Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column

by Guest Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:17 am

First topic message reminder :

The editor of a Devon newspaper says he stands by a column which described homosexuality as "an aberration" and claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

The South Molton News, a monthly local paper in North Devon, received four complaints and its editor Paul Henderson was questioned by police after publishing the controversial column in its September issue.

One complainant said the article was deeply upsetting and took the small town "back into the dark ages".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/22/south-molton-news-gay-column_n_5861388.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

WTF....

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:22 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Educate me???
By being vilified for speaking the truth???
All opposing views against the agenda must be silenced!
This is the lefty way....
What truth, as seen your arguments are absurd and easily mooted to claim it is not normal, you just choose to remain ignorant on the matter, which is your choice to do so, oh dear, do you have a choice to remain ignorant? Yep
Funny how you are not being denied to remain ignorant

Come off it dodge!
Next you will be telling me it is normal and natural to drink piss and eat shit.....!

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:

People can only become influential if people give them influence.

It is up the senators employers (the people who voted for him) whether or not they support his assertion - that is their right.

Of course, you are stating (or restating) the obvious.

sphinx wrote:If you want to start deciding what should and should not be allowed for others based purely on your opinions not their wishes you are rejecting democracy.

False predicate...we are talking about expression, not decision. We are talking about the illogical way you have framed things. Democracy is a form of collective decision-making, and while it can be affected by expression, the discussion is not determinative. Obviously...you are still expressing yourself.

sphinx wrote:If god sees fit to give us free will and accept that we will balls things up while understanding that right to balls up is the greatest gift that can be given who the hell are we to decide that we know better.

That's a strange argument. As I understand you, you are saying if god fooks up, we can fook up too.

First of all, god is not my mentor. You're talking to the wrong person if you want to toss god's name around. He's a silly old cartoon character made up in Sunday school classrooms in order to indoctrinate children...they claim he walks on clouds for christ's sake (pun intended).

Second, when something is illogical, it is illogical for all time and space, no matter who champions it. If god wants to act out of ignorance, well he is a doddering old fool who belongs in a home anyway. You take care of god and make sure he is well tucked in, while I discuss matters of logic.

sphinx wrote:Incidentally I happen to think that man made climate change is a load of bollocks. I think so based on clear evidence. I support your right to believe it if you wish. Do you support my right to think it bollocks?

No. Because it is a question of fact, not an issue amenable to opinion.

Let me make an analogy. Before us is a 2.000-foot cliff, with jagged rocks at the bottom and crocodiles and white sharks around to eat up the pieces. You say it is your opinion that if we jump off no harm will come to us because there is no danger. I say it is my opinion that great harm will come to us, as if we are not killed by the fall or the jagged rocks, the reptile and the shark will do us in.

But it is all beside the point. Our opinions don't matter because it is all a question of fact. You don't have opinions about matters of fact. Opinions only matter where there is an element of human decision-making involved that will make a difference. You have theories.

True, theories must be supported by evidence, but you have offered none. More importantly, evidence takes it out of your hands. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, as you must accept what the evidence says...your subjective predilection is irrelevant.

Climate change is a fact.

Man made climate change is a theory - one I believe having looked at the evidence to be wrong.

I have not stated climate change is a load of bollocks I have stated man made climate change is a load of bollocks.

Or to use your analogy I am not stating that we will come to no harm I am stating that we will not suffer harm of a heart attack on the way down.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:28 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

What truth, as seen your arguments are absurd and easily mooted to claim it is not normal, you just choose to remain ignorant on the matter, which is your choice to do so, oh dear, do you have a choice to remain ignorant? Yep
Funny how you are not being denied to remain ignorant

To play devils advocate I have not seen you demonstrate anything about his arguments you have just declared him wrong and expected that to end it.

If you are claiming to be educating that can you at least provide education instead of saying "This is what I say that is the end of it"

Tell him or show him why he is ignorant rather than just declaring he is.

I already did, you failed to notice.
So let me tell you this Sphinx, based on my earlier post on smokers,
He is using the concept of what is views as not normal to thus deem groups of people to be less equal than us ad have less rights.
Now smoking is not normal, yet does he advocate they should not marry, I mean there is the risk of causing harm to the partner if they are a non smoker and if both smoke and decide to have children of the affects of smoking and having children, let alone if they adopt through again passive smoking and thus why is he and others using the unnatural concept have a contradicting argument not calling for the same here?
So is that good enough education for you?
It is a simple view based upon his own flawed argument, where it shows he contradicts his own concept of normality where he does not advocate any similar view onto smokers or any other perceived view point that people would deem unnatural.
You are not admin by the way, you had your time, but am happy to entertain you once again on this view point, because as stated if he advocates the unnatural argument, he should apply it to all aspects.

Happy with that?

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:33 pm

sphinx wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Of course, you are stating (or restating) the obvious.

False predicate...we are talking about expression, not decision. We are talking about the illogical way you have framed things. Democracy is a form of collective decision-making, and while it can be affected by expression, the discussion is not determinative. Obviously...you are still expressing yourself.

That's a strange argument. As I understand you, you are saying if god fooks up, we can fook up too.

First of all, god is not my mentor. You're talking to the wrong person if you want to toss god's name around. He's a silly old cartoon character made up in Sunday school classrooms in order to indoctrinate children...they claim he walks on clouds for christ's sake (pun intended).

Second, when something is illogical, it is illogical for all time and space, no matter who champions it. If god wants to act out of ignorance, well he is a doddering old fool who belongs in a home anyway. You take care of god and make sure he is well tucked in, while I discuss matters of logic.

No. Because it is a question of fact, not an issue amenable to opinion.

Let me make an analogy. Before us is a 2.000-foot cliff, with jagged rocks at the bottom and crocodiles and white sharks around to eat up the pieces. You say it is your opinion that if we jump off no harm will come to us because there is no danger. I say it is my opinion that great harm will come to us, as if we are not killed by the fall or the jagged rocks, the reptile and the shark will do us in.

But it is all beside the point. Our opinions don't matter because it is all a question of fact. You don't have opinions about matters of fact. Opinions only matter where there is an element of human decision-making involved that will make a difference. You have theories.

True, theories must be supported by evidence, but you have offered none. More importantly, evidence takes it out of your hands. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, as you must accept what the evidence says...your subjective predilection is irrelevant.

Climate change is a fact.

Man made climate change is a theory - one I believe having looked at the evidence to be wrong.

I have not stated climate change is a load of bollocks I have stated man made climate change is a load of bollocks.

Or to use your analogy I am not stating that we will come to no harm I am stating that we will not suffer harm of a heart attack on the way down.

So 98% scientists believe we are having an affect on the climate and Sphinx with no expertise or real knowledge thinks its bollocks.
Wow., it is again though a theory, one with countless evidence unless you are a UKIP supporter of course using their guide book, maybe you missed that point from Quill on theories

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:35 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

To play devils advocate I have not seen you demonstrate anything about his arguments you have just declared him wrong and expected that to end it.

If you are claiming to be educating that can you at least provide education instead of saying "This is what I say that is the end of it"

Tell him or show him why he is ignorant rather than just declaring he is.

I already did, you failed to notice.
So let me tell you this Sphinx, based on my earlier post on smokers,
He is using the concept of what is views as not normal to thus deem groups of people to be less equal than us ad have less rights.
Now smoking is not normal, yet does he advocate they should not marry, I mean there is the risk of causing harm to the partner if they are a non smoker and if both smoke and decide to have children of the affects of smoking and having children, let alone if they adopt through again passive smoking and thus why is he and others using the unnatural concept have a contradicting argument not calling for the same here?
So is that good enough education for you?
It is a simple view based upon his own flawed argument, where it shows he contradicts his own concept of normality where he does not advocate any similar view onto smokers or any other perceived view point that people would deem unnatural.
You are not admin by the way, you had your time, but am happy to entertain you once again on this view point, because as stated if he advocates the unnatural argument, he should apply it to all aspects.

Happy with that?

Nope.

He is declaring homosexuality to be abnormal and you are declaring him ignorant without providing argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.

I am simply arguing that he has the right (as in legal or moral entitlement) to believe homosexuality to be abnormal not that it is. I am further arguing that it is wrong (incorrect) of you to just say he is wrong or call him ignorant but that you should instead show him with factual evidence why he is wrong.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:35 pm

Don't conflate issues dodge..... classic attempt at diversion.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:37 pm

Don't conflate issues dodge..... classic attempt at diversion.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:41 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Climate change is a fact.

Man made climate change is a theory - one I believe having looked at the evidence to be wrong.

I have not stated climate change is a load of bollocks I have stated man made climate change is a load of bollocks.

Or to use your analogy I am not stating that we will come to no harm I am stating that we will not suffer harm of a heart attack on the way down.

So 98% scientists believe we are having an affect on the climate and Sphinx with no expertise or real knowledge thinks its bollocks.
Wow., it is again though a theory, one with countless evidence unless you are a UKIP supporter of course using their guide book, maybe you missed that point from Quill on theories

Wow either you are ill and not up to your usual standards or are being deliberately insulting with use of statistic statements a 5 year old could pull apart.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

I already did, you failed to notice.
So let me tell you this Sphinx, based on my earlier post on smokers,
He is using the concept of what is views as not normal to thus deem groups of people to be less equal than us ad have less rights.
Now smoking is not normal, yet does he advocate they should not marry, I mean there is the risk of causing harm to the partner if they are a non smoker and if both smoke and decide to have children of the affects of smoking and having children, let alone if they adopt through again passive smoking and thus why is he and others using the unnatural concept have a contradicting argument not calling for the same here?
So is that good enough education for you?
It is a simple view based upon his own flawed argument, where it shows he contradicts his own concept of normality where he does not advocate any similar view onto smokers or any other perceived view point that people would deem unnatural.
You are not admin by the way, you had your time, but am happy to entertain you once again on this view point, because as stated if he advocates the unnatural argument, he should apply it to all aspects.

Happy with that?

Nope.

He is declaring homosexuality to be abnormal and you are declaring him ignorant without providing argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.

I am simply arguing that he has the right (as in legal or moral entitlement) to believe homosexuality to be abnormal not that it is. I am further arguing that it is wrong (incorrect) of you to just say he is wrong or call him ignorant but that you should instead show him with factual evidence why he is wrong.

He has not proved it is abnormal, and I am proving his view point contradicts, which you are as per usual missing, so his view point is based off a poor concept, one he does not share on on views which is considering not normal.
So had he proved it is not normal?
No, the very fact it happens throughout many species and the fact many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, kissing an oral sex again mutes the view point it is not natural, as then many sexual acts heterosexuals commit would be deemed also unnatural. Does he argue nobody should perform any of these acts?
Now, I am showing it does not matter if something is viewed as normal or not, we accept many such acts and thus his argument is moot.
I would however say it is very much normal being as I already stated they are born this way and cannot choose who they are physically attracted to, plus the fact science already shows evidence that it is part of evolution which I have posted may times, but I doubt you understand science.

Anything else?

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

So 98% scientists believe we are having an affect on the climate and Sphinx with no expertise or real knowledge thinks its bollocks.
Wow., it is again though a theory, one with countless evidence unless you are a UKIP supporter of course using their guide book, maybe you missed that point from Quill on theories

Wow either you are ill and not up to your usual standards or are being deliberately insulting with use of statistic statements a 5 year old could pull apart.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

ha ha you have to subscribe dummy to view that

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 3 C02_TCP_social_media_image_97

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:56 pm

Didge, the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our sexual organs are clear.

Attraction is supposed to be between opposite sexes for sexual interaction.

This is normal and natural and right.

It is also clear that same sex attraction and interaction is abnormal, unnatural and wrong.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:56 pm

Yes please do attempt to pull apart darling!

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge, the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our sexual organs are clear.

Attraction is supposed to be between opposite sexes for sexual interaction.

This is normal and natural and right.

It is also clear that same sex attraction and interaction is abnormal, unnatural and wrong.

If it was meant to be then it would not happen within the animal kingdom, of which it does i countless spices.
What you need to define though is what is normal and many people enrage in the same sexual acts as homosexuals, thus you would have to define many people as not normal by your concept of normal.
You are just saying it is wrong and not proving it is wrong, funny though how Sphinx is not pulling you up on this,.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:06 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nope.

He is declaring homosexuality to be abnormal and you are declaring him ignorant without providing argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.

I am simply arguing that he has the right (as in legal or moral entitlement) to believe homosexuality to be abnormal not that it is. I am further arguing that it is wrong (incorrect) of you to just say he is wrong or call him ignorant but that you should instead show him with factual evidence why he is wrong.

He has not proved it is abnormal, and I am proving his view point contradicts, which you are as per usual missing, so his view point is based off a poor concept, one he does not share on on views which is considering not normal.
So had he proved it is not normal?
No, the very fact it happens throughout many species and the fact many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, kissing an oral sex again mutes the view point it is not natural, as then many sexual acts heterosexuals commit would be deemed also unnatural. Does he argue nobody should perform any of these acts?
Now, I am showing it does not matter if something is viewed as normal or not, we accept many such acts and thus his argument is moot.
I would however say it is very much normal being as I already stated they are born this way and cannot choose who they are physically attracted to, plus the fact science already shows evidence that it is part of evolution which I have posted may times, but I doubt you understand science.

Anything else?

Will you learn to read.

I never said he proved anything I said he declared.

I am saying that when A declares something to be true and B states A is wrong the onus is on B to provide the evidence that proves A wrong not on A to provide the evidence that proves he is right.

Hell I am going to have to do the job for you arent I?

Tommy has declared homosexuality to be unnatural.
I state he is incorrect.

My evidence that he is incorrect

A list of species exhibiting homosexual behaviour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[*]Research demonstrating the evolutionary purpose of homosexual behaviour -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
[*]A personal observation that no matter how strongly a society tries to stop homosexuality it still occurs. Torture, imprisonment, death, complete ostracization from society have all be used to stop homosexuality - none have worked.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:07 pm

It is not normal or natural behaviour in the animal kingdom either dodge.
Just more examples of where things have gone wrong.....
The biological design and mechanics of our sexual organs (also called our 'reproductive' organs, there's a big clue for you!!!), is clearly intended to be between people of opposite sex.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

He has not proved it is abnormal, and I am proving his view point contradicts, which you are as per usual missing, so his view point is based off a poor concept, one he does not share on on views which is considering not normal.
So had he proved it is not normal?
No, the very fact it happens throughout many species and the fact many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, kissing an oral sex again mutes the view point it is not natural, as then many sexual acts heterosexuals commit would be deemed also unnatural. Does he argue nobody should perform any of these acts?
Now, I am showing it does not matter if something is viewed as normal or not, we accept many such acts and thus his argument is moot.
I would however say it is very much normal being as I already stated they are born this way and cannot choose who they are physically attracted to, plus the fact science already shows evidence that it is part of evolution which I have posted may times, but I doubt you understand science.

Anything else?

Will you learn to read.

I never said he proved anything I said he declared.

I am saying that when A declares something to be true and B states A is wrong the onus is on B to provide the evidence that proves A wrong not on A to provide the evidence that proves he is right.

Hell I am going to have to do the job for you arent I?

Tommy has declared homosexuality to be unnatural.
I state he is incorrect.

My evidence that he is incorrect

A list of species exhibiting homosexual behaviour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[*]Research demonstrating the evolutionary purpose of homosexual behaviour -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
[*]A personal observation that no matter how strongly a society tries to stop homosexuality it still occurs. Torture, imprisonment, death, complete ostracization from society have all be used to stop homosexuality - none have worked.

[*]

lol you need some anger management classes love and you are going off what others say and cannot post yourself.
At least what I go off I know about.
You seem upset you have had your views rubbished on here by Quill, Ben, Eilzel, myself etc?
Hey ho, it is only a debate love

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not normal or natural behaviour in the animal kingdom either dodge.
Just more examples of where things have gone wrong.....
The biological design and mechanics of our sexual organs (also called our 'reproductive' organs, there's a big clue for you!!!), is clearly intended to be between people of opposite sex.

Matti tell me out of these women who you re attracted to?

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 3 2Q==

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 3 Z

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:15 pm

Didge wrote:Yes please do attempt to pull apart darling!

My fault I did not realize the Wall Street Journal demanded registration and paying if looked at more than once.

It did actually cover the debunking of the Cook study when it was peer studied itself which made me wonder why the hell you would quote a study I had just rejected.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Now to stop this dragging on all the pair of us have shown is that both of us can turn up evidence - peer reviewed evidence - that supports our opinion. Neither of us can prove we are right although both of us will be happily convinced that we are.

People are allowed to have whatever opinion they want. If you want to declare their opinion wrong you may provide evidence as to why you think that. They may produce their own evidence or simply choose to ignore what you have said. They are within their rights to do so. Doing so does not give you the right to abuse them or deny them their right to hold whatever opinion they want.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:19 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:Yes please do attempt to pull apart darling!

My fault I did not realize the Wall Street Journal demanded registration and paying if looked at more than once.

It did actually cover the debunking of the Cook study when it was peer studied itself which made me wonder why the hell you would quote a study I had just rejected.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Now to stop this dragging on all the pair of us have shown is that both of us can turn up evidence - peer reviewed evidence - that supports our opinion. Neither of us can prove we are right although both of us will be happily convinced that we are.

People are allowed to have whatever opinion they want. If you want to declare their opinion wrong you may provide evidence as to why you think that. They may produce their own evidence or simply choose to ignore what you have said. They are within their rights to do so. Doing so does not give you the right to abuse them or deny them their right to hold whatever opinion they want.

Actually if you read mine it does prove by the countless studies carried out by a group called skeptical science, which may give you a clue, and the fact all the evidence is on mine to direct people to confirm for themselves.

As to opinions, if they affect others, then measures are needed to counter such harm they can cause, which you fail to comprehend or even understand.
Yes it does give me a right to very vocal against irrational claims, to say you are against racism, means you are against racism, you though make it acceptable, as seen by my counters.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:20 pm

sphinx wrote:
Climate change is a fact.

Man made climate change is a theory - one I believe having looked at the evidence to be wrong.

Right, well at least we are using the proper terms: theory, not opinion.

But it is not significant merely that you are using the proper term. What is significant is that you recognize the concept of a theory, yet you fail to own up to its mandate. Where is your evidence? When we shift from a discussion about opinion to a discussion about theory, what you are doing is admitting that the decision is out of your hands and in the hands of the evidence.

sphinx wrote:I have not stated climate change is a load of bollocks I have stated man made climate change is a load of bollocks.

Or to use your analogy I am not stating that we will come to no harm I am stating that we will not suffer harm of a heart attack on the way down.

Good analogy. It does frame your point. And if we were to transition this discussion over to climate change, it is here that you would have to come forward with your evidence.

Now that we have properly ordered our terms, would someone please show TM how these principles apply (refute) to his theory that homosexuality is unnatural?

By unnatural you must mean inconsistent with nature. The assertion that homosexuality is inconsistent with "Nature" is based upon at least two things: (1) that somehow Nature has a plan; and (2) that you, Tommy, somehow know what that plan is.

If I may speculate, I think that you have confused Nature with god. In religion we attribute intelligence and purpose to natural things. However, when speaking of Nature, we speak only of chance and necessity. Chance and necessity is only concerned with causation, not with purpose. Nature has no thought before action...therefore, Nature per force can have no purpose.

Therefore, homosexuality cannot be unnatural. It exists, therefore it is quite natural.

Once we dispose of the unnatural argument, we have only to discern whether homosexuals are receiving equal treatment. Equal treatment means the same treatment that everyone else receives; therefore by definition, unequal treatment means discrimination.

Everyone is entitled to marry; very often, homosexuals are not...ergo: homosexuals are being discriminated against. The same is true for every other form of discrimination suffered by LBGTs. Use the same analysis for living arrangements, sex, race...wherever you suspect or are confronted with allegations of discrimination.

Now Tommy, if you find something wrong with the way I have structured the question, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's concentrate on how to eliminate discrimination.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:21 pm

How poor of you Sphinx, that is just one rebuttal to one paper, when there are countless papers on this, Jesus wept that is hilarious.

Also try reading through the whole article on the update:

UPDATE: – Cook and Nuccitelli paper rejected:
Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics

Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Firstly dodge, what's your point?

Secondly quill, you have not disposed of the fact homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal just by arguing semantics and trying to redefine what unnatural or abnormal is.

Some people like to drink piss and others like to smear shit all over themselves..... does that justify the behaviour as normal or natural...???

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:35 pm

My point is I want to know which ones you are physically attracted to and which ones you are not attracted to.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:37 pm

Great we now have hystericals about climate change.

Guys I am trying to get you to see people have the right to have their own opinions. Any possible harm that can come from holding an opinion is nothing compared to the harm that comes from any group trying to outlaw any opinion.

My opinion is that homosexuality is perfectly natural.
My opinion is that as groups all races are equal although individuals of each race may excel.
My opinion is that the earth is globular.
My opinion is that climate change is not driven by mankind in any major way.

My standard position is that any person can have a differing opinion on any of those points - that is their right and neither of us is inferior or superior to the other.

If you disagree with some ones opinion then fine debate it - but never ever declare that they are not permitted to hold it.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly dodge, what's your point?

Secondly quill, you have not disposed of the fact homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal just by arguing semantics and trying to redefine what unnatural or abnormal is.

Some people like to drink piss and others like to smear shit all over themselves..... does that justify the behaviour as normal or natural...???

Yeah you might want to go and read my evidence seeing as I actually provide some.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:42 pm

sphinx wrote:Great we now have hystericals about climate change.

Guys I am trying to get you to see people have the right to have their own opinions. Any possible harm that can come from holding an opinion is nothing compared to the harm that comes from any group trying to outlaw any opinion.

My opinion is that homosexuality is perfectly natural.
My opinion is that as groups all races are equal although individuals of each race may excel.
My opinion is that the earth is globular.
My opinion is that climate change is not driven by mankind in any major way.

My standard position is that any person can have a differing opinion on any of those points - that is their right and neither of us is inferior or superior to the other.

If you disagree with some ones opinion then fine debate it - but never ever declare that they are not permitted to hold it.

I have no problem with people who hold opinions that do not create or cause discrimination to others, which is the point you are missing, a view which does not actively affect people. Of which homophobic and racist views do is an issue and I can declare as the law also dictates they cannot express this opinion in many situations, they can hold this opinion to themselves or with other like minded people, thus nobody has denied them this, which you seem to be confused over.
As see you want to allow people to express discriminating views which evidence through history if allowed to go unchecked leads to violence and even worse genocide, and I fail to see how you do not even understand this, based on views that are clearly wrong by those expressing them.
You fail to eve look at why they are expressing them and what they hope to gain by expressing discriminating opinions, which is a poor simplistic view of the issue, which is even worse today given the advent of the internet.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:58 pm

Since when does stating the truth be homophobic or racist?

What does it matter which ones I am attracted to?

And sphinx, what evidence exactly are You referring to?

it is quite clear what all animals 'reproductive organs' are for..... sometimes there are some animals who migh be getting it wrong.

This is not justifying homosexual behaviour as right, normal or natural.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly dodge, what's your point?

Secondly quill, you have not disposed of the fact homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal just by arguing semantics and trying to redefine what unnatural or abnormal is.

Some people like to drink piss and others like to smear shit all over themselves..... does that justify the behaviour as normal or natural...???

Tommy, you have a better definition of unnatural than against Nature? Oh well, perhaps you don't mean 'unnatural and abnormal' in the standard way we all understand it. Let's have what you do mean. Perhaps we may find that you totally support homosexuality.

Piss is piss. Shit is shit. Both are quite natural, as emanating from a body that Nature built. Could you give me a more succinct definition of unnatural?

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:52 pm

Quill, you just want to dance round the head of a pin on definition of 'unnatural'...???

Stop splitting hairs man!!!

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:14 pm

Piss and shit are perfectly natural, but wanting to drink piss and/or wanting ve eat shit or smear it all over oneself is a desire of some but I think you would agree are all quite unnatural and abnormal practices....

my point being that just because some might want to do it does not justify it as legitimate, normal, natural or right.

if you think it does then you are effectively condoning any and all behaviour as normal, natural and right..

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Piss and shit are perfectly natural, but wanting to drink piss and/or wanting ve eat shit or smear it all over oneself is a desire of some but I think you would agree are all quite unnatural and abnormal practices....

my point being that just because some might want to do it does not justify it as legitimate, normal, natural or right.

if you think it does then you are effectively condoning any and all behaviour as normal, natural and right..

If someone wants to do that, what do you care?

by Original Quill Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, you just want to dance round the head of a pin on definition of 'unnatural'...???

Stop splitting hairs man!!!

So, you are giving up? 'Splitting hairs' means to argue about very small differences or unimportant details. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/split+hairs If there is only a "very small" difference in what you and I are saying, then you accept my definition. Everything else is "unimportant" and consequently homosexuality is quite natural.

Either except it, or split some hairs of your own. Lol.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:02 pm

When you start to say that drinking piss is ok, natural, normal and right then the piss drinkers will then start demanding that piss should be included as an option in shops and restaurants and bars etc as is their right to have 'equality'......

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, you just want to dance round the head of a pin on definition of 'unnatural'...???
Stop splitting hairs man!!!
So, you are giving up? 'Splitting hairs' means to argue about very small differences or unimportant details. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/split+hairs If there is only a "very small" difference in what you and I are saying, then you accept my definition. Everything else is "unimportant" and consequently homosexuality is quite natural.
Either except it, or split some hairs of your own. Lol.

How am I giving up?

What I have said is pretty clear, what you are doing is splitting hairs over the definition of 'unnatural', when I have also said it is abnormal and wrong, as a basis for your weak argument.

Here are some definitions of unnatural......

contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

not in accordance withaccepted standards ofbehaviour or right andwrong: unnatural love

: different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature

: different from what is normal in a way that is seen as wrong, disturbing, etc.

Not in accordance with what usually happens in nature

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:When you start to say that drinking piss is ok, natural, normal and right then the piss drinkers will then start demanding that piss should be included as an option in shops and restaurants and bars etc as is their right to have 'equality'......

What?

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:45 pm

by Eilzel Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:30 am

Tommy, your argument is SOLELY man has dick, woman has vagina, therefore gay=abnormal. There is no depth or attempt at understanding nature there at all. Just simplistic methodology.

Quill already blew your view apart.

Sphinx; didge, myself and others have gone over this with monk 1000 times with the same dumb result. It is tedious going over it time and again. When we write off tommys opinion don't assume we haven't addressed it before- we have, too many times.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:16 am

Not addressed at all, just waffled off with the same bullshit.....

Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural and therefore wrong.

It goes against the biological design, mechanics and purpose of our sexual/reproductive organs.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:40 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Not addressed at all, just waffled off with the same bullshit.....

Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural and therefore wrong.

white Skin in humans is Abnormal and unnatural...... Does that make it wrong?
Straight hair is Abnormal and unnatural
hair or eye colour anything but black or very dark brown is is Abnormal and unnatural.

It goes against the biological design, mechanics and purpose of our sexual/reproductive organs.
not really we could just keep women for breeding It was pretty common in the Hellenistic Empire.

P.S. that for you Raggs

by Eilzel Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:05 pm

I was trying to addresd your points monk, I was saying we already have in the past, many times, you are just too stupid/ignorant/prejudiced to understand them Smile

by Eilzel Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:06 pm

I was not trying to address your points monk, I was saying we already have in the past, many times, you are just too stupid/ignorant/prejudiced to understand them Smile

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:51 pm

Load of waffle Veya.....

by Eilzel Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:31 pm

Point proven, you ignore anything anyone presents which remotely challenges your stubborn ignorance.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:36 pm

It's not ignorance, it's common sense backed up by biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs......

by Eilzel Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:43 pm

Been there, covered it, you ignored everything that was said, as you ignore veya now, yawwwwn

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:09 pm

You have no answer for what I say, so now you are just doing a Didge and claiming to have successfully answered it before, when you haven't.

What has Veya said that is in any way relevant?

White skin is abnormal?

Any hair or eye colour apart from black or brown is abnormal?

That is pure waffle!!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:21 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not ignorance, it's common sense backed up by biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs......

Who designed it? Did he sign it...like Monet always signed his works.

Did it pass inspection? Nothing gets a 'go' until it passes inspection. Biological innovations go to the CDC. Mechanical designs go to professionals in the various fields, according to time-honored, well-respected methodology:

Professional Engineering Inspections wrote:The purpose of the mechanical inspection is to visually inspect and operate the built-in mechanical equipment observed on site and provide an opinion of any deficiencies apparent at the time of the inspection. The scope of this inspection includes visual observations of the readily accessible mechanical equipment and appliances without disassembly of any unit inspected and without removing items causing visual obstruction. The functional equipment is generally operated in at least one mode, but not necessarily every mode, suited to demonstrate its condition. Special equipment present on site, not normally encountered for the type of structure and/or not related to operation of the structure, may not be included without request, or if Professional Engineering Inspections, Inc. is not familiar with the equipment.

The last thing you want to do is accept a design when you neither know who designed it, nor have ever inspected in. It's a recipe for disaster.

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 3 Adrian-fisk-ispeak-china-what-are-chinese-youth-thinking-20

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 3 Adrian-fisk-ispeak-china-what-are-chinese-youth-thinking-20

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:28 pm

Waffle..... yawn.....!

by Original Quill Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:34 pm

by Original Quill Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:35 pm

by Sponsored content