Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Maybe you don't understand what a debate is.
|
No that is you. You have no idea how to debate. You think debate means you demand everyone else prove their points, while you excuse yourself by never supporting yours. Time and time again you make the claim that people making positive statements have to support them. But time and time again you make positive claims and then give us excuses for why you feel you should not even attempt to substantiate them in any way.
So no, the only person here failing when it comes to debate is you, you and only you. But as usual, you do love your MO of accusing others of the things only you are actually doing. One rule for you, and one for everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Maybe you need to learn to respect a difference of opinion.
|
Again this is a failure in your, not anyone else. ENGAGING with the opinions of others, pulling them apart, checking them, fault checking them, and correcting them IS a respect for difference of opinion. It is you that is in error by treating it like an affront or an attack and getting all haughty about it when people disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Characterizing my opinion as "moaning", "bleating" or "whining" is, guess what, insulting and disrespectful!
|
Only because you contrive to feign offence at facts. I call a spade a spade and if you are insulted by facts then this is your failing not mine. The simply fact is that we have a law in place with regards refusing business, and you do whinge and whine and bleat when the law is applied, however correctly, to Christians. Because you have this entirely fantastical notion that "Freedom of Religion" constitutes grounds for demanding exemption from public laws. When it does not. And you get haughty and upset when you are denied this "Right" you imagine you should have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I have debated extensively why I feel the law is immoral.
|
Not really. You have declared it to be immoral a few times and said very little else. And as I keep pointing out I agree with you. I think, as you appear to, that a person who opens a PRIVATE business should have the right to accept or refuse business from whomever they wish, for whatever reasons, and we should not feel the right to judge their reasons. It is none of our business.
But the vast majority of the content of yours posts is not related to this, it is related to whinging when the current law is applied correctly to people you would rather be made exempt from it.... and how you feel certain groups, particularly those you personally think qualify as "christian" should be made exempt from those laws. And while I might agree with you on many aspects of the law itself, I shall never agree with you, I warrant, to giving special privilege to religion(s) with regard to secular law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I have a low tolerance for rude people. It's a character flaw.
|
A flaw we share. But I have equally low tolerance for someone constructing a narrative of offence, contriving to be offended in order to feed that narrative, and contriving equally hard to ignore everyone and anything that does not feed that narrative while responding with disproportionate vigor to anything that does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
False. I simply don't have the time or energy to take on everyone at once. So I practice LIFO. I've gone toe to toe with posters like Shinra who are not directly insulting unlike you. Nothing kind and patient about your posts.
|
Nothing you have said here is representative of reality. But as I started this post with, the fact is you are contriving to take offence where none exists and to misrepresent the goals of debate, and the meaning of disagreements. You are simply contriving to dodge replying the content of the vast majority of my posts.... after all anyone can see how much I have written on this very thread and how much of it you have dodged and not replied to..... by simply constructing a narrative of offense to reply to instead.
And yet for all your whinging that people make personal comments about your intelligence, education, and whether you injected toxic chemicals and the like.... you can not find one example of this in any of my posts to you on any thread. I simply do not fit that narrative you have erected. So the result is you simply dodge and ignore the vast majority of my posts and post content. Which I am happy to highlight each time it happens as if you wish to erode your own credibility in this fashion... I am equally happy to facilitate and further that goal for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
As I said before, my protests begins when homosexuals start interfering with religious freedoms as in the case here.
|
Except it is NOT the case here. At all. And every non-point you have made in this and similar threads is reliant on your simply pretending otherwise. The law is quite clear, and asking business owners to conform to it is NOT a violation of anyones freedoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
As it stands, no one has given me a solid reason why the bakers should be forced to violate their religious beliefs.
|
Except you have. But you seem to feel that ignoring the fact makes the fact go away. The solid reason is that your religious beliefs or theirs has nothing to do with secular law, or the public sphere. Religion beliefs are PRIVATE beliefs. And the fact is the law states that you can not refuse business to someone on the grounds of bigotry against some aspect of their life, lifestyle, race or anything.
No one is FORCING them to do anything either, that is a comical fantasy narrative you have erected. The fact is they opened a business in full knowledge of the law and its implications. So no one forced them to anything, they signed up for it willingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I already did. No universal moral argument exists to support racism. You can't say the same about homosexual.
|
Except I have given you a good universal moral law but as above you ignore things so you can pretend they are not there. The universal law is "innocent until proven guilty". If you can not erect a moral argument against something, then that something is not immoral. We CAN erect moral arguments against racism. You have failed at every turn to erect any against homosexuality however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you are going with the born argument then why is it ok to treat pedophiles with hate and usually desire to see them executed?
|
It is not and I have not seen many people argue that it is. We can prevent, on moral grounds, pedophiles from engaging in their desires or assist them in curbing them (there has recently been some interesting research showing that animated porn catering to their desires has a large negative impact on their offence rate for example). But there is nothing morally wrong with simply BEING a pedophile. The concept of "hate the sin not the sinner" is not something unique to your pet religion of choice you know. It is a human concept. I would hate no one for any desire, emotion, compunction or feeling they have. I judge them solely based on what they do WITH those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Consent is a copout.
|
Quite the opposite. "Consent" and the concept of informed consent is a key moral axiom in the moral world view of a vast number of people. It is no cop out, it is foundational. The only "cop out" I am seeing in moral discussion on these threads is the "cop out" of not supporting your position and simply declaring things like "gods plan" to do the work for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Except for those who contract HIV and must live with it the rest of their lives. And according to the CDC, that's a significant number of the homosexual population.
|
No. It is not. It is a significant number of the specific parts of the population you willfully cherry pick in order to manufacture a point where none exists. You contrive to, for example, simply leave Lesbians out of your definition of "homosexual" because this massages the numbers in the right direction for you. The quantities of HIV in the entire homosexual population _as a whole_ however simply fail to fit your narrative, so you cherry pick the numbers and sample sets to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
What about the children of gay parents who are targeted and bullied mercilessly by their peers?
|
You have not shown that any such thing exists. But you are showing that you have little to no concept of the operations of bullies and how they function and choose targets. A short course in human behavioral psychology would do you justice here. But to summarize a little for you, bullies rarely go after a target based on something like homosexuality or ginger hair or anything else. They are too cowardly for that. What bullies DO do is pick a vulnerable target first, someone they CAN bully, and then choose retrospectively the material they will use to justify the bullying second.
Not to mention that the anti homosexual narrative people like you feed into society is what gives such bullies the structures to work with. The anti homosexual atmosphere you and your ever decreasing cohort generate feeds into that bullying..... and then opportunistically you use that bullying to feed into that narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Wow, then we should be seeing huge drops in the HIV rate within countries that have had SSM for a decade now. But it looks like the stats remain the same. HIGH.
|
Following your course on behavioral psychology you would also do well to drop into a course on disease theory and vectors. Which you will not do of course as it would do your narrative no good at all. I have corrected you on this very error many times and yet you contrive to cling to it because you feel it supports your narrative.
The facts are however that with the mathematics of disease vectoring, a decade is nearly nothing. A temporal drop in the ocean. Further the statistics of which you speak are bolsters by the fact that people with HIV are now surviving longer. It is no longer a death sentence. Which means that while contractions of the disease go down.... the quantities of people actually living with it goes up not down.
As usual therefore when you presume to quote statistics you do not understand..... the statistics do not AT ALL say what you think they do, or mean what you want them to mean. Certainly it is not as simple or simplistic as you would want it to be. You can not just look at one factor like SSM, and correlate it directly with statistics, and then simple declare off the bat that SSM has had a positive, negative, or neutral effect. It simply does not work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The deplorable healthcare conditions are a huge factor in the spread of HIV in Africa.
|
Partly, but there are many other issues. Religious Clergy went into that country preaching the sinful use of condoms for example. Which certainly did not help. Further Africa is a country rife with superstition and false science, and there are ideas in that culture that HIV can be cured by having sex with virgins for example. A claim that, as you can imagine, furthers, not hampers, the spread of the infection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And all those changing costs money. Guess who pays for it? The tax payer. So much for SSM having ZERO effect on Christians.
|
Ah the persecution narrative again. Laws change all the time, you do not moan about the financial affect of those on you. It is only the ones you hate that you reserve that for. Laws change, all the time, and ALL of us as tax payers finance that process. So it has nothing to do with the political spin you try to sell that some law is affecting you.
If the only argument you have against SSM now is that implementing it cost you a few cent during your unemployment then the end of the barrel truly is scraped clean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But they were FORCED to either violate their moral convictions or be punished severely.
|
No, they were not. They were compelled to simply follow the law THEY signed up to willingly when they made a choice to open a business. Nothing more. Nothing less. Give up on your narrative, it has been hammered and torpedoed every time you have trotted it out, and no one but you has bought into it yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Silly us for thinking freedom of religion was an important thing in America.
|
Not at all. It is very important and I uphold it and fight for it as much as anyone. What IS silly however is the fantastical nonsense you have interpreted "freedom of religion" as actually meaning. You have displayed not only no knowledge of what it means in theory and practice.... but also a completely false interpretation of it which would be sheer comedy if it was not tragic in its special pleading for special privilege.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
believes human beings are animals
|
As I explained to you before in one of those MANY posts you dodged, ignored, pretended was not there, skipped and refused to acknowledge..... the concept that human beings are animals is not a belief, but an understanding. It is an understanding of what the word means and how it is defined, and therefore an understanding of why people fit that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
We only demand the right to not to have anything to with gay marriage, both in our private and business lives.
|
Then you have the right not to open a business dealing in products or services such people will use. But if you do open such a business then you have no such right, because by opening it you consent to adhering to those laws willingly and openly. All WE are doing is expecting you to conform to the agreements you made in good faith when opening a business, and the moral, verbal and legal contracts that doing so entailed.
It is YOU that wants special privilege for Christians to break those contracts with society that society made with them in good faith. And you claim to be moral. For shame. Since when has breaking contracts made and accepted in good faith been a MORAL action? In your fantasy land and nowhere else?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
