it for you.) The point exists though Joe that many churches encourage people to pray for personal gain and solutions to temporal issues. That the same sentient being who allows hate to exist might give you divine guidance with your lottery tickets is rather baffling. Your own logical take makes sense but as ever, as I don't reflect every non Christian, I doubt organised religions wish all adherents to reflect Joe Offer , as you have found out yourself... Following on from Akenaton's post above. If all his bigoted offensive pronouncements were deleted from the database, the website would load quicker. And cleaner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:57 AM Well, joe, Jesus appears to have believed in Jonah and genesis so that's good enough for me. And you are quite right about me and politics......a tea party for an Englishman is a pleasant social event....hopefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:18 AM Yes but Jesus, if he existed as a person would have believed in it. But he didn't have the access to our knowledge. There was nothing to contradict biblical pronouncements. In fact the old men trying to control you were also holding the answers to what became science. We believed what we believed at the time. I went to look at the Mappa Mundi a couple of years ago. At the time it was drawn, people believed the mythical creatures denoted on the map actually existed. Knowledge comes from your time. To wallow in less informed times and their understanding just proves my point concerning intelligence. That both fundamentalists and boutique Christians seem to find offensive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack Blandiver Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:52 AM Errr? nice sentiments Jack, but what about your vicious abusive posts which had to be deleted by admin? Posts plural, Ake? I can only think of the one - which was directed at my flaming namesake which is fair game because he started a whole thread about me. And there was nothing vicious about it I can assure you. All I did was call him Jack the Tw*t in goodly humour - unlike you, Ake - saying I was mentally ill & on drugs in your Xmas day post that DIDN'T get deleted by admin. Oh for some level of consistency around here! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:28 AM Pete, there's no doubt that Jesus believed in Jonah and Genesis, but I wonder WHAT he believed about them. I think that this "creationism" and literalism in biblical interpretation is relatively new, a near-desperate attempt to prove the factuality of the Bible - I don't think Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries had the same slavish adherence to the literal word of Scripture that modern fundamentalists have. From all I'm read about literature at the time of Jesus, it's clear to me that things were written to convey ideas and impressions and thinking, not cold facts. I believe that the fundamentalism of the last two centuries has distorted the original meaning of the Scriptures, taking them as far more (and far less) than what the writers intended them to be. Musket says (05 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM)
So, I'll agree with two of the points in your message, but not with your opinion of Akenaton. I like him. I may not agree with him, but he never expresses his thinking with a tone of hatefulness, and he gives me an opportunity to respond in a rational manner. And I also like Pete. I like you, too....can't be sure about that Steve Shaw guy, but he also has his good points. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Jack Blandiver. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:29 AM Easy. Akenaton can post inflammatory views that have no place in decent society (known as pikey language in the pubs) and his right to vilify and hate is protected as free speech. Pointing out the distress that propagation of hate causes can be deleted. Once we see how the rules work, all is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:42 AM Well, now that I no longer do "disciplinary moderation," I tend to speak in favor of moderated moderation. Come to think of it, I've always believed in that, and I became unpopular as a moderator mostly for my refusal to delete stuff. So, now the trend is toward a more activist philosophy of moderation, hoping that will work better. The philosophy is the same as it was when I was moved to the music editor position - to keep the peace and prevent the meeker people from getting stomped by the more aggressive ones. The tactics may be a bit different, but I hope we still err on the side of freedom of expression, even when such expression is not acceptable to the majority. I respect your opinion, Musket, but I also think that Akenaton and Pete fit into the "meek" category and deserve protection. You and I may not agree with them, but they are very polite in expressing their disagreeable positions. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:00 AM but they are very polite in expressing their positions This is what I just don't get, Joe. Do you really believe that it is OK to be as hateful as you like as long as you are polite with it? Surely not. If, for instance, we got a conversation that went Person A: "I believe all homosexuals are cads and bounders and should have their personal liberties taken away" Person B: "You are a twat for saying that." Who's position would you uphold? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:31 AM Whose position would I uphold, Dave? Neither. But neither would I think that either position should be censored or attacked. I just can't agree with you, Dave - I don't agree with Pete or Ake on many of their views and especially about homosexuality, but I do not think that either of them has crossed the line into hatefulness. They both express mindsets that were probably the predominant way of thinking not too many years ago, mindsets that are still prevalent in many, many places. To effectively change those mindsets, we must use patience and understanding. I've campaigned for respect for homosexuals for almost fifty years, and that can sometimes be a lonely position in churches - not so much anymore, thankfully. After all that time, I still believe much more is accomplished by a gentle, patient approach. You can't win respect by an aggressive approach - you have to use persuasion and logic to change minds and hearts. Aggression simply makes the other side dig in and get defensive. What good does that do? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:32 AM It's nice, Joe, to hear you agree that the position of creationists is ill-informed and irrational. But the point about the views expressed by pete and Ake (etc) is that the views themselves can not be treated with respect in the modern world. They are based on ignorance and hatred. Remember the words of the distinguished and respected English statesman, Nye Bevan. "No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party... So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Hatred has its place, and the same applies to bigots and wilful fools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM All I did was call him Jack the Tw*t in goodly humour. Goodly humour? I would not say that you ARE mentally ill and on drugs. But it is understandable that some one would think that you are. Hah! Goodly humour! My round beige, hairy, stinky arse! Do everyone a favor and take the stick out of _your_ arse. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM "I like you, too....can't be sure about that Steve Shaw guy, but he also has his good points. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Jack Blandiver." What a bunch of arse lickers. Embrace mediocrity you ingratiating gits! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:11 AM I tend to support the perspective of Steve, if not in a more limited way. While holding personal views that are harmful to others may be acceptable, promoting them (which is what is clearly the purpose, versus a search for enlightenment) is another matter. It is the responsibility of those who see and know the difference (and the harm they do) to take these folks on and ensure these harmful views are not reinforced to ferment and grow in society. Holding their hands and encouraging such regressive views tends to reinforce their real motives. That being said, politeness and logical and respectful discussion can surely be reciprocated with the same, as with the opposite approach. However, if someone is promoting something that is disrespectful and harmful to others, respect runs short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:13 AM You can get Bevan's insightful quote on a T shirt next time you buy from Red Molotov Bridge. That said, I have what I consider a healthy distrust of any ideological approach to issues that need pragmatic solutions, but I digress. Joe. I too would be appalled if pete couldn't have his private view of reality or indeed share it amongst like minded adults. The issue is convincing others. The foot soldiers in land grab wars and terrorism think they doing just that. Faith can be a useful tool. I recently quoted Voltaire when he said that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Akenaton also has the right to look down on sections of society. Human nature for means of survival includes being distrustful of those different to yourself.. That said, society should be at a level by now that your inner thoughts stay where they are and aren't used outside of your head. If you describe him as meek, I think I understand where you are coming from, but that still doesn't mean it is ok for Mudcat to be a megaphone for bigotry. Most of the contemporary folk songs we know are about justice, equality and shouting down bigotry, which makes it strange when some people defend Akenaton. Sure,not a single person here agrees with him and he lacks the intelligence to see that, but that doesn't mean he has to be protected like an animal in a zoo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:13 AM Some where between Arse licking and piss taking lies the happy British medium. Or is it median? Or is it mean? Well it is kinda mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:23 AM The ability to take the piss is highly-regarded amongst us proles packed in the lower echelons of the class system Jack, especially in respect to any authority. In fact, we really have little respect for any authority and also consider iconoclasm a virtue regardless of class. It's what makes the aspirational middle-class so funny and sad at the same time. This is how it has always been and always will be. Big nose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jeri Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:30 AM I have, over the years, met some people who seemed to be fairly good despite having some vile, bigoted ideas about things. There were people I worked with who told racist jokes. While I'd call them on it now, back then, I just walked away. There was the time in the early 90s some of us from work were setting up training and stopped at one of our member's parents' place. Somewhat heated argument ensued because I was working in public health, and the guy's parents were of the opinion that HIV/AIDS was sent from God to punish the guilty. I eventually just walked away. I'm betting people on the wrong side of both of these issues eventually saw the light, but I'd also bet it had nothing to do with being yelled at and called names. That bullying type of behavior usually pushes people into defending their position more furiously. It doesn't inspire to think, or to consider any other point of view. What some people call "debate" here seems to be aimed at keeping people in their designated positions on their designated sides in order to keep the fighting going on. If you want something else to happen, you have to know that sometimes smart people have stupid ideas, good people have bad ideas, and unless you force them into a corner and trap them there, people are capable of finding their way to better places. And don't think that anyone's stupid enough to believe you're 'debating' when you stop talking about issues and focus on the people you're fighting with. THAT is what happens when you get frustrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:33 AM It's also fun amongst we bourgeois and bosses don'tcha know? Here's a tip for those for whom Middle class is an aspiration; When my lads were young, I taught them to shout "Mint sauce!" at the lambs in the fields. Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:37 AM "take the piss is highly-regarded amongst us proles packed in the lower echelons of the class system Jack, especially in respect to any authority" It is well regarded where I come from too. But there is a time and a place. The time is not always and the place is not where you are a guest and the host politely asks you not to. I'm not talking about you of course. And I am assuming that no one here mistakes Ake and pete for members of the House of Lords. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:52 AM I know mate - just haven' a josh. "Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them." From the SUV per chance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM Yeah Stu, I was joshing too. Just trying to be pithy. "Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them." My wife says that to the Tofu at the WalMart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM Are you taking the pith? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM I recall quite a few years ago, where I used to work many nice people were very racist. Infact, mang racist statements, jokes and words were frequently used in the open, and this was accepted bg management. I felf very uncomforatable working in thag environment, though the workers seemed like normally kind and nice church going folks. One day a co worker told a joke with the "n" word to a crowd of workers at lunch. Frusterated, I stood up and said "you know, that joke would have been funny, if it was not at the expense of others, and the "n" word had not been used. All was quiet, and I walked away. That was the last time I heard that word, or a racist comment openly made in that workplace . I learned not only to speak up in these situations but that it was my responsibility and duty to do so, and to call people out on harmful statements, and that by doing so, that I could make a difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM I'm betting people on the wrong side of both of these issues eventually saw the light... In heaven's name, why? What makes you think they still aren't the intolerant,ignorant, bigoted fools they were then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:32 AM Ed, What is being "promoted by either Pete or myself that is disrespectful or harmful to others. Pete discusses his personal faith, I discuss the reasons for, and ways of finding a solution to the epidemic of STDs amongst MSM. I quote official figures to validate the points I make. How are either of these two separate positions, harmful or disrespectful to others? Unless of course you believe the subjects "should not be discussed, kept covered up, none of our business, leave them alone, it's nothing to do with heterosexuals, it's hateful, it's bigotry, it contradicts our "equality" agenda, all "liberals" are kind caring and tolerant" Oh yes!....especially the last one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:50 AM Ake, you put words in my mouth, which is odd, since you have complained about others doing that to you. I have no idea what Pete's views are, as I have not followed religious threads, that I suspect he participated in. In fact, Steve and I had a "back and forth" discussion quite awhile back when I felt he was being disrespectful to some with a belief in a god (I have such a belief, but mostly keep it to my self). However, I refer to harmful views toward gay people. As an example, if one refers or alludes to gay people as a perversion, that would seem to qualify as harmful and disrespectful to me. I am not gay, but I have great respect for gays, as with most other diverse groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:57 AM Ed, my only printed view on perversion, is that it would be "extremely difficult to put up a reasoned argument that homosexual practice was NOT a perversion." However, I am happy to be convinced......carry on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:16 AM It's quite simple to carry on, Ed. Just ask ake if he thinks homosexuals are perverts. I have asked him but he will not answer me. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:18 AM I have nothing much to add Ake. You have made your views on that one aspect clear enough. While that statement may or may not be misinterpreted, can you not see how it could give others a feeling that you have an anti-gay prejudice? After all, unlike those living in your community, on the internet we only have small pieces of information (or, as John Barth put it, snapshots) to provide a glimse of the character of other mudcat posters we have not met. That statement, taken alone, sure stands out as major character snapshot with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:39 PM Many people have objections to homosexuality- they may be won over to a rational view by discussion, others will not. VITUPEROUS name-calling will do nothing to change their opinions- it never helps. Among the millions of Republican voters in the U. S.- 61% of Republican voters ages 21-29 do not object to same-sex marriage, but among those over 50 years in age, only 27% support it. PEW research poll, 2014. A Washington Post Poll found that overall, 59% of Americans approve of same sex marriage. A Ford Foundation poll (2013) found 53% of Americans would support same sex marriage, while 41% are opposed. Reason, calmly expressed, is the only way to win over the millions of Americans who are opposed. As a paleontologist-zoologist, I know that among humans, some 10-14% are wired for same sex attraction. These people must have the same rights as the majority heterosexual group. Over 100,000,000 Americans who are opposed can only be won over by considerate, rational discussions in the media and among church, business and other groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:52 PM There were several other polls in 2013- Public Religion research Group Bloomberg Quinnipiac Gallup USA Today CBS News Washington Post All reported approx. 40% opposed to same sex marriage. Age divisions showed that the younger groups showed the most support for same sex marriage. There also were regional differences with 60 percent favoring support of same sex marriage in the NE and W, 51% in the Midwest, and 40% in the S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:58 PM Over 100,000,000 Americans who are opposed can only be won over by considerate, rational discussions... That's a joke, right? You think these lunatics are rational, Q, or have any respect for factual information?? Talk about pollyanna..... Maybe you should get a group sing of Kumbaya together. I'm sure that would convince 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:00 PM Blood tests prior to marriage are opposed by those who consider them an invasion of privacy, etc. For the greater good of the populace, I believe that they should be required of all entering unions, heterosexual as well as homosexual. These tests would lead to treatments to minimize these scourges. At the present time, the States show little support for mandatory tests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes gay marriage He points out that the majority of Africans oppose same sex unions, and would not consider support of Christianity if it accepted them. Governments and most of the population in Africa oppose same sex marriage. Not a Christian myself, I cannot comment on his stand; my point is that the Church of England opposes same sex marriage, as do some other large church groups. I will attempt to get UK opinion on same sex marriage, but my guess is that 40% will be opposed. Only an idiot would call 40% of the population in these western nations lunatic. They may be misguided but vituperation and scorn will not change them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:20 PM Problem with blood tests to curb HIV infection is many in the main HIV demographic are in the the least likely to marry catagory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:25 PM The Church of England will bless the union of ss married couples in church, so not completely opposed. I do not think their view is based on the opinion of African governments or peoples. It is not among the reasons they give for not having ss church weddings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:33 PM Valid point, Ed. I don't know the figures, but education of members of the poorest educated, immigrant, demographics is important, and it will be slow. Testing of all immigrants should be required, but there is the problem of EU movement of people from one country to work in another, and illegal immigration. Tough problem! But test as many as possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Janie Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:33 PM Problem with either ignoring the views of 40% or simply calling them bigots or stupid is it is unlikely to have any positive impact with respect to them examining and altering their views, and in fact, is likely to allow them the opportunity to focus on being personally attacked and do what most creatures do when being personally attacked - hunker down and attempt to solidify and defend their position. Of course, some people will perceive any disagreement with their views as a personal attack and will react in a manner they perceive to be in kind. Glad you are not generally one of them, Q. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:38 PM Regardless of ss laws or not, the main (potential to be infected) demographic is less likely those who wish to be wed. Maybe it would be more effective at divorce, as folks are no longer smitten, and are starting to "fool around" :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:51 PM The gay marriage bill went through with all party support. Polls are polls and even when I may like what I read I still take them with a healthy pinch of salt. The Independent polled the day before the commons debate started and reckoned 87% of the population supported gay marriage. Just out of interest Q, over 15% of the population here have taken class A drugs, but you don't need to convince them otherwise, just point out the law. One person in The UK says "marriage" when they refer to marriage, but you don't have to convince him, just point out the law. You don't need to respect opponents of equal opportunity, just take each and every opportunity to shout them down, marginalise them and remind them that society requires they don't make their odious bigotry respectable by numbers. If a poll said 51% of the population reckon it is alright to bugger children, would you want to respect their right to that view? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:53 PM Following up on Ed's point, The Pew survey shows only 51% of those over 18 are married (U. S.). I didn't realize it was that high. In order to catch those eschewing union, perhaps require tests at school entry, along with immunization for smallpox, etc.? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:01 PM unlikely to have any positive impact with respect to them examining and altering their views Ah, but Janie, absolutely NOTHING is "likely" to have a "positive impact" when dealing with these bigoted idiots. Only an idiot would call 40% of the population in these western nations lunatic So Q, what percentage of the German population in 1941 were Nazis or Nazi sympathizers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:39 PM "Problem with either ignoring the views of 40%" My observation is that extreme views rarely form the majority on most tolics. Most tend to concentrate near the middle on many issues. However, those on the extreme edge tend to lead one to believe that the majority support their extreme, and tag onto those in the middle, through sketchy routes, tovsupport their cause. Clear expressions of shared community views frequently does have an impact on "throwing water on" this tactic, and does result in changes in society, versus not speaking up, when it is important to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:41 PM Musket: "Quiet.. Don't wake the moderators.... LET'S DISCUSS CREATIONISM AGAIN!!!!!!!! Your move." My, that was 'creative'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Janie Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:05 PM I agree, Greg, that there are always going to be some percent of any given population whose views, at least regarding some things, are not going to be open to any external influence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:35 PM One day a co worker told a joke with the "n" word to a crowd of workers at lunch. Frustrated, I stood up and said "you know, that joke would have been funny, if it was not at the expense of others, and the "n" word had not been used. All was quiet, and I walked away. That was the last time I heard that word, or a racist comment openly made in that workplace . I learned not only to speak up in these situations but that it was my responsibility and duty to do so, and to call people out on harmful statements, and that by doing so, that I could make a difference. I was a secondary school teacher in Walthamstow for six years (and in the East End for another seven!). Walthamstow then was just about as multi-ethnic as it was possible to be (I forget the current correct use of words as I've been in Cornwall for 27 years so forgive me that). Classroom racist abuse was an everyday occurrence. I resolved never to let it pass and I don't think I ever did. I found that the best way was often to use humour rather than go straight into attack mode. Making the perpetrator feel sheepish did more good, mostly, than making them feel humiliated. I remember hearing Woody Guthrie (might have been those Lomax Library of Congress tapes, I can't quite remember) talking about the black people he came across, speaking as he found and not as he had been led to think by the received racist wisdom of the time (read what his dad did...), as funny, interesting and amusing. Not in any sort of patronising way, but in a way that completely drew the sting from racists. It's a good approach, but, if you've tried it and it hasn't worked, as with hateful and prejudiced people such as Ake and Keith, you have no alternative but to tell it like it is. I have gay friends and Jewish friends and Christian friends and all manner of friends, and they are friends because we are of like mind in that we do not inject prejudice into our dealings. That is not to say we don't have prejudices, as we are not saints. There are several people here who would never make it into that circle in a million years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Big Mick Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:36 PM Greg F., perhaps you could explain the difference between what polls show now (with regard to ss marriage) and what the polls showed 5 to 10 years ago? Surely all those opposed before have not died? One thing is to be sure, you will not change hearts and minds with inflammatory rhetoric such as calling them lunatics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:51 PM you will not change hearts and minds with inflammatory rhetoric such as calling them lunatics. OK, so tell us how we're going to change hearts and minds by being really, really nice to them. Look at how Bill has changed pete's heart and mind by his being really, really nice to him. Made him even worse if you ask me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:08 PM Can't say I feel like I need protecting, joe. The abusive posters only succeed in demonstrating the paucity of their arguments. Seems a strange idea to me, joe that Jesus might not regard Jonah and genesis as historically accurate when he compared them to important teachings like the resurrection and his return in judgment. Musket , have to agree with you and Voltaire . Look at the atrocities committed by dictators who believed the absurdity of evolutionism! And show me if you can, how they were being inconsistent with their godless faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Big Mick Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:44 PM Now, see, Steve my padawan learner, you have focused on the rhetoric instead of answering the question I posed. This is called "obfuscation" or shifting the premise. Another thing, young Jedi, for you to look up. You should probably spend less time here and more time in your studies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:27 PM Big Mick, big bottom to talk out of. I must confess, in my simplicity, that I don't know what you're on about most of the time. Unfocused and rather incoherent. But do carry on. Your ever-thinning patina is ever-thinning. "I'm a mod therefore I possess gravitas" is a maxim that you're working hard to do away with, I see. Next... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Big Mick Date: 05 Apr 14 - 07:01 PM Again, in your attempt to bait me with name calling, and trying to attack my "patina" (must be a new word you learned, you've used it twice), you show more and more that you suffer from "respect envy". You seem to think that I have some undeserved respect that you are entitled too. I don't know if I do or not, but if I do it comes from plain speaking on how I see the world. Folks with the complex that you seem to suffer from hate it when someone else takes issue with them and folks happen to agree. You specialize in belittling, being dismissive, and ad hominem attacks. You love to create your own premise and then craft the perfect solution. When someone comes along and questions the premise, your whole world collapses. So fire away with your absurd and insulting comments. I am perfectly willing to answer them and let folks make up their own minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Apr 14 - 07:41 PM OK Mick the non-prick, so you've lost it. Do like I do and try to keep your head, old boy. You cannot substantiate anything in that post. Incidentally, do you work for the same shrink firm as Joe? He tells me I need a shrink, you tell me I have a complex. And here's me thinking you were just a somewhat inflated-ego mod on a music forum! Do show me your medical qualifications before your next tirade, which will, undoubtedly, tell me to adjust my meds. Alternatively, just shut up until you have something of substance to contribute. Just a suggestion, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Big Mick Date: 05 Apr 14 - 08:41 PM Steve, I was contributing before you knew what Mudcat was. As to the inflated ego, yeah, I partly do have one. Goes with the turf when one entertains for a living. But, padawan learner, I would suggest you take care of that lumber I your eye before you start worrying about the speck in mine. As to my qualifications, I never claimed to have any. But ........aren't you past due to give us a chapter and verse recitation of yours? I mean ..... hell ....... you do it all the time. Gettin' anywhere on that homework I assigned you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:23 PM Steve, I am no more prejudiced than you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:24 PM Steve Shaw: "I have gay friends and Jewish friends and Christian friends and all manner of friends, and they are friends because we are of like mind in that we do not inject prejudice into our dealings." Do you ever discuss your views on 'God' with your Jewish and Christian 'friends', being as you say, '...they are friends because we are of like mind'....if so, you ought to REALLY thank them for their friendship!..it must be something in their belief system, to have such tolerance and patience! GfS P.S. 'Shh.. Don't let them hear you..' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Big Mick Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:30 PM Ouch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: gnu Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:09 AM Shhhh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM I don't know, you start a thread and this happens. If nothing else, I have at least one person with the ability to censor weighed up, and although lightweight, he has an ability to misrepresent. Mmmm Keith has called Steve prejudiced before so to say he is no more prejudiced was clever by his standards. Not accurate but it did make me smile. Goofus obviously hasn't bothered banging those rocks together. That said, he did at least read the op, not that it influenced his contributions. Another wonderful day. Unless you are part of the mythical 70%. Then it's another opportunity to be bitter and twisted. Luckily, reality brings the percentage down. A bit like those who say a majority here in The UK are Christians. Trick questions in polls don't bring the figure over the 1% who attend church. (Their figures, it's possibly much lower. Vicars have been found to add wedding, funeral and christening numbers, naughty naughty. ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:00 AM So Richard Bridge says this:
Posted By: Richard Bridge 05-Apr-14 - 06:32 AM Thread Name: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
It's nice, Joe, to hear you agree that the position of creationists is ill-informed and irrational. So, what the big deal if people are wrong every once in a while? Does it really matter? Is it worth all the derision and combat and hatred and whatnot that humans have engaged in for the sake of being "right"? I don't think so. To a great extent, the obsession with being "right" is just a rationalization for doing battle. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:10 AM A bit like those who say a majority here in The UK are Christians. But no-one ever did say that Musket. YOU claimed that atheists were a majority in the West, but you were shown to be wrong again. I challenged you on it and was proved correct again. Not a single country was identified where it was true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:30 AM Atheists are a majority in The West. Full stop. There are degrees of boutique and it is a fact that if you ask many people their religion they will say CofE etc. But ask the same people if they believe in God, (MORI do this every year for The Secular Society) the same people say no. Not that my general interpretation of the term atheist would concur with a narrow interpretation by those defending the opposite. Joe. If you wish to let society change taboos, you start by challenging them. Also, you talk of those who don't like homosexuals but don't deride them. If any such person has posted on Mudcat I must have missed their contribution. The creationist belief is, again, fine as far as it goes, but to use it to try to prevent scientific research into for example stem cell or consent for your child's medical intervention..... I get fed up of colleagues having to involve social services and ultimately the courts when the surprisingly large cluster of Jehova's Witnesses around these parts think they have ultimate control over their child's health with regard to blood transfusion, bone marrow transplant and even education for children in hospital. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:46 AM I remind you that surveys asking about belief (not any church) found that most people in any country do. You were wrong again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:09 AM Shouldn't you be out giving thanks for your self assuredness? It's Sunday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:15 AM As long as the creationists don't force our schools to teach their religion, what's the problem? Instead of yours, you mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:22 AM Steve, I was contributing before you knew what Mudcat was. Contributing to Mudcat for who knows how long does not imbue one with great intellectual powers or deep wisdom, as many contributors here, including you, demonstrate only too well, I hate to tell you. As for Goofus's inane response to my post, and your "ouch", well wassup with you! Weird! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:35 AM "If people have some twisted ideas about some things, how much does it really matter?" Because they convince the vulnerable, lost and gullible, they whisper lies in their ears and promises of redemption they can never deliver. They eschew progress in favour of ignorance and despise knowledge. If the truth doesn't matter, what does? Just let it slide eh? Sod that for a lark; enough people have worked and suffered whilst striving for the truth to make it a cause worth defending. The reason Pete seems put upon is because his views and his way of arguing for them (or not) is dishonest at a fundamental level. If you took the time to read all the posts on the threads where creationism is discussed you might learn a thing or two about your new pet; it ain't pretty and he's certainly not above insulting people himself. Here in the UK we're battling these fundamentalists that want to teach creationism as science in our schools. They want to use their lies and misrepresentation to mislead our children, and we can't allow that to happen in science classes. If they force us to abandon reason for superstition we all know where this ends up. There's a deep and unpleasant latent aggression in their arguments too, borne of their literalist view of the bible which has a fair degree of unpleasantness. These are their tenets, not the more interpretive worldview of the mainstream. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:46 AM Pete - here's one for you. We've talked about your use of words like 'Darwinism' and 'evolutionism', and upon reading this article I thought of you: Science has nothing to tell us about the soul? I disagree The word is 'scientism' and one definition is: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities). I'm guessing the article won't be to your taste as it contains some interesting philosophical discussion on the nature of the soul that might not be in the good book. Much better than the other isms in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:26 AM Because they convince the vulnerable, lost and gullible, they whisper lies in their ears and promises of redemption they can never deliver. And they pass it on without conscience to impressionable children, too young to understand the meaning or consequences, in the guise of religious "education" in faith schools and by dragging them along to church to say prayers that are gobbledegook to them. And they do this, as I say, with completely clear consciences (in fact, they've been taught by their faith to have bad consciences if they don't do it). And they wonder why we resort to the fairly gentle term "delusion". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 14 - 10:08 AM Steve Shaw: "As for Goofus's inane response to my post, and your "ouch", well wassup with you! Weird! :-)" Do you mean this one?: Steve Shaw: "I have gay friends and Jewish friends and Christian friends and all manner of friends, and they are friends because we are of like mind in that we do not inject prejudice into our dealings." Do you ever discuss your views on 'God' with your Jewish and Christian 'friends', being as you say, '...they are friends because we are of like mind'....if so, you ought to REALLY thank them for their friendship!..it must be something in their belief system, to have such tolerance and patience! Frankly, my response was to your inane post.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 10:12 AM Or it is just that they are decent people, ad their belief system is irrelevant in this case? zzzz You do have some strange ideas Goofus.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 14 - 12:46 PM You didn't believe all the other figures from Ake and Keith..I'm sure you'll come up with your own. GfS P.S. You can go back to sleep, now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:33 PM He's a complete twit, quite possibly with altered consciousness, Musket. it's rare that any post of his makes any sense. As an honest broker who only ever posts anywhere under his real moniker, I do wonder whether Jack The Twat, Ake, Goofus, Mig Bick, Keef, pete and Joe are all the same person. Or, at least, that they're all Joe's uncles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:38 PM For those who do not appreciate the last line. Here is the chorus. Uncle Joes mintballs Keep you all aglow Give 'em to your Granny And watch the bugger go Away with coughs and sniffles Take a few in hand Suck 'em and see, you'll agree Their the best in all the land. (Mike Harding - I think) :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:46 PM Aye, "suck it and see". Haven't heard that since "Gibberellin Jack" Hannay, a great northern lad who taught me plant physiology in the early 70s at Imperial College, said it to encourage to try new approaches. I think I'll revive it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:47 PM encourage us |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:56 PM In the beginning was the Word. And the word was Sorry, what did you say Charles? The word was with God. Charles, you cannot ask "who were God's parents". God did not have parents. Charles!!! Do not EVER let me hear you say that word again! God was certainly not one of those. Let us start again. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I've no idea where these waters came from Charles; or how there were waters without an earth. Or what God meant by "void" when he wrote the Bible. Please stop asking these inane questions. Charles!!! You can not ask how, if God is Eternal and Unchanging, he could have created anything. That is mere stupidity. God is Omnipotent, and can do anything, and can even be surprised and angry IF HE SO WISHES. Charles, this is boring. Being Omnipotent, God can change if he wishes, in order to be angry, which he was not before, and if he so wishes remain Eternally Unchanging throughout. You are too young too understand these things; sadly you have taken much from your wicked Grandfather, Erasmus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM Two things. Suck it and see is a few miles down the coast from Mablethorpe. In the beginning was the word. And the word was aardvark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Stu Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:18 PM The word was 'whelk'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:37 PM I thought it was Suckit ON Sea near Mablethorpe. Still, you know what thought did... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:40 PM Too salty On sea like Allegedly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:41 PM Steve Shaw: "I have gay friends and Jewish friends and Christian friends and all manner of friends, and they are friends because we are of like mind in that we do not inject prejudice into our dealings." From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:46 PM Aye, "suck it and see". What else can be said? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:43 PM I first read that as 'on sea like Anglesey'! Funny old thing, the gnomish brain. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:47 PM Whelk can't be the first word as it doesn't begin with A, let alone AA.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:01 PM Abalone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:05 PM Surely, the first word in the book can be anything the creationists tell is it is? Personally, I think the first line is "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit..." Makes more sense than "In the beginning there was the word" anyway. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:41 PM Hmm. I see that yesterday's leftover sadsack from a sanitorium has reared his ugly little head here. Never mind. Knock knock! Who's there? Whale kipper whelk. Whale kipper whelk who? [sings:] Whale kipper whelkome in the hillsides... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:49 PM >>He's a complete twit, quite possibly with altered consciousness, Musket. it's rare that any post of his makes any sense. As an honest broker who only ever posts anywhere under his real moniker, I do wonder whether Jack The Twat, Ake, Goofus, Mig Bick, Keef, pete and Joe are all the same person. Or, at least, that they're all Joe's uncles. << Said Mr Steve Shaw. We all know who is not a sane person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 14 - 11:12 PM Steve Shaw: "I have gay friends and Jewish friends and Christian friends and all manner of friends, and they are friends because we are of like mind in that we do not inject prejudice into our dealings." He's a complete twit, quite possibly with altered consciousness, Musket. it's rare that any post of his makes any sense. As an honest broker who only ever posts anywhere under his real moniker, I do wonder whether Jack The Twat, Ake, Goofus, Mig Bick, Keef, pete and Joe are all the same person. Or, at least, that they're all Joe's uncles. << Said Mr Steve Shaw. Sounds 'friendly' to me!! Hey Steve, you forgot atheists!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stu Date: 07 Apr 14 - 08:22 AM "Whelk can't be the first word as it doesn't begin with A, let alone AA...." Ah, but who said the first word had to start with A? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:22 PM Isambard the Aardvark said so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:20 PM On that transatlantic subject... There is a story, possibly grown in the making that an American tourist was touring The Bodleian Library at Oxford, and impressed by the architecture, asked the porter if it was pre war. It is pre America, came the reply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:50 PM The porter should have asked the yank whether he meant the 1917-18 war or the 1942-45 war. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:01 PM ...or 1776 or 1812? GfS P.S. or when Harold of Hasting fought William of Orange?? (William the Conqueror) GfS P.S. I guess we, at least, know who won that one!.....1066 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:47 PM *sigh* Anyone else else spot one of goofus's personality weaknesses? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:12 AM A disorder isn't necessarily a weakness. It can be quite strong, hence an issue. On that particular nugget, it is merely a nationalistic trait regarding irony. Must admit, it was funny to read..... Goofus!, here boy! Where's your rocks boy? Eh? Go fetch! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM A perfect pair! One has nothing to say, and the other doesn't hear. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:31 PM Due to the shallowness of the subject, no doubt. What's up? Have you broke those rocks I gave you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: frogprince Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:43 AM "I do wonder whether Jack The Twat, Ake, Goofus, Mig Bick, Keef, pete and Joe are all the same person. Or, at least, that they're all Joe's uncles." I'm fairly sure that Steve Shaw is being facetious with that. But am I the only person who "wonders whether" anyone who has a blanket reaction to that grouping of people which would lead him to say that just might be reacting more from attitude than from accurate perception? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:48 AM In fairness, no matter what the provocation, it is a little harsh putting people in the same category as Akenaton. Some things you just don't joke about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:59 AM This is discussing creationism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 09 Apr 14 - 12:36 PM SRS, these people have no real interest in discussing anything. There are about three threads going on at present full of infantile nonsense. Now no one makes an abject fool of them selves for no reason, especially if they are reasonably literate. I did warn the forum what the "gang" were up to some time ago....they are what we in the UK call "taking the piss",filling threads with inane chatter and gratuitous insults. I think Janie described them as a "clique".....exactly so, small children often form "cliques" to exclude those they dislike or disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Greg F. Date: 09 Apr 14 - 12:39 PM Current discussion makes more sense than creationism, Sage. Perhaps folks are just tired of trying to debate a toddler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 14 - 12:42 PM Ake, if you have anything new to say on the topic, please speak up. If not, how are you better than the people you are criticizing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:01 PM Cappy Jack: "Ake, if you have anything new to say on the topic, please speak up. If not, how are you better than the people you are criticizing?" The difference is that Ake has been accurate on certain matters...if that matters anymore. As I've said in the past, 'a political consensus does NOT make a fact, just a political consensus'...and if anybody isn't hip to politicians, and their 'honesty', in regards pushing their given political agendas, which is usually a cover story to hide the real motives(or just about anything), then they are just empty headed parrots wanting to appear as if they are on the 'inside' of the reasoning surrounding any given topic. When they run out of truth and common sense, they resort to infantile behavior of name calling and personally attacking the people who do have reliable source(s). So to answer your question, Cappy, people who CARE and post truthful sources, to back up their claims of concern, generally ARE better people. When it comes down to it, who are you going to trust...somebody incoherently repeating 'talking points' or somebody to look beyond the 'talking points' usually false propaganda??? ...and then when someone points out the truth, couple with common sense, some worthless airhead starts accusing them of 'hate' or 'bigotry', 'homophobia' or some other crap, which are hot buttons to rally the otherwise oblivious, mob of worthless airhead parrots. ...'We hold these truths to be self evident....' Happy Politicking! ..(sorta like 'Trick of Treat')... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM ""When they run out of truth and common sense, they resort to infantile behavior of name calling and personally attacking the people who do have reliable source(s)."".... ""the otherwise oblivious, mob of worthless airhead parrots."" Someone once told me that people often begin to resemble their pet. If you look closely.... Has anyone else noticed that people often begin to resemble those they argue with? Well, maybe not look like them (as we don't have pictures to match the discussion)-but, possibly, over time, they begin to use a technique resembling the one they protest those opposing uses? Just wondering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:19 PM Joe Offer (05 Apr 14) says of Akenaton that he "never expresses his thinking with a tone of hatefulness." He espresses his views calmly and rationally. Moreover, his views are those of a vast number of people, and a majority of those of the older generations. They will never respond to the likes of Musket, DtheG, Greg F and others who clamor with their insults and extreme negativity; these vituperative individuals have no conception of how to express their views rationally. Hopefully, they are juvenile; they have not reached a state of reason. What they are doing here remind me of the thugs who take advantage of a peaceful demonstration to smash windows, loot, and create havoc. So, Akenaton, I do not agree with you (my parents would have), but your arguments are presented clearly and rationally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket's gang Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:21 PM We the gang do not wish to comment at this point as we are about to hold a gang conference on the subject of little people who consider themselves and their views so important that we had to form a gang in order to combat their supreme morality. The gang will forward a press communique accordingly. If anyone would like to join our gang, membership criteria is as follows; Decent person who sees others as decent unless evidence seen to the contrary. Member of a liberal plot. Ability to see choice of lifestyle as normal not perverted. Willing to cover up the real issues. Someone you would enjoy a drink with. Person who points and laughs at Christians. Someone who sees others as equals. Willing to leave a pub if the subject of our club walks in, wiping your feet on the way out. zzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:28 PM "never expresses his thinking with a tone of hatefulness." Never is a dangerous word in such conversations. One exception destroys the statement. "Person who points and laughs at Christians. Someone who sees others as equals. " The ability to hold two contradictory views at once and to ignore reasonable and well found accusations of hypocrisy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:51 PM Prejudices are what fools use for reason. Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do. No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it. It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. There are men who can think no deeper than a fact. Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. Voiltaire quotes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:53 PM the likes of Musket, DtheG, Greg F and others who clamor with their insults and extreme negativity Examples, please Q. Or are you just as guilty as others of stereotyping people without evidence? I, for one, have repeatedly told ake that I believe better education and research is the answer. He tells me that education does not work but believes that others can convince people to take tests without, presumably, educating them. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: gnu Date: 09 Apr 14 - 02:03 PM "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." Oh I like THAT! I shall use it.. fer sure, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 09 Apr 14 - 03:02 PM Q reckons Akenaton's views are presented clearly and rationally. Hate and bigotry will never evolve to decency whilst shallow fools appease hate as a valid viewpoint. We have courts to deal with some valid viewpoints and wars to deal with some others. So I shouldn't name call Hitler because he put his agenda forward clearly and rationally? He had a solution that included rounding up gay men. He thought them perverted too. He blamed them for problems shared across populations for that matter. Godwin. (Just in case some smarmy twat wants to say it as well) Before anyone says it isn't proportionate to compare the worm with the fuehrer, I wasn't. Hitler had the ability to form his own views and charm people who came across him. Jack. Look at your last post and give me an essay on your understanding of irony? There's a good chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Apr 14 - 03:08 PM May I promote a schism faction that stipulates that many things are NOT choices but are genetic and therefore the more to be tolerated and protected? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Apr 14 - 04:16 PM Richard Bridge is correct. I have also stated that the difference is genetic and appears in 10-12% of the population. Toleration and equality should be afforded to them. Vituperous shouting and condemnation of widely held views will never correct the problem. Hate seems to be a characteristic of the 'musketeers.' They have no interest in rational argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 09 Apr 14 - 04:58 PM I'm sorry Q, but what is it you actually disagree with me about? I hope you don't think I am "homophobic", or am printing lies about MSM infection rates, or perhaps its about the definition of marriage, or perversion? I notice Joe, another poster whom I respect, voices the same disagreement with my views, without being specific as to exactly what he disagrees about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 Apr 14 - 05:42 PM I cannot speak for the others but I suspect that we all disagree with you on the same thing. You say that gay people are perverts. Not true. You say that gat people are only interested in sex. Not true. You say that gay marriage is not a real marriage. Not true. How about that to be going on with? Care to deny saying or believing any of those things? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 14 - 05:46 PM My Essay on irony, Musket uses irony very well. It is always clear when he is being ironic. He is clever and leaves no room for doubt. Bridge, a further measure of admiration. |
|
Subject: : Shh.. Don't let them hear you?????????? naw From: Donuel Date: 09 Apr 14 - 05:56 PM I say let them hear you! Let's hear all YOUR Creationist songs I just so happen to have several song titles handy ; Fossils are Fakes Darwin the Harlequin The Immaculate Big Bang In Defiance of Science The No Good Jesus Hatin Evolution Godless Blues |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 14 - 06:07 PM In six short days He made it all He worked 6 days them had a ball Making up the evidence To make Ken Ham get off the fence You must believe every word is true But just the words he tells you to He will show you Heaven's Gate But only if you please donate! Creation, Creation! done in six short days Creation, Creation! Lying bout it pays! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 09 Apr 14 - 06:48 PM "Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it." ― Voltaire |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 14 - 06:52 PM I hope you don't think I am "homophobic" Nah. We don't think you're "homophobic". We think you're homophobic. In fact, we don't think it, we know it. Like you don't think gay "marriage" is gay marriage. Perhaps you should disable the speech marks key on your keyboard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:28 PM Akenaton- Certainly I don't accuse you of homophobia. You do not seem to accept current broadening of the meaning of the marriage contract. This thread seems to have been started to attack you; it has the reek of the thugs in Clockwork Orange. Another thread best forgotten and closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 14 - 09:14 PM "We think you're homophobic" I like the way Steve Shaw says we. So full of hope. So full of optimism. That one day he would possibly be able to speak for anyone but himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:31 AM Although the thread has wormed its way into homosexuality again, and without going too far off track, homosexuality is not genetic, but behavioral. I've gone into depth with this on other threads...and NO ONE has produced ANY study to prove the genetics of it...it was suspected, at one time, so they (researchers)looked for it...came up dry, except one gene with three markers that is susceptible to the influence of hormones during pregnancy...and that influence has to do with the mother's emotional and nervous state during pregnancy. So Richard, and Q, and Cappy brush up on your homework. Before I get slammed for contradicting another popular notion of politics, just think about it, or do your homework...I've been round and round with this....and I could refer you to the threads where it has been covered extensively....complete with accusations from an airhead, to create a bias, because he had NOTHING!..(except his insistence)! Sorry to pop your bubbles of righteous equality for all, based on genetics....it ain't happening... THAT BEING SAID...the discussion IS about the transmission of HIV/AIDS...not the psychological make up of homosexuals... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:36 AM Oooops....I thought I was on the 'Transmission' thread, because this one, too, had wandered into homosexuality....what is it with those folk singers and their obsession with this topic....especially when they really know so little about it?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:00 AM I think ill award you a C- rather than a D+ for your essay Jack. If you wish to present your essay again, I suggest that you re read the source and note the odd and even entry relationships for club entry and discuss. Piss easy this academic lark..... Q on the other hand seems to be struggling. It is one thing to accept that Akenaton doesn't think he is homophobic. Peasant logic was ever thus. But giving Q the benefit of the doubt in the intelligence stakes, let's go back to school a la Jack "Person W calls gay love a perversion that is against natural law and religious requirement. Person W states that gay marriage, a normal lawful contract and undertaking where person W lives, is a liberal plot. Person W also cannot bring himself to say marriage, and insists on calling it "marriage." He claims there aren't many where he lives. Person W states clearly and unequivocally that gay men carry on with multiple partners even when in a relationship. He continually reiterates that gay men are only interested in sex, not love. Person W says that Stephen Fry must be a liar when he announced he had never had penetrative sex with another man. Person W never uses the word gay. He prefers to use homosexual but when telling us of his opinion on health matters conveniently uses the term MSM to mean homosexual and advocates his solution to what he sees as the problem to apply to all gay men, regardless of whether they have sex or indeed with whom. Person W has a solution to the issues. He wishes all gay men to report to the authorities three times a year for invasive testing and medical screening. His rationale being that the male gay community within The UK contains the largest number, just, of undiagnosed HIV. Closely followed by African descent people of 1st generation, but he hasn't included them. He also ignores the difference between a demographic including and a demographic being. After all, there are more heterosexual people living with HIV than gay people, despite the fact that gay people make up over two thirds of those who present for voluntary screening." There you go Q. I've anonymised it and don't go making a mental leap that W stands for worm. We can't let bigotry guide us eh? Are there any homophobic traits in that description? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:28 AM Well you are correct Q, I do disagree with the redefinition of marriage, to include other sexual minorities. not just homosexuals of course, but group "marriage", "marriage" between close family relatives, and any number of unions which I think may be bad for the institution. I have been married to the same woman for well over 40 years, and have raised a family with her. Most family guidance experts believe that heterosexual marriage in a secure environment, is the best way to bring up children, and I fully agree with them. Does that make me a bigot? Once again my actual words on perversion "I have never heard anyone make a REASONABLE case as to why homosexuality was NOT a perversion" 98% of the population are hetero 1.5% homo, my dictionary says.."turning away from normal usage". There are many human sexual perversions, like SM or fetishism or some of the grosser forms, which I will not mention. Not all perversions are harmful to society or the participants. Dave....where did I ever say that homosexuals are "only interested in sex".....the ones who live around here are interested in all sorts of things, your allegation is typically ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:35 AM Ake - Without even looking I can quote you almost word for word. You said that it is sex that characterises homosexuals, not love. If that is not saying they are only interested in sex I don't know what is. Now, what about this ridiculous allegation? Can you not even remember what you said now? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:37 AM Oh - You do not dispute the other two I see. You believe homosexuals are perverts and that gay marriage is not real marriage then? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:38 AM The post immediately below my last... 10 april 3am, is full of the usual lies and distortions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:45 AM Going back to the main topic. Which I think was something to do with religion in the dim and distant past... When did this sort of brainwashing become legal? :-( DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:47 AM Worm. What does marriage between close family members have to do with anything? So if people find happiness later in life and marry, is theirs "marriage" too? Is the raising of children clause the only reason to marry ? A gay couple adopting or for women, doner sperm. Does that move them from "marriage " to marriage in your eyes? Who are these " most experts" by the way? Many people feel that a stable relationship is the best environment for raising children but what has that to do with gay marriage? Did anyone notice Goofus say that it is choice to be gay? Lies to support hatred. Fuvk me. One on each shore of our pond and one or two egging them on. Society has a long way to go before savage instinct of distrust fear and blame finally dies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:07 AM I quoted Akenaton on each and every single point. Easy to verify. After all, it was to support rather than expose you , Keith would be digging them out right now. By the way worm. I asked Q to see if your words are at all homophobic. I didn't expect you to give us more fucking evidence! It could be worse. I am more dismayed when hearing bigotry from the lips if those who should know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:32 AM Look, I've covered the definition of marriage. It is a term of law. It is defined by law. Statue governs the common law. All this is stuff that anyone learning any law should know within a week of starting. If parliament defines marriage to include marriage between two men or two women then that is the law and any pretence otherwise is ignorant or bigoted or both. One might (if one were a homophobe or bigot or in some cases religious maniac - eg many West African sect members) disagree whether that should be the definition, but there is no doubt at all that it is the definition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:58 AM Homosexuality is not a choice - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:21 AM "We think you're homophobic" I like the way Steve Shaw says we. So full of hope. So full of optimism. That one day he would possibly be able to speak for anyone but himself. Rephrase it for me, then, Wackers darling. Try not to ditch nuance in so doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: frogprince Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM What gfs says about homosexual orientation makes perfect sense to me; men don't freely choose homosexual behavior because they are genetically homosexual; they freely choose homosexual behavior because they are biologically homosexual because of factors in their prenatal development. Why would anyone argue with that ??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:32 PM Where do you want someone to start? Probably with Goofus's claim that it is choice. Then move to his assertion that it can be cured. Then on to why someone with different choices to reflect their comfort in relationships needs curing in the fucking first place. If the king likes big tits and the knave prefers small ones, is the knave in the wrong? Has the knave had something wrong happen to them early in life? Give me strength. Goofus reminds me of the sweet old lady who when hearing I wasn't a Christian wished to know where my parents went wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM Anigher perspective. I cant seem tk link this, so will cut and paste it: Born This Way?1.7k2171Scientists may have found a biological basis for homosexuality. That could be bad news for gay rights.By Mark Joseph Stern "Baby, you were born this way." As soon as Lady Gaga sang these words on her smash hit "Born This Way," they became a rallying cry for gay people around the world, an anthem for sexual minorities facing discrimination. The shiny, catchy song carries an empowering (if simple) message: Don't be ashamed about being gay, or bi, or trans, or anything—that's just how you were born. Gaga later named her anti-bullying charity after the same truism, and two filmmakers borrowed it for their documentary exposing homophobia in Africa. A popular "Born This Way"blog encourages users to submit reflections on "their innate LGBTQ selves." Need a quick, pithy riposte against anti-gay bigotry? Baby, we were born this way. MARK JOSEPH STERN Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for . He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues. Follow But were we? That's the foundational question behind the gay rights movement—and its opponents. If gay people were truly born that way, the old canard of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" (or "sexual preference") is immediately disproven. But if gay people weren't born that way, if scientists were unable to find any biological basis for sexual orientation, then the Family Research Councilcrowd could claim vindication in its fight to label homosexuality unnatural, harmful, and against nature. In recent years, scientists have proposed various speculative biological bases for homosexuality but never settled on an answer. As researchers draw closer to uncovering an explanation, however, a new question has arisen: What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb? What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented? That is one implication of one of the most widely accepted hypotheses thus far proposed. And if it's true, it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement. Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality. The fraternal birth order effect is a little perverse. It means that a disproportionate number of gay men are born into disproportionately homophobic households. Couples with large numbers of children tend to be religious and belong to denominations that are conservative and more homophobic. Consider the numbers: 1 percent of Unitarians have four or more children, while 3 percent of evangelical Protestants, 4 percent of Catholics, 6 percent of Muslims, and 9 percent of Mormons have families that large. At the same time, 64 percent of Evangelicals, 30 percent of Catholics, 61 percent of Muslims, and 68 percent of Mormons believe homosexuality should be"discouraged by society." (Compare that with 15 percent of Jews.) Big families that disapprove of gay people are likely to have gay people in their own clan. Perhaps these families would be more accepting if the specific biological basis for the birth order effect were elucidated. We know the effect is biological rather than social—it's entirely absent in men whose older brothers were adopted—but scientists haven't been able to prove much else. One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis. According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman's immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother's body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual. Or so Blanchard speculates. Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it's premised on a number of assumptions that haven't been proven. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as "anti-male," implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there's no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette. There's a problem with this explanation. Even though the gay rights movement theoretically wants proof that homosexuality is inborn, this particular hypothesis is, unintentionally, a little insulting. "The scientists behind the [maternal immunization] hypothesis talk about it as if they're not making judgments, but there are implicit judgments," says Jack Drescher, former chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Drescher points out, correctly, that the hypothesis is fundamentally one of pathology. If Blanchard is right, then (at least some) gay people are indeed born gay, but there's still something wrong with them. The hypothesis turns homosexuality into a birth defect, an aberration: Gay people are deviants from the normative mode of heterosexuality. We may have been born this way, the hypothesis implies, but that's not how it was supposed to happen. Drescher is skeptical that scientists will ever uncover a single biological basis for homosexuality—he suspects the root causes are more varied and complex—and suggests that it's the wrong question to ask in the first place. But the hunt will go on. The gay rights movement, like the black civil rights movement before it, begins with the proposition that we should not discriminate against people because of who they are or how they were born. That's a belief most Americans share, and it explains the success of the "born this way" anthem. If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it's a birth defect, as Blanchard's work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed. That's a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There's nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:16 PM Very good article, Ed. Thanks for posting it. Trouble is that some people, as witnessed on here, genuinely believe that being gay is so wrong that those who 'suffer' from homosexuality cannot be happy. They go on to try to convince us, and probably themselves, that there is no such thing as homosexual love or commitment or romance. They believe it is all about sex. They believe that being 'normal' is the only way to be happy. Sad, but unfortunately true. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:36 PM Dave, I actually said, "Homosexuals are defined by who they prefer to have sex with"....just as heterosexuals are so defined....just as paedophiles are so defined, or any other sexual grouping. The definition has nothing to do with "love", I have loved several men, my dear grandfather and uncle (guardian) to mention two, but this love does not make me a homosexual, both of these gentlemen would have been sickened by such a suggestion. Richard, I'm sure you know that in many cases, the law is an ass. Did you agree with the law which criminalised homosexuality? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM Very interesting article, Ed....what I have posted before, and your article alludes to, is that mother and fetus are joined during pregnancy...AND, that affects the nervous system, hormones through the 'receptors'...and in turn sets up the 'receptors' to be 'conditioned' to receive input that it can 'recognize'...even be programmed to receive....much like some babies are born with addictions to various substances, IF the mother was taking them during her pregnancy. See if this may shed some light on the subject.....Say the mother, during her pregnancy is very resentful toward the man who impregnated her, and can't get over it, is moody, resentful, and feels like the guy is a 'cruel unloving bastard'...and she carries those emotions and thoughts, instead of 'moving on', and 'getting over it'....she labors it,.....being as the fetus and mother are using the same body, while the child is being formed, don't you think that the receptors, from which the fetus, and later child, gets 'set up' and conditioned to process 'like-input' that its nervous system was formed with??? The answer is YES!...AND in years of counseling there are DEFINITE similarities consistent with homosexuals, emotional and psychological, to how they process information. That is not saying that those who were born with those similarities are 'at fault' by any choice of their own. That being said, there are the MAJORITY of homosexuals who are NOT born with that 'conditioning of incubation'. The ones that ARE felt that it was 'genetic'....but that was only .2% of them(as of a few years ago)....Other homosexuals heard that, or read that, talked amongst themselves and formed a 'consensus' that homosexuality was therefore 'genetic'...and it applied to ALL of them, which is simply, not true. Political Airheads tried to make it a 'Civil Rights' issue, based on genetics, akin to being born black, which it clearly is not! The other group, (which was NOT born that way) have bantered that it was, to divert attention the way from the 'stigma' they live with, which is coupled with 'guilt'....because they KNOW, that for them, in particular, it was a 'choice'....and therefore the confusion that leads to such a heated controversy, being held by those who DO NOT KNOW, and have NOT done their homework....and fanned by the political idiot-logues, who know NOTHING about what they spout off about...(quite a few on here)..... ...Taking it further, when a child, who WAS born with that condition, has interaction with a 'Father Figure' whether it be his natural father or not, and in that interaction the child gets his feelings hurt, either by abuse, or PERCEIVED abuse, due to correction or anything else, he may develop resentment that extends to 'unforgiveness' toward the 'Father Figure', and BANG, you have the same emotional/hormonal conditions that he is familiar with, from inside the womb. When the mother is stressed during pregnancy, her hormones are also at play....and have a direct effect on the gene (Xq28) that has the 'Markers' consistent with other homosexuals....and in that, he 'identifies' with the mother EMOTIONALLY....and often feels that he is 'the victim', much like his mother. Generally speaking, men, DO NOT get their sense of masculinity from their mothers!!!..The get it from their fathers, or a father figure!!! ...AND, if that same child has a 'built in resentment' toward father figures, or even a concept of 'God', then they tend to rely on the instincts that nurtured them in the womb, and has been 'verified', by whatever caused them, being a young child, to 'resent' their father or 'Father Figure'....they will then gravitate toward like minded others, usually during the 'experimentation period' during puberty....and the rest takes its course. To those who do NOT understand this, and label those who do, (such as myself, who studied 'Psych', and counseled as a marriage and family counselor), as being 'hateful' or 'bigoted toward homosexuals' or 'homophobic'...these are unlearned, politically conditioned idiots! One more thing, before I finish...I have lost two friends, one a close one, a musical genius and sound engineering mentor, to AIDS.....so I'm not interested in some nitwit barking accusations of which he or she don't know shit about! Now, does that sound like 'homophobia'???...or understanding?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:38 PM Dave, I actually said, "Homosexuals are defined by who they prefer to have sex with You did indeed, ake, and I still find it a stupid viewpoint. What do you mead 'defined by'. What am I defined by? What is someone who never has had sex defined by? How on earth can anyone be defined by who they have sex with rather than who they are? The law is indeed an ass in many cases. That is why they change it. That is why homosexuality was decriminalised. That is why homosexual marriage is now covered under statute law. 2 hurdles out of the way. Now all that needs to happen is for people to stop calling them perverts. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:05 PM you might say that creationism is a perversion of science , and of course I might think the opposite. but were you to say that creationists were perverts,....you would be saying something else entirely ! has ake actually used that emotionally charged word "pervert" in reference to homosexuals ?, at least as encompassing all, or even most of them. but to say that the practise of homosexuality is a perversion of the majority heterosexual practise is not to accuse anyone of being a pervert, in the usual sense, for eg priests preying on children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:11 PM but to say that the practise of homosexuality is a perversion of the majority heterosexual practise is not to accuse anyone of being a pervert Pete. What are people who practice perversions called? In case you didn't know, they are called perverts. To say homosexuality is a perversion means that homosexuals practice perversion. If you agree to that you must believe that homosexuals are perverts. Do you believe homosexuals are perverts? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:34 PM Since the word perversion clearly has a couple of meanings, (see link) why use it in this discussion (and continue to do so),as if could be seen as objectionable by some, could taint the user, and clearly leads to discourse (intended or not). Surely a more precise alternative description of the concept one intends to get accross could be used, could it not? Would that not be seen as reasonable, to promote civil discourse? perversion+oxford |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:46 PM Well Dave, as I do not know, nor wish to know, anything about your sexual preference, I can hardly be expected to provide you with a definition, but if you really have never engaged in sexual intercourse at all, I suppose you would be defined as asexual? Pete, thank you for the intervention that's it in a nutshell, basically. The "liberals" are a bit slow from the blocks on this one. Ideally,they should have had a bit of newspeak available by now to replace "perversion", they managed it pretty quickly with "gay" and "homosexual" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:12 PM "The best books... are those that tell you what you know already." George Orwell quote |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:42 PM Hey Ed, I just posted another post, but on the Transmission' thread. Being as these are pretty closely merged, you might want to check it out. Regards!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:46 PM Ok, thanks Will check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 14 - 08:26 PM Yer' welcome!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Apr 14 - 10:20 PM DtG I've been counting angels on the heads of pins, the usual count I get is 24-27 unless the are river dancing then I get nine. I can't tell which ones are perverts. I can't tell which ones are thinking of the others as perverts because no one is asking. Because they are dancing. We, on the other hand, are goofing around on the Internets. do we really to know each person's personal thoughts? Other than the ones they choose to share I mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:12 AM I too have been counting. Since my last post, we have had the following comparisons to being gay. People the worm held in high regard would be sickened by homosexuality. Like paedophiles Perversion of the heterosexual practice. Priests preying on children. "Liberals" replacing the word pervert with gay. Says a lot of the carnal desires and mental leaps that go on in the minds of sick puppies if you ask me. If I hear that Julie and Fred are to marry, I don't sit there thinking of them having sex and letting my mind wander to depravity. The more they defend themselves, the more they reveal. What is disturbing is those who don't like the idea of challenging them. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:52 AM Ideally,they should have had a bit of newspeak available by now to replace "perversion", they managed it pretty quickly with "gay" and "homosexual" Best so far. The word perversion is interchangeable with gay and homosexual. You really are good with that spade, ake. Keep digging, we could end up never seeing you again. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:08 AM It sounds like 'THEY', to whom you referred, perverted definitions with bias....so, 'THEY' are the 'perverts'. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:35 AM I prefer it when Goofus says they. Far better than him saying us, regardless of the subject... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Ed T Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:52 AM New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:28 AM Sorry Ed but having read it, I still cannot see how this is insightful. Try reading it again, but where it says homosexual or gay, read it as heterosexual or straight. If it doesn't read the same, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: akenaton Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:38 AM Dave, I think you know very well who "they" are.....and they are not necessarily homosexuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:48 AM Pervection? And one who practices it is pervect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM I mean, we all like a bit of kinky in our sex, don't we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM I'm all for kinky but you'd be a Bridge too far mate... I've been reading today of a UKIP councillor who used the exact same words as our resident creep in his denouncement of gay men and the "liberal plot" giving them respectability. Not just sickening but looks like it is more organised than I thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:37 PM Muskrat: "Sorry Ed but having read it, I still cannot see how this is insightful. Try reading it again, but where it says homosexual or gay, read it as heterosexual or straight. If it doesn't read the same, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny." Of course, if you read it the way it was, you might actually LEARN something....but that might be a 'novel concept' when your political airhead is up your politically brain-locked ass!...OR try reading it WITHOUT thinking of words to change, just to suit your falsely based agenda!....Surprise surprise!..I've only been telling you and that other phony, Don Firth(DF), this for about three years!!!!! ...to which he and you, along with some other idiot airheads, have been accusing me of being 'homophobic'.....maybe instead of changing your mind about things, maybe just apply a new tube of 'Preparation H'....Things might go smoother, and be less painful! ................................................................................. Ever READ THIS BEFORE????: Subject: RE: BS: P.E. stops you being gay? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Apr 13 - 03:44 AM From the Stanford study that you posted: ""Fetal development studies suggest how such a gene might influence such a complex behavior. The development of a fetus into a male is accomplished by the development of the testes, which produce testosterone, which has a wide range of physiological effects. During the perinatal period, a week before and after birth, testosterone has an irreversible organizing effect on the body and brain of males. If the hormone is absent during this period, the individual's anatomy and behavior never can become wholly male. A testosterone surge during puberty activates male sexual development and behavior." When they get done playing around, they have also found that this 'abnormal development' in "...testosterone has an irreversible organizing effect on the body and brain of males." is caused by the mother's disposition during pregnancy....RECEPTORS! Stanford study: "Identical twin studies shed additional light on the genetic underpinnings of sexual preference. If there are differences in preference between identical twins, who share the same genes, then that difference cannot be genetic. Here, the research indicates that in cases where one identical male twin is gay, about half the time the other twin is gay as well. "This is way above 4 percent, so it's got to be genetic, but it is nowhere near 100 percent," This is Goldstein's OPINION...overlooking that the RECEPTORS, which are from the same mother, are 'nourishing' or setting up the responses and 'needs', which homosexual BEHAVIOR patterns are formed. Continuing from the Stanford predetermined 'study': "The results of this survey are supported by studies of "gender non-conforming children." In little girls, this behavior, acting as tomboys, bears no social stigma. In little boys, cross-dressing, playing with dolls and behaving like girls is socially damaging. A larger than average number of such "sissy boys" become gay adults, she said." So she sums up the study with this little 'gem'...."...In little boys, cross-dressing, playing with dolls and behaving like girls is socially damaging." So cross dressing is 'genetic'??????...and playing with dolls???? Sounds more CULTURAL to me......which is a response, to appeasing RECEPTORS! NIH' 'Study': Read this carefully, (I'll put in capitals the misleading wordage) "WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Many homosexual men APPEAR to INHERIT a gene FROM THE MOTHERS that influences sexual orientation, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported Thursday." Why only from the mothers?????.....I know why, and you run from it. The fathers aren't carrying the fetus, which 'SUGGESTS' even LOUDER that the formation of RECEPTORS in the nervous system, has a GREAT deal with the mother/fetal link, than anything 'genetic' from the father. "The finding -- certain to add fuel to the already heated debate over gay rights -- supports earlier studies which SUGGESTED that inherited genetic factors AT LEAST PLAY A ROLE in determining sexual orientation." ``Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision. PEOPLE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE GENES THEY INHERIT" While that is true, it is a blanket statement, as if to tie it into the homosexual 'debate'.....because the trait is not genetically based! EITHER THIS STUDY, WITH IT'S DOUBLE TALK WAS FUNDED BY A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, OR WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY WAS PREDETERMINED. You can see it clearly in the wording, and carefully placed 'disclaimers'....LIKE THIS ONE:(but read it carefully, you will see 'RECEPTORS' all over the place!) "The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes; it is ALWAYS INHERITED FROM THE MOTHERS. Genes are arranged along 46 chromosomes, each consisting of tiny coils of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, WHICH CARRIES THE INSTRUCTIONS TO MANUFACTURE a particular body substance. There was no such similar sharing in the same region among heterosexual men. The researchers have not yet compared the homosexuals' genetic information to the other group." WHAT????????????!!!! They come to that conclusion without comparing them to the other group????????? I've had issues with the NIH before, for being agenda driven phonies, but even you, who are WANTING to hear these results can't buy into that crap!...at least I wouldn't think you were THAT stupid!!! (but you never know.....) That 'study'(?) from the NIH, is just so ambiguous, and set up in it's wording just to play into giving people what they want to hear, rather than any serious study!!! 'Scientific American'... OK..I just saw the title..it said enough...AND, I'm aware of that, already. We used to call it, by asking, 'Are you worried?' Oh, and if that was included as an innuendo, you can shove it! As I've said quite a few times before..."I know what they are, and I know what they're not"......which, if you could possibly understand what an OBJECTIVE person would say! ...or do you know what objectivity is?...you've rarely shown it! GfS P.S. Its behavioral, set up by the mothers, connection during an emotionally stressed pregnancy. BET ON IT! ......and more often than not, because of resentments toward the father!"" THANK YOU ED!!! P.P.S. SRS, you might want to re-visit all those posts of mine, you so ignorantly deleted!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,thinks we need a laugh Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:11 PM Childrens Science Exam Answers. These are real answers given by children. Q: Name the four seasons. A: Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar. Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink. A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists. Q: How is dew formed? A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire. Q: How can you delay milk turning sour? A: Keep it in the cow. Q: What causes the tides in the oceans? A: The tides are a fight between the Earth and the Moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature hates a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight. Q: What are steroids? A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs. Q: What happens to your body as you age? A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental. Q! : What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty? A: He says good-bye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery. Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes. A: Premature death. Q: What is artificial insemination? A: When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow. Q: How are the main parts of the body categorized? (e.g., abdomen.) A: The body is consisted into three parts - the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels, A, E, I,O and U. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:53 PM Children??...Those look more like answers from Professor Don! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:42 PM very funny, need a laugh. perhaps you should put it on the joke thread and spread the hilarity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:17 PM GFS - the study (which you read as asserting that behaviour you hate is a choice) says exactly the opposite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM It says that it is NOT 'genetic'. The rest is your assumption. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:35 PM BTW, If you are referring to my last post on here, From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:37 PM, You may be confusing my test, with the study that I am commenting on, as a response, to a link posted by another poster. Try reading it carefully, to see what the study, from Stanford says, the NIH, and my commentary on them...and time has proven my comments to be accurate. Your really should read it...it is enlightening, in view of the most recent research. Look, I'm not the one putting a value judgement one way or the other...I've said in the past, "I know what it is, and I know what it isn't".....nor am I responsible for the emotional feelings one may feel, as more data gets out...nor do I feel compelled to lie to you...just a guy who told you the truth, and have been for a long time. Fair enough? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM Goofus worked on the assumption a study says something isn't genetic. He likes that so finds ways of proving the theory. He thinks therefore he is. A common trait of our less palatable contributors. It reminds me of what an old college tutor told me. "It says Andrews Liver Salts on the sides of buses but they don't stop at every shit house." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:41 AM correction(typo): Second line reads, "You may be confusing my test,..." Should read: "You may be confusing my text,..." GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:48 AM My dear Goofus. If you are to go through your posts correcting them , we'll be here all bloody day.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:20 AM Dear Stupid. Someone may be born with predilections that are not genetic as such. That does not make them choices. Geddit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:11 PM >>>My dear Goofus. If you are to go through your posts correcting them , we'll be here all bloody day.<<< My dear Musket, unless your strategy is to elicit sympathy for those you call "unpalatable" you are failing miserably with your constant stream of whiny insults. You are pissing me off. I do not want to fell sympathy. I just want to ignore the nonsense. Please allow me to do that. Please shut the fuck up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Apr 14 - 07:27 PM Get a bloody life, Wacko. Bandwagons do not suit you! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:51 PM Correction(typo): I'm talking to pedantic idiots! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:17 AM Dear Jack Your post asking nasty bigoted hate merchants to shut the fuck up too appears to have got lost in the ether. Or was it the one where you called them old fashioned ? That said, this is a thread set up to point and laugh at creationists. You are very good at ripping the piss out of them. (Ok. You have to read your posts three times in order to notice but I guess it isn't easy when your God conscious sits on your shoulder.) Yet hatred and bigotry only gets the old fashioned moniker. You have found recently that your keyboard can construct swear words and you use them to have a go at hones who find bigotry offensive, so why don't you express your humanity and turn your cussing towards those who incite hatred? Why only at those who refuse to see Mudcat polluted by them and their apologists? Why is that Jack? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 14 Apr 14 - 02:37 AM Did you know? This thread was about to fall off the page? It hasn't done anything wrong, it isn't about any subject and provides the opportunity for our stereotypes to shine through loud and proud. Support your local boorish thread before you lose it ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:20 AM I had forgotten This classic. In fact, I think I will just post Leon Rosselson links on religious threads in future. Any suggestions for any ones we can post on gay-bashing threads? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Musket Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:46 AM Use the same ones Dave. Love thy neighbour, all equal under God and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism in the name of God. At the weekend, a hospital chaplain in Lincoln married his boyfriend and now has a husband. And a Bishop, who took it upon himself to tell The BBC he called chaplain in before the wedding and warned him of the consequences. Love and marriage, Love and marriage, Go together like a horse and carriage...... Presumably, all are not equal under God. For instance, if God existed and was anywhere near the claims made about him, the bishop would be lower than the chaplain in his opinion. Or should be... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:42 AM Well then ,just 'spank the bishop'!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: frogprince Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM "Love thy neighbour, all equal under God and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism in the name of God." Musket, I must confess that I can't quite tell how you mean that. I can understand that you would consider the "under God" wording to be bullshit. But if that were removed, leaving just "Love your neighbour, all equal and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism.", would that wording still express your feelings, or how would your react to it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you.. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Apr 14 - 08:36 AM I would guess, frogprince, that it refers to the hypocrisy of religions that preach one thing and practice another. Just my guess though. I am sure Musket will elaborate. Cheers DtG |
