nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

screamer

There’s a lot more people on his list there that will burn in hell.... they’re not making a big deal of it though. Perspective is lost on some people and I’m very tired of the outrage brigade at this stage. Sticks n stones and all that......

[Deleted User]

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

It may also be an evolutionary nessesity to curb population growth.

Humans are already doing this naturally. Birth rates have fallen off a cliff even in the developing world.

Bannasidhe

My take on it is this:

Person whose job affords them a wide social media platform uses that platform to express his beliefs that a group of people who he believes are condemned to eternal damnation should live the way he does.
His employers say listen - no one is saying you aren't entitled to your beliefs but when you are employed by us could you keep them to yourself and not broadcast them to the world because we think you are talking shyte and don't want to be associated with your personal beliefs. Seriously mate, you're wearing your uniform in your profile photo so like shut up or else.

One year later. Employee repeats his judgmental opinions. Employer says Mate, we warned ya! You had your chance but either you think you are too important to face the consequences or your personal beliefs mean more to you than the terms and conditions of the contract you signed. Either way - You're fired.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have anything to show that the person in question shares your unique interpretation of hell?

There's nothing unique in my view. Attempt to assume some kind of higher, populist ground noted however

So gay people get tortured.
Some people think that's kind of a hurtful idea.

The question is whether their basis for being hurt involves a full understanding of the position. Or whether it's one based on ignorance. If based on ignorance, then the hurt, whilst understandable, isn't valid.

You are almost contradicting yourself in single sentences.
Saying that being gay is a sin (or however you'd like to split that hair) is saying that gay people are lesser.

I didn't say that being gay was a sin. It's worth noting that you are splitting hairs yourself. Sinners have sin coursing through every cell in their bodies. It's you who focus on homosexuality as if there isn't a thousand and one other aspects of a person through which sin can express.

I'm sure YOU don't see it that way. And you tell yourself it's a completely innocuous idea. But you are not all people and to someone else who doesn't share your particular religious viewpoint such a position might be offensive and hurtful because of how it sounds.

It's called "the offence of the cross". The whole idea of our being sinners to our core, that everything we do is tinged and tainted with sin is an utterly objectionable concept to all who don't see it as true. Some folk truly do think mankind is fundamentally good and is on an ever upward trajectory. Especially when it comes to themselves.

The core of the Christian message is offensive. It strikes at the heart of the sinner and calls him out. Now a person can take that message and, via their own sinful heart, amplify the natural offence and make it offensive (Phelps for example)

But merely pointing out the offence of the cross, isn't in itself problematic.

But alcoholism is a disease that results in physical and psychological harm. That's not comparable to being gay.

I'm afraid you're not in a position to know what harm is caused by sin. You can't look into anothers life. Nor know the intricate ways harm manifests.

I've a friend in a psychiatric hospital at the moment. Even though he's had insights into how his childhood harm experiences have grown and manifested in adult ways, he can't still see how his harmful adult behaviours connect back. Logically he should - for there is the connection in plain sight. Emotionally he can't however and it's emotion that see's him located in a hospital.

All of which is indistinguishable from something you've made up.
And which is in indistinguishable from the same claims made by a christian who believes that interracial marriage is also sinful.
Your argument isn't convincing.

To you. And yours not to me. The question is whether all ought hold their peace until all others are convinced by the argument presented.

Since LGBT agenda isn't exactly silent, it's a bit hypocritical of you to suppose a rugby player ought hold his peace.

Not presumption. It's based on the most up to date and current knowledge in the matter.

Fine if your faith in science is as unwavering as yours. Me? I'd have my doubts. The current editor of the Lancet and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine 9 (about as establishment as you can get) issue excoriating views on the state of modern scientific research. The self interest, the corruption, the plain twisting of the facts.

Science has become like football: once a simple enough game of sport. Now very big business and subject to inflluences by vested interests and movements.

Let me guess: you read The Guardian or the Irish Times and suppose you're reading the actual news?

If there is one thing that is sure beyond all doubt is that the world ploughs ahead into things without knowing nthe consequences - only to have unknown negative consequences arrive further down the line.

Who would have thunk that joyful consumerism would have brought the planet to it's knees. Who would have thought that finite resources would one day run out. Who would have thought that the internet would have brought hardcore porn-on-demand into the hands of children or have 12 people sitting at a restaurant table all staring into their phones. We have a habit of shooting first and asking questions later.

You're going to have to explain your position more clearly here.
Some people object to the idea that mixing races should be normalised. How is such a position different from yours?

My position is that there is no issue with mixed races per se (although I would have a problem with the unrestrained and unmanaged diluting a nations culture (for reasons that has nothing to do with supposing one race better than another). I have no reason to see a problem with it.

You might as well ask why I prefer Japanese cars over German ones. The only connection between gay and race is in your own head. There needn't be one.

Because there is no evidenced detriment to normalising it. If your objection relies on an unprovable arbitrary consequence from an entity that is indistinguishable from fiction, then you don't have a valid objection.

a) You would have to demonstrate that the lack of current evidence is proof that no evidence will ever arise.

b) You would have to show that the suit of evidences you cite fully incorporate all the ways in which detriment can out. Good luck with that.

b) You would have to demonstrate why an empirically evidenced viewpoint is the optimal way to base your viewpoints. You already know that that is a philosophical viewpoint. And that that philosophical viewpoint can't be established by your gold-standard metric, empiricalism

Emprically demonstrate that empiricism is the supreme measure. Can you see the bootstrap?

Because not normalising it, and normalising offensive hurtful opinions (such as gay people are bad/gay people deserve to be in hell) results in actual, real provable harm.

I point you to the above - the reliance on empircism to as the gold standard.

antiskeptic

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

If you replace gays with black folks would you hold the same views.

Being gay isn't a choice the same way being Black, Asian or White isn't a choice

The question isn't whether it's a matter of choice. The question is whether a gay lifestyle / being born black or white is sinful or not.

antiskeptic

Anteayer wrote: »

We just managed to utterly oppress them and push them into the shadows for absolutely no reason other than religiously inspired bigotry and hatred. Exactly the same way as we shunned and punished single mothers and so on. It's a shameful and very unenlightened period of human history that really should be consigned to the Dark Ages.

There's a bit of a false dilemma going on here. To suppose that the only way to deal with one form of sinful behaviour (bigotry and hatred) is to normalize another form of sinful behaviour.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether it's a matter of choice. The question is whether a gay lifestyle / being born black or white is sinful or not.

"lifestyle" :rolleyes:

"whether being born black is a sin" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

batgoat

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether it's a matter of choice. The question is whether a gay lifestyle / being born black or white is sinful or not.

So you'd have no issue with a rugby player saying that a specific race is sinful so doomed to hell? You also seem to be ignoring that he's terrible pr for rugby and is violating his contract... FYI, being gay is not a "lifestyle"..

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's nothing unique in my view. Attempt to assume some kind of higher, populist ground noted however

This is a misrepresentation.
I am not arguing from a "populist" position.
I'm pointing out that this person is unlikely to share your uncommon belief and definitions re hell torture etc.
You have no reason to believe that he does.

So, as such, I take his comments at face value and assume he has the most common versions of those definitions.
Further I point out that most other people would also adhere to those definitions.

Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that this person must adhere to your definitions and you are feigning confusion as to how people could possible take him to mean what he said on face value and not your specific version of the concepts

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) You would have to demonstrate that the lack of current evidence is proof that no evidence will ever arise.

b) You would have to show that the suit of evidences you cite fully incorporate all the ways in which detriment can out. Good luck with that.

So no, you cannot produce any evidence to support your idea that being gay leads to harm. It's all based on your religious ideas and untrained, uneducated uninformed and biased opinions.

I remain unconvinced.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I point you to the above - the reliance on empircism to as the gold standard.

Your alternative is not at all viable.

We aren't going to make progress on your positions re empiricism and you making factual statments without and in spite of evidence.
I would however like you to detail what exactly the "LGBT agenda" is.
You guys often bring it up, but it's a lot like the Illuminati or the Lizard people.

What do you think it is? Who do you think is running it and why? To what end?

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

His employers say listen - no one is saying you aren't entitled to your beliefs but when you are employed by us could you keep them to yourself ...
You're fired.

You are right.
But antiskeptic is also right...

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.
Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Nobody is seriously accusing the guy of incitement to hatred, or of illegal hate speech, and nobody is arresting the guy. This is more a story of corporate greed, and the ability of the current very vocal majority to enforce their own moral view while silencing dissenters.

Anteayer

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a bit of a false dilemma going on here. To suppose that the only way to deal with one form of sinful behaviour (bigotry and hatred) is to normalize another form of sinful behaviour.

The big, big, big, BIG issue with that is you're assume that being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's not and there is lots of very solid scientific evidence that supports that too.

What you're saying is basically like saying that being black, white, male, female, to have curly hair or to be Irish is sinful.

Whatever about being sinful, it's illegal and socially unacceptable to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation and it's also illegal to incite hatred against gay people and a wide range of other people in society.

If someone were to start saying that a particular colour or skin were sinful or making similar statements about minority religious groups, there would likely be legal implications but somehow ranting about gay people being sinful is still seen as legitimate religious expression.

Whether or not you chose to ignore reality is your own business but being gay isn't some kind of philosophical stance.

Outkast_IRE

The moment i realised it has peaked was when on the front page of rte last week they had some spoofer giving an opinion piece on LGBTQIA+ . I had to google the bloodly thing to find out what the second half of it meant.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

You are right.
But antiskeptic is also right...

Nobody is seriously accusing the guy of incitement to hatred, or of illegal hate speech, and nobody is arresting the guy. This is more a story of corporate greed, and the ability of the current very vocal majority to enforce their own moral view while silencing dissenters.

That moral view being "Hey, maybe gay people don't deserve to be tortured forever and saying that they do is a bit not ok..."

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

You are right.
But antiskeptic is also right...

Nobody is seriously accusing the guy of incitement to hatred, or of illegal hate speech, and nobody is arresting the guy. This is more a story of corporate greed, and the ability of the current very vocal majority to enforce their own moral view while silencing dissenters.

If you think using your large social media platform to say a particular group of people are 'unholy' /damned isn't inciting hatred than you must be unaware that the Sultan of Brunai used exactly the same justification to introduce Capital Punishment. Pointing the finger at a section of society and calling them 'sinners' is to incite hatred.

Corporate greed or one individual who believes his beliefs give him the right to ignore the terms and conditions of his lucrative contract of employment even after being warned not to associate his employers with his views?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

That moral view being "Hey, maybe gay people don't deserve to be tortured forever and saying that they do is a bit not ok..."

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

I know from previous discussion with you that you only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Corporate greed or one individual who believes his beliefs give him the right to ignore the terms and conditions of his lucrative contract of employment even after being warned not to associate his employers with his views?

Yes, ultimately its the lucrative sponsorship deals that are at stake.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think using your large social media platform to say a particular group of people are 'unholy' /damned isn't inciting hatred than you must be unaware that the Sultan of Brunai used exactly the same justification to introduce Capital Punishment

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that both use their religious beliefs as justification to point the finger and condemn others.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

I know from previous discussion with you that you only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed.

You're putting words in my mouth here.
Never say that people couldn't say what they wanted.
I'm just arguing that people should also then be free to point out how some people's speech is a bit horrible.
Like for instance: saying that gay people deserve torture.
These are horrible, hateful things to say.

We're also pointing out that people can't really pretend it's the work of the gay illuminati and there's nothing wrong such hateful ideas.

You're welcome to explain how I " only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed" because I have never said any such thing.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Yes, ultimately its the lucrative sponsorship deals that are at stake.

The same sponsorship deals that paid that employees wages.

batgoat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The same sponsorship deals that paid that employees wages.

Wonder if he also views campaigns such as 'Keep Racism out of Football' as further examples of corporate greed. Same logic follows it.

antiskeptic

Kingmob wrote:

This is a misrepresentation.
I am not arguing from a "populist" position.
I'm pointing out that this person is unlikely to share your uncommon belief and definitions re hell torture etc.
You have no reason to believe that he does.

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

We're arguing over nowt really: hell is a horror whether it be actually hellfire and brimstone or that just an attempt to describe its actual horror that encompasses far more than just the physical person.

Your mistaking a hellfire model being your goto with it necessarily being a goto for those who might be more informed than you.

Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that this person must adhere to your definitions and you are feigning confusion as to how people could possible take him to mean what he said on face value and not your specific version of the concepts

People will take it according to their own understanding. You are laying your understanding on him. I'm merely saying this need by no means be. My understanding ( no actual fire) is commonplace not esoteric.

So no, you cannot produce any evidence to support your idea that being gay leads to harm

Nor can you that science is the prime way for everyone to assess such things. I say everyone - not just you or those who share your philosophical faith

It's all based on your religious ideas and untrained, uneducated uninformed and biased opinions.

I remain unconvinced.

As do I by your inability to provide a proof for your philosophical roots.

You concentrate very much on the architectural merit of the empiricist structure you inhabit. When it comes to showing us the foundations on which it all rests ... silence

You can fool alot of the people alot of the time with such misdirection. Its not that folk can't be fooled by the glossy packaging. I'm more interested in the contents however

Your alternative is not at all viable.

It appears we are both satisfied with our respective systems, without being able to demonstrate a proof of them to another.

Snap..

We aren't going to make progress on your positions re empiricism and you making factual statments without and in spite of evidence.

The factual position is that there is no proof for empiricism uber alles.

I would however like you to detail what exactly the "LGBT agenda" is.
You guys often bring it up, but it's a lot like the Illuminati or the Lizard people.

What do you think it is? Who do you think is running it and why? To what end?

Nobody need run it anymore than anyone need run neo-conservatism in order that it flourish. It arises from goals sufficiently shared by a sufficient number of people. In so far as there is a string puller then he is satan. ☺

The background would be #meonly liberalism. The idea that I ought be able to do anything I like so long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else (where 'harm' is a loose term, defined in the eye of the beholder)

The formula for inception is a response to an evil (where evil is defined as a bastardisation of God's intent): whether womens lib arising from misogyonistic patriarchy or the LBGT movement arising from hatred towards gays.

The outcome leads to more evil (as defined above). And so today we have industrial childcare vans pulling up outside schools with 'open from 7am to 7pm' emblazoned on the side. With all the psychological harm involved in same (don't bother citing your papers, my wifes a qualified counselling psychologist and I'm aware of both the research and the problematic nature of research). Or the fact that there's been a massive transfer of wealth borne of womens lib (it takes two earners to finance a household where ot used take only one).

Ditto the LGBT movement. All is to be normalised unto kids books with cross dressing themes or 11 year olds placed into gender reassignment programmes by parents who've swallowed whole,the current mood and flavour.

Its not rocket science: the hand that rocks the cradle (whether through ownership of the media or influence within same) comes to rule the world

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

Well no.
If they were a thinking reflective person, they wouldn't being saying such awful things in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ditto the LGBT movement. All is to be normalised unto kids books with cross dressing themes or 11 year olds placed into gender reassignment programmes by parents who've swallowed whole,the current mood and flavour.

Its not rocket science: the hand that rocks the cradle (whether through ownership of the media or influence within same) comes to rule the world

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati and lizard people then...

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that both use their religious beliefs as justification to point the finger and condemn others.

You might not realise that the philosophical underpinnings of your position (eg: empiricism (a.k.a. the research shows) and rationalism) have no proofs.

They are faith based positions (that is: you believe in them in the absence of proofs).

And so, in condeming others you do so from the same base position that they do (personal conviction / faith)

In so far as 'religious' is deemed a dirty word, a word with negative connotations, so to can be dismissed the 'philosophical' view.

antiskeptic

Double post

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

Well no.
If they were a thinking reflective person, they wouldn't being saying such awful things in the first place.

Its only awful to the mood of the times. If you think there are bigger fish to fry than that well...

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati..

Dunno what that means. If your happy to have your kids raised like battery chickens because the research says it fine then knock yourself out.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its only awful to the mood of the times. There is bigger picture to fry.

No, it's awful cause it's awful the same way most people understand that similar racist opinions are awful.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dunno what that means.

Your rant there at the end is similar in tone, structure and belief to the people who believe that the illuminati or lizard people from the centre of the Earth are soon to take over the world.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your happy to have your kids raised like battery chickens because the research says it fine then knock yourself out.

So
"Don't be ****ty to gay people"
=
"Our kids will be raised like battery chickens"

Ok...

antiskeptic

recidite wrote:

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

Bit of of a problem here. Whats legal an illegal lies in the hands of vested interests (think Julian Assange).

Freedom is either free or its in the hands of vested interests and moods of the times to decide.

Which do you want? Pure freedom or control by vested interests?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might not realise that the philosophical underpinnings of your position (eg: empiricism (a.k.a. the research shows) and rationalism) have no proofs.

They are faith based positions (that is: you believe in them in the absence of proofs).

And so, in condeming others you do so from the same base position that they do (personal conviction / faith)

In so far as 'religious' is deemed a dirty word, a word with negative connotations, so to can be dismissed the 'philosophical' view.

Much wordy raphood but little substance there.

What I believe is that someone's life style choice to subscribe to a particular religious belief does not grant them permission to publicly judge others and proclaim them damned and if they choose to do so then the repercussions should be met with the acknowledgement that they got themselves into this position.

antiskeptic

kingmob wrote:

Our kids will be raised like battery chickens"

Not will be. Are being.

There's the unexpected consequences of following the mood of the times.