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

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....

Eilzel wrote:Monk, your ramblings and ignorance on the subject are boring; you fail to understand the concept of love entirely (your username is apt perhaps haha). The only thing I've found fruitless is discussing things with you...

The reality is he is trying to justify discrimination and fails to even see that, based on his view he feels something is unnatural which is complete balderdash, being as homosexuals are born gay, they have no choice over this as you well know better than most of us Eilzel..
We both know his views are also very homophobic based on previous debates elsewhere, even if he tries to attempt to disguise this here of recent late
The reality lets say use his argument on smokers, which using his logic is unnatural, we are not designed to smoke, in fact it is very dangerous to us and others around us, would he bash smokers in the same way he views homosexuals?

I very much doubt it, I mean are smokers on the receiving end of such verbal abuse and violence compared to homosexuals? They at least have a choice to smoke, those for those who start it is difficult to give up, me being one of them.

No and it shows why his argument has little validity, where the reality is his views are very homophobic based on his dislike of homosexuals.
I can use plenty of examples on his view point of unnatural, but the reality is he would not advocate the same passionate arguments against them, proving his true intentions

Exactly didge, we've heard his views on gay people which go beyond 'civil' opinion- he fools no one.

Eilzel wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

At the same time it was illegal to be gay it was also perfectly ok to hold racist views- should we tolerate racist views?

Honestly the whole idea that people who label intolerant people as bigots are themselves being intolerant is a circular false starter. If someone dislikes people based on an irrational reasoning they ARE being bigoted, the people labeling them as such are NOT being intolerant at all.

Quill is exactly right in what he is saying, we don't tolerate many things for damn good reason, and bigotry is one of them.

+1 Yes Les, precisely. The mirror-image argument is inevitably circular. You get it.

Eilzel wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

At the same time it was illegal to be gay it was also perfectly ok to hold racist views- should we tolerate racist views?

Honestly the whole idea that people who label intolerant people as bigots are themselves being intolerant is a circular false starter. If someone dislikes people based on an irrational reasoning they ARE being bigoted, the people labeling them as such are NOT being intolerant at all.

Quill is exactly right in what he is saying, we don't tolerate many things for damn good reason, and bigotry is one of them.

You are so nearly there.

Yes the tolerance argument is circular and therefore pointless how the answer is not as you suggest to cut the circle in half and throw away the half of it you don't like but rather to throw away the whole circle because if one half of the circle is rubbish so the other half.

To put it bluntly yes it is perfectly acceptable to hold racist opinions while it is not acceptable to commit racist acts. Expressing a racist opinion is not committing a racist act.

I do not agree with racist opinions - so I choose to use my intelligence and free will to ignore any such that cross my path. The people who hold them are free to continue with their lives which I firmly believe to be duller and more miserable than my own. At the same time I have no doubt that those holding them believe my life to be duller and more miserable than their own.

As for the expression of opinions in papers - well if someone writes to a newspaper declaring the world to be flat does everyone jump up and down and scream about how such views should be banned and the people who hold them should be tarred and feathered? No in general people laugh. So when people panic at someone expressing a racist opinion in a paper all they show is that they consider that the opinion is something dangerous, or something that they think actually has a basis in truth.

Let people hold whatever opinion they want - if you dont like it tough shit that does not give you an excuse to abuse them.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Where is the tolerance for murders and child molesters?  There is none, and people who harbor those ideas are not generally endured either.

Mormons still believe that 12-year old girls should be married to 40-year old men and bear children by them.  For them it's a moral and religious principle, not merely an opinion.  Where is the tolerance for  their ideas?

Once an idea has clearly been determined to be out-of-bounds, it's not a matter of intolerance but lack of sympathy.

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

You are perceiving this as a factual matter, which inevitably it is ultimately.

But, as I have just said to Ben and Les, the trouble here is logical. The mirror-image argument tries to impose an equation among disparate elements. But intolerance is an absolute, whereas acceptance of social ideas (race, homosexuality) are changing factual conditions.

You can't impose absolutes on contradictory sides of a question. You impose an absolute on one side, or on the other side, but you can't be heard arguing that both can be true. That is what you are trying to do, sphinx. You are trying to say everyone is entitled to an absolute, and each are true. No...one or the other is true, but not both. You can't say homophobic ideas are bad, but it's acceptable to treat homophobic ideas as good. That's a self-contradiction.

I understand what you say about the past versus the present. But those are factual sates of affairs, and that doesn't permit you to be self-contradictory. You have to make a choice about facts. Eg: 'I never accepted the past (racism or homophobia), and I still believe in rights for LBGT people.' Or, 'I once believed in homophobia, but now I believe in rights for LBGTs.' Those are factual statements about your state of mind. What you can't say is: I believe homophobia is wrong, and I believe its right for you to be homophobic. Reduce the equation down, and what you are saying is I believe it's right to be wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

You are perceiving this as a factual matter, which inevitably it is ultimately.

But, as I have just said to Ben and Les, the trouble here is logical.  The mirror-image argument tries to impose an equation among disparate elements.  But intolerance is an absolute, whereas acceptance of social ideas (race, homosexuality) are changing factual conditions.

You can't impose absolutes on contradictory sides of a question.  You impose an absolute on one side, or on the other side, but you can't be heard arguing that both can be true.  That is what you are trying to do, sphinx.  You are trying to say everyone is entitled to an absolute, and each are true.  No...one or the other is true, but not both.  You can't say homophobic ideas are bad, but it's acceptable to treat homophobic ideas as good.  That's a self-contradiction.

I understand what you say about the past versus the present.  But those are factual sates of affairs, and that doesn't permit you to be self-contradictory.  You have to make a choice about facts.  Eg: 'I never accepted the past (racism or homophobia), and I still believe in rights for LBGT people.'  Or, 'I once believed in homophobia, but now I believe in rights for LBGTs.'  Those are factual statements about your state of mind.  What you can't say is: I believe homophobia is wrong, and I believe its right for you to be homophobic.  Reduce the equation down, and what you are saying is I believe it's right to be wrong.

Excellent post Quill +1

Thank you, Didge.

Another incident of contradictory logic occurred when a Senator from Nebraska, Sen. Roman Hurska, once said: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

Mediocracy is entitled to be heard, was a joke for decades, surpassed only by Texas Gov. Perry's Uh, uh, oops..  Here was a US Senator (Hurska) trying to argue that 'less than perfect' is the equivalent of 'more than perfect', just another option.

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

At the same time it was illegal to be gay it was also perfectly ok to hold racist views- should we tolerate racist views?

Honestly the whole idea that people who label intolerant people as bigots are themselves being intolerant is a circular false starter. If someone dislikes people based on an irrational reasoning they ARE being bigoted, the people labeling them as such are NOT being intolerant at all.

Quill is exactly right in what he is saying, we don't tolerate many things for damn good reason, and bigotry is one of them.

You are so nearly there.

Yes the tolerance argument is circular and therefore pointless how the answer is not as you suggest to cut the circle in half and throw away the half of it you don't like but rather to throw away the whole circle because if one half of the circle is rubbish so the other half.

To put it bluntly yes it is perfectly acceptable to hold racist opinions while it is not acceptable to commit racist acts.  Expressing a racist opinion is not committing a racist act.

I do not agree with racist opinions - so I choose to use my intelligence and free will to ignore any such that cross my path.  The people who hold them are free to continue with their lives which I firmly believe to be duller and more miserable than my own.  At the same time I have no doubt that those holding them believe my life to be duller and more miserable than their own.

As for the expression of opinions in papers - well if someone writes to a newspaper declaring the world to be flat does everyone jump up and down and scream about how such views should be banned and the people who hold them should be tarred and feathered?  No in general people laugh.  So when people panic at someone expressing a racist opinion in  a paper all they show is that they consider that the opinion is something dangerous, or something that they think actually has a basis in truth.

Let people hold whatever opinion they want - if you dont like it tough shit that does not give you an excuse to abuse them.

So you do not believe holding a racist opinion would have an affect on people working together where they are viewed racially inferior?
Even more so when the person with that racist opinion is in charge?
A opinion can affect the workplace and within the school for example and it is not a case of tough shit, if this opinion is known, where it can affect people having to work ad study alongside each other. Again it is excusing a view point that is wrong and making that view acceptable in a society that has laws to protect against discrimination.
Someone holding a view point solely on the world being flat is not offering an intolerant view and I think most people would think they were crackpots anyway and happily state as such, but intolerant views do affect others especially those who are on the receiving end of them, especially if that view is allowed to spread unchecked.
Having a view that has no rational or scientific bases is wrong especially when it affects others in their lives ad is like I said to you, we might as well scrap teaching if it is acceptable to hold wrong views.

veya_victaous wrote:Also

claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

is double stupid cause Pretty sure Homophobia is a sign of the end of the Hellenic(greek) empire and the start of the Roman one.

There's no need to post porn.

Eilzel wrote:Monk, your ramblings and ignorance on the subject are boring; you fail to understand the concept of love entirely (your username is apt perhaps haha). The only thing I've found fruitless is discussing things with you...

I think it is more homosexuals who fail to understand the concept of love and normality.....

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that in our present state ideas that were determined to be out of bounds as little as a single generation ago are being declared as sacrosanct and those who maintained the stance of a generation ago are the ones being declared out of bounds and subjected to the treatment they are being punished for subjecting others to.

Or at least that is my problem

You are perceiving this as a factual matter, which inevitably it is ultimately.

But, as I have just said to Ben and Les, the trouble here is logical.  The mirror-image argument tries to impose an equation among disparate elements.  But intolerance is an absolute, whereas acceptance of social ideas (race, homosexuality) are changing factual conditions.

You can't impose absolutes on contradictory sides of a question.  You impose an absolute on one side, or on the other side, but you can't be heard arguing that both can be true.  That is what you are trying to do, sphinx.  You are trying to say everyone is entitled to an absolute, and each are true.  No...one or the other is true, but not both.  You can't say homophobic ideas are bad, but it's acceptable to treat homophobic ideas as good.  That's a self-contradiction.

I understand what you say about the past versus the present.  But those are factual sates of affairs, and that doesn't permit you to be self-contradictory.  You have to make a choice about facts.  Eg: 'I never accepted the past (racism or homophobia), and I still believe in rights for LBGT people.'  Or, 'I once believed in homophobia, but now I believe in rights for LBGTs.'  Those are factual statements about your state of mind.  What you can't say is: I believe homophobia is wrong, and I believe its right for you to be homophobic.  Reduce the equation down, and what you are saying is I believe it's right to be wrong.

I have not stated it is right to be homophobic I have stated it is a persons right to be homophobic.

In the first example the definition of right is correct (adverb)
In the second the definition is a moral or legal entitlement (noun)

So no I am not contradicting myself. I believe it to be wrong to be prejudiced (against anything) but I believe all people to have the right to be wrong.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are perceiving this as a factual matter, which inevitably it is ultimately.

But, as I have just said to Ben and Les, the trouble here is logical.  The mirror-image argument tries to impose an equation among disparate elements.  But intolerance is an absolute, whereas acceptance of social ideas (race, homosexuality) are changing factual conditions.

You can't impose absolutes on contradictory sides of a question.  You impose an absolute on one side, or on the other side, but you can't be heard arguing that both can be true.  That is what you are trying to do, sphinx.  You are trying to say everyone is entitled to an absolute, and each are true.  No...one or the other is true, but not both.  You can't say homophobic ideas are bad, but it's acceptable to treat homophobic ideas as good.  That's a self-contradiction.

I understand what you say about the past versus the present.  But those are factual sates of affairs, and that doesn't permit you to be self-contradictory.  You have to make a choice about facts.  Eg: 'I never accepted the past (racism or homophobia), and I still believe in rights for LBGT people.'  Or, 'I once believed in homophobia, but now I believe in rights for LBGTs.'  Those are factual statements about your state of mind.  What you can't say is: I believe homophobia is wrong, and I believe its right for you to be homophobic.  Reduce the equation down, and what you are saying is I believe it's right to be wrong.

I have not stated it is right to be homophobic I have stated it is a persons right to be homophobic.

In the first example the definition of right is correct (adverb)
In the second  the definition is a moral or legal entitlement (noun)

So no I am not contradicting myself.  I believe it to be wrong to be prejudiced (against anything) but I believe all people to have the right to be wrong.

First, you are arguing with examples and missing the point. It's the logic you are using that compels the example.

Second, your final sentence says it all: "...all people have the right to be wrong." That's a blatant self-contradiction. People can be insane, or homicidal maniacs, too. Just don't ask us to take them seriously.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are so nearly there.

Yes the tolerance argument is circular and therefore pointless how the answer is not as you suggest to cut the circle in half and throw away the half of it you don't like but rather to throw away the whole circle because if one half of the circle is rubbish so the other half.

To put it bluntly yes it is perfectly acceptable to hold racist opinions while it is not acceptable to commit racist acts.  Expressing a racist opinion is not committing a racist act.

I do not agree with racist opinions - so I choose to use my intelligence and free will to ignore any such that cross my path.  The people who hold them are free to continue with their lives which I firmly believe to be duller and more miserable than my own.  At the same time I have no doubt that those holding them believe my life to be duller and more miserable than their own.

As for the expression of opinions in papers - well if someone writes to a newspaper declaring the world to be flat does everyone jump up and down and scream about how such views should be banned and the people who hold them should be tarred and feathered?  No in general people laugh.  So when people panic at someone expressing a racist opinion in  a paper all they show is that they consider that the opinion is something dangerous, or something that they think actually has a basis in truth.

Let people hold whatever opinion they want - if you dont like it tough shit that does not give you an excuse to abuse them.

So you do not believe holding a racist opinion would have an affect on people working together where they are viewed racially inferior?
Even more so when the person with that racist opinion is in charge?
A opinion can affect the workplace and within the school for example and it is not a case of tough shit, if this opinion is known, where it can affect people having to work ad study alongside each other. Again it is excusing a view point that is wrong and making that view acceptable in a society that has laws to protect against discrimination.
Someone holding a view point solely on the world being flat is not offering an intolerant view and I think most people would think they were crackpots anyway and happily state as such, but intolerant views do affect others especially those who are on the receiving end of them, especially if that view is allowed to spread unchecked.
Having a view that has no rational or scientific bases is wrong especially when it affects others in their lives ad is like I said to you, we might as well scrap teaching if it is acceptable to hold wrong views.

No I do not believe that the effect of holding a racist opinion on people working together to be any different from feeling superior to others for any other reason.
The same effect can and will be seen if there is a difference in union membership, football team supported, or favourite type of music.


Discrimination is not the same as holding an opinion. The barman may consider Arsenal supporters to be the lowest of the low - to the point of refusing to serve anyone he knows to be an Arsenal supporter (I once got threatened with a ban from a pub because I said something derogatory about Bros). That same barman may also consider those with black skins to be inferior however he legally cannot refuse to serve them (unless of course they are wearing an Arsenal shirt).

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:
I have not stated it is right to be homophobic I have stated it is a persons right to be homophobic.

In the first example the definition of right is correct (adverb)
In the second  the definition is a moral or legal entitlement (noun)

So no I am not contradicting myself.  I believe it to be wrong to be prejudiced (against anything) but I believe all people to have the right to be wrong.

First, you are arguing with examples and missing the point.  It's the logic you are using that compels the example.

Second, your final sentence says it all: "...all people have the right to be wrong."  That's a blatant self-contradiction.  People can be insane, or homicidal maniacs, too.  Just don't ask us to take them seriously.

I am begging you to stop taking them seriously.

The most effective way to deal with racism/sexism/homophobia or whatever is to treat it like declarations of the flat earth theory - laugh at them.

By jumping up and down and insisting that someone stupid enough to think one race is superior to another is committing a crime you are giving what is a stupid opinion weight and validity.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

First, you are arguing with examples and missing the point.  It's the logic you are using that compels the example.

Second, your final sentence says it all: "...all people have the right to be wrong."  That's a blatant self-contradiction.  People can be insane, or homicidal maniacs, too.  Just don't ask us to take them seriously.

I am begging you to stop taking them seriously.

The most effective way to deal with racism/sexism/homophobia or whatever is to treat it like declarations of the flat earth theory - laugh at them.

By jumping up and down and insisting that someone stupid enough to think one race is superior to another is committing a crime you are giving what is a stupid opinion weight and validity.

Well, but certainly...

The problem is that influential people propose illogical assertions all the time, and people accept them at face value. Look at how many question climate change, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Then they propose the absurd argument that wrong should be heard as well as right.

That's the reason why I gave the example of Roman Hurska. Here was a US senator arguing that mediocrity deserved as much legitimacy as excellence, as if it was a mere option. With ideas like that, why bother having a scale of superiority at all?

the trouble is...this term called "tolerance"

we are told we MUST tolerate this group or that group or whatever

now given the meaning of the word tolerate

"
Definition of tolerate in English:
tolerate
Line breaks: tol¦er|ate
Pronunciation: /ˈtɒləreɪt

/
verb
[with object]
1Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference:

a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent


1.1Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance:

how was it that she could tolerate such noise?"

That become an imposition, a command, an order

I am told for instance that i must "tolerate" or be tolerant of the pikeys that invade our village for a fortnight every year, stealing and destroying (by the left of course, who either have nowt worth stealing or destroying or have so much money they can afford a virtual fortress) I am told this is to "preserve community relationships" and all that mind numbing shit about the pikeys 'uman rights they trot out...as to my 'uman rights...well sod them, apparantly I should be grateful I got stuff worth nicking...

so THAT is tolerance......

as for homosexuals....I dont "tolerate them" I simply dont differentiate between them and anyone else...someones sexuality is "transparent" to me. (unless its pathological )

thats NOT tolerance that is how it should be. Now I accept that some folks have a problem with that, illogical as it is, but screaming "you must tolerate" is not the way to go about it...any more than "resistance is futile" is a sensible approach.

It IS of course interesting that the left to have that reputation for the SOLE use of the so called "sixhirb" slurs, generally used when they are faced with argumentative defeat at the hands of well educated R/W ers, using said slurs to silence debate....fortunately their abundant over use of these have all but robbed them of any power they might once have had....

the left claim the high moral ground of "tolerance" yet in fact they are totally and utterly INtolerant of any opposing view, which leads to the rubbish posted in this thread....again I repeat...

you may only have/hold or express any opinion IF and only IF it falls into what we the left consider "tolerable" opinion


If it is outside of that you are (choose any one of "sixhirb") regardless of your reasoning, moreover we (the left ) will not engage in any discusssion debate to try to understand your dislike/whatever of this particular group
instead we will lable you bigot and ignore you....

tolerance.....I dont think so...

you CANNOT, logically, decry someones "lack of tolerance" and follow this with "because you dont tolerate our present pet project we are going to call you a dick and refuse to tolerate YOUR point of view"

ALL views are valid (simply because we do NOT, yet, have the leftist "hive mind"), whether those views are acceptable or not (and thus open to valid criticism) is another matter, and dealing with that is a societal concensus matter......

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am begging you to stop taking them seriously.

The most effective way to deal with racism/sexism/homophobia or whatever is to treat it like declarations of the flat earth theory - laugh at them.

By jumping up and down and insisting that someone stupid enough to think one race is superior to another is committing a crime you are giving what is a stupid opinion weight and validity.

Well, but certainly...

The problem is that influential people propose illogical assertions all the time, and people accept them at face value.  Look at how many question climate change, despite clear evidence to the contrary.  Then they propose the absurd argument that wrong should be heard as well as right.

That's the reason why I gave the example of Roman Hurska.  Here was a US senator arguing that mediocrity deserved as much legitimacy as excellence, as if it was a mere option.  With ideas like that, why bother having a scale of superiority at all?

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.

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.

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.

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?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you do not believe holding a racist opinion would have an affect on people working together where they are viewed racially inferior?
Even more so when the person with that racist opinion is in charge?
A opinion can affect the workplace and within the school for example and it is not a case of tough shit, if this opinion is known, where it can affect people having to work ad study alongside each other. Again it is excusing a view point that is wrong and making that view acceptable in a society that has laws to protect against discrimination.
Someone holding a view point solely on the world being flat is not offering an intolerant view and I think most people would think they were crackpots anyway and happily state as such, but intolerant views do affect others especially those who are on the receiving end of them, especially if that view is allowed to spread unchecked.
Having a view that has no rational or scientific bases is wrong especially when it affects others in their lives ad is like I said to you, we might as well scrap teaching if it is acceptable to hold wrong views.

No I do not believe that the effect of holding a racist opinion on people working together to be any different from feeling superior to others for any other reason.
The same effect can and will be seen if there is a difference in union membership, football team supported, or favourite type of music.


Discrimination is not the same as holding an opinion.  The barman may consider Arsenal supporters to be the lowest of the low - to the point of refusing to serve anyone he knows to be an Arsenal supporter (I once got threatened with a ban from a pub because I said something derogatory about Bros).  That same barman may also consider those with black skins to be inferior however he legally cannot refuse to serve them (unless of course they are wearing an Arsenal shirt).

Then you have no understanding of the effect of discriminating views how they do affect people.
How on earth can you work with someone knowing they look upon you as inferior based upon something that has no rational behind it.
To claim this is the same as football support is absurd, where I have worked with may Spurs supporters and in fact it is the opposite, where it is banter, even though the teams detest each other, so your view point is thus absurd beyond belief to even quantify this alongside racism or homophobia, to the point of ridiculous, it is not even the same ball park.
Discrimination is the same holding a view, where any member of staff, where it is deemed their opinion can affect the work ethic within the company where it can be deemed that individual will treat people different based on their opinions, if you do not believe me then you do not understand indirect discrimination, or the fact of comfortably of working alongside someone who you know to dislike you based off irrational beliefs and this would be the same if someone was because of your football team support where of yet I am to see any such case where people actually do, but again is an absurd view point on your part. The reality is you are trying to claim that person can put aside the fact whilst working they will treat the person equal they view as inferior, sorry, but the people who are treated as inferior also have a right to feel okay within their working environment, so your view is incorrect

Sorry but you comparison has no comparison tot he affects of discrimination and nobody should have to endure such views working alongside someone. Holding an opinion ca be deemed rightly as a prejudice which does not allow for equality.

Sphinx, if bigoted views remained absolutely private to the individual, there would be little problem. But this is the real world, those views are expressed, they lead to discrimination and violence. When people are murdered in bigoted violence, state sanctioned in some parts of the world, then someone simply 'expressing' disapproval of gay people or that black people are biologically more inclined to crime, as a matter of opinion, then it is rightly seen as the start of a dangerous road to go down.

Making it sound like bigoted views are always totally harmless is both naive and nonesense. Stop believing the BS that PC is somehow AS BAD as racism, homophobia, sexism etc, it is not. If people are so upset they cannot express their dislike of certain groups in society as vehemently as they'd like I strongly question the decency of that person.

Intolerance of intolerance is rational; intolerance of people who don't affect you in any way is completely irrational.

Eilzel wrote:Sphinx, if bigoted views remained absolutely private to the individual, there would be little problem. But this is the real world, those views are expressed, they lead to discrimination and violence. When people are murdered in bigoted violence, state sanctioned in some parts of the world, then someone simply 'expressing' disapproval of gay people or that black people are biologically more inclined to crime, as a matter of opinion, then it is rightly seen as the start of a dangerous road to go down.

Making it sound like bigoted views are always totally harmless is both naive and nonesense. Stop believing the BS that PC is somehow AS BAD as racism, homophobia, sexism etc, it is not. If people are so upset they cannot express their dislike of certain groups in society as vehemently as they'd like I strongly question the decency of that person.

Intolerance of intolerance is rational; intolerance of people who don't affect you in any way is completely irrational.

You have to understand Eilzel, this is the guide book given out to UKIP members on irrational view points where they wish to make acceptable of which many people have fought hard over the years to stem and eradicate, which is why UKIP are so dangerous to society if they were to gain any power.
She will deny it has nothing to do with, but it clearly does as this is the rhetoric they constantly spout.

True didge, what is harmless now may not be so if many with such views found themselves in power.

You guys really do not get it dont do you?

Prejudice is endemic. The only difference is that some special types of prejudice are legally outlawed.

Employers choose not to not employ someone based on their football team, their hair colour, the street they live in, their perfume and a hundred other things. It happens all the time in fact it is so common people do not even notice it.

Or if someone is employed they can be treated like shit for any of these things. Turned over for promotion, given the nasty jobs, disciplined for something everyone else does without being disciplined.

There is no legal protection for any of these things. Can you complain that the reason the job went to candidate B rather than candidate A was because they were known to support city not united? Or they did not wear the same perfume as the ex missus.

I can be turned down for a job because of my political beliefs. You guys feel perfectly happy to make abusive incorrect statements about me because of my political beliefs.
Try the statement

this is the guide book given out to gay people/black people/Muslims on irrational view points

If you are allowed to express the opinion that my views are irrational because of my political beliefs why I am not allowed to express the opinion that your views are irrational because of your faith or sexuality or hair colour?

You claim to be demanding equality yet you want this group protected and this group not protected (as your posting clearly demonstrates - you treat me in a way you will not allow certain groups to be treated)

When this man expressed his opinion he did no more harm than you telling me my views are irrational. If you are allowed to call my views irrational then this man should be allowed to express his views.

Ha ha thank you for proving my point and how irrational the UKIP view point really is this basing this now on a pretext that so many people are discriminated because of their football team.
Seriously this has to be the most idiotic proposition yet from UKIP.

Can you show me how many jobs require you to declare if for one you support football, let alone your political party view and how many people have been discriminated over this?

Seriously if this your line it is the most idiotic claim I have yest seen to date and no I do not believe people should be discriminated over any view point unless if there is a potential risk to people, but then black people cannot hide what skin colour they are, maybe this view point is so far above your head it is just cleared the moon.

Lets place this into your own situation where you were discriminated because of your condition? Of which again is a reality and where under law because this happens you are protected, Where your yourself have not tolerated people who have excused your condition to be a fabrication? You see this is why your beliefs fall flatter than a pancake because they are absurd, where there is very little calling for someone who is discriminated over their political or football team support but the reality is people have on many occasions been discriminated if they are women, homosexual or of an ethnic minority, showing how poor your understanding is here and in facts makes a mockery of their plight of which many suffer.

I never even stated you should be discriminated from working because you follow a daft guide book, showing your argument is both irrational and daft.

To claim he has done no harm shows you have no conception of how you face people who do not believe your condition is real, because to you it is no doubt upsetting and frustrating that you are not believed and even worse how this view by one can be latched onto by others in the media to stereotype wrongly and excuse who and thus spread, so it has many bad affects to the point you are ostracized by people.

I strongly suggest you stop buying the bullshit UKIP feeds you where again most of the discrimination law has been created to protect those how often receive as groups  and nobody claimed it was perfect or an ongoing process. The very fact he is blaming the collapse of civilization has to be the most daftest claim I have heard, and to blame it on homosexuality with no evidence is even worse, maybe you need to see the reasons and what the Jews were blamed of by Hitler to understand how and where such view points lead to.
I suggest you pick up a book or video on one of the most evil organisations in history to gain some perspective

" A warning from History" might be a good start.

Awww Didge - are you so opposed to UKIP and so loyal to the current political systems that you have no allowance for the concept that a member of a political party may have opinions that either differ from the party line or are not covered by the party line at all?

Or maybe you give you too much credit and imagine that my position within the party is much higher than it is and has a direct impact on policy?

Prejudice based on team supported is a personal experience of mine. Nothing to do with UKIP.

UKIPs policy is meritocracy - the best person for a role regardless of gender, sexuality, faith, race, hair colour or football alliance.

I want to get a job because I am felt to be best for it - not because I am female or disabled or support Liverpool.

Eilzel wrote:Sphinx, if bigoted views remained absolutely private to the individual, there would be little problem. But this is the real world, those views are expressed, they lead to discrimination and violence. When people are murdered in bigoted violence, state sanctioned in some parts of the world, then someone simply 'expressing' disapproval of gay people or that black people are biologically more inclined to crime, as a matter of opinion, then it is rightly seen as the start of a dangerous road to go down.
Making it sound like bigoted views are always totally harmless is both naive and nonesense. Stop believing the BS that PC is somehow AS BAD as racism, homophobia, sexism etc, it is not. If people are so upset they cannot express their dislike of certain groups in society as vehemently as they'd like I strongly question the decency of that person.
Intolerance of intolerance is rational; intolerance of people who don't affect you in any way is completely irrational.

Well I think that forcing people to think that an abnormal and unnatural practice is normal, natural and right and hiding the truth that is clearly seen in crime statistics, is a dangerous path to go down.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Sphinx, if bigoted views remained absolutely private to the individual, there would be little problem. But this is the real world, those views are expressed, they lead to discrimination and violence. When people are murdered in bigoted violence, state sanctioned in some parts of the world, then someone simply 'expressing' disapproval of gay people or that black people are biologically more inclined to crime, as a matter of opinion, then it is rightly seen as the start of a dangerous road to go down.
Making it sound like bigoted views are always totally harmless is both naive and nonesense. Stop believing the BS that PC is somehow AS BAD as racism, homophobia, sexism etc, it is not. If people are so upset they cannot express their dislike of certain groups in society as vehemently as they'd like I strongly question the decency of that person.
Intolerance of intolerance is rational; intolerance of people who don't affect you in any way is completely irrational.

Well I think that forcing people to think that an abnormal and unnatural practice is normal, natural and right and hiding the truth that is clearly seen in crime statistics, is a dangerous path to go down.

The problem with you is you make stupid wild presumptions without going into any depth or understanding whatsoever.

What harm is caused from people accepting gay as being as natural as not being? Oh that's right there is none. No harm whatsoever, just the odd bitter old man (or woman) being too uppity to accept that society has left him behind.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Well I think that forcing people to think that an abnormal and unnatural practice is normal, natural and right and hiding the truth that is clearly seen in crime statistics, is a dangerous path to go down.

The problem with you is you make stupid wild presumptions without going into any depth or understanding whatsoever.

What harm is caused from people accepting gay as being as natural as not being? Oh that's right there is none. No harm whatsoever, just the odd bitter old man (or woman) being too uppity to accept that society has left him behind.

What harm is there in accepting some people do not the idea of gay being natural? None.

Do I say this man should be allowed to commit crimes against gays? No.

I just say he has the right to not like them and to express that dislike.

What harm is there in making opinions illegal? Think about it.

What 'stupid wild presumptions' have I made....???




Homosexuality is not normal or natural by true definition and whatever way you look at it, is the wrong way of attraction, sexual coupling etc being two of same sex as this is supposed to be between two of opposite sex as is the biological and mechanical design.



Why is it wrong to speak the truth???

Sphinx. If the sort of person expressing such opinions left it at that fine.

HOWEVER, the sort of people expressing such views do not leave it at that.

At best the sort of person who claims homosexuality is unnatural is ALSO the sort who calls gay people poofs and faggots, the same people who opposed or protested gay marriage amd adoption- thereby trying to have a direct impact in restricting my choices enjoyed by most people.

At worse the sort of person who claims homosexuality is unnatural ALSO discriminates against gay people actively, commits violence against gay people or, wants laws to criminalize homosexuality.

Neither the better or worse 'sorts' are really acceptible are they? The worse are contemptable in the eyes of any decent human beings. The worse want my rights in life restricted and why should I accept that.

If you think pillocks like monk simply express a view amd that's it you are diabolically mistaken. He opposed gay marriage and opposes adoption rights. If him and his sort got their way my options in life would be limited- I shouldn't have to br concerned about pseudo-logical reasoning.

Adoption rights????






What about the rights of the child to be placed into a normal and natural mother/father family unit???

Eilzel wrote:Sphinx. If the sort of person expressing such opinions left it at that fine.

HOWEVER, the sort of people expressing such views do not leave it at that.

At best the sort of person who claims homosexuality is unnatural is ALSO the sort who calls gay people poofs and faggots, the same people who opposed or protested gay marriage amd adoption- thereby trying to have a direct impact in restricting my choices enjoyed by most people.

At worse the sort of person who claims homosexuality is unnatural ALSO discriminates against gay people actively, commits violence against gay people or, wants laws to criminalize homosexuality.

Neither the better or worse 'sorts' are really acceptible are they? The worse are contemptable in the eyes of any decent human beings. The worse want my rights in life restricted and why should I accept that.

If you think pillocks like monk simply express a view amd that's it you are diabolically mistaken. He opposed gay marriage and opposes adoption rights. If him and his sort got their way my options in life would be limited- I shouldn't have to br concerned about pseudo-logical reasoning.

That is like saying homosexuals are the types that have limp wrists walk funny and had over bearing mothers.

I know as a fact that most gays do not have limp wrists, do not walk funny and did not have overbearing mothers. In fact even if I did not know those things I would not be allowed to say them because they are considered offensive to gays.

Now would you like to show me the proof that the best a person opposed to homosexuality achieves is to call them names and be abusive - that proof is going to have to include examples of people I know personally to be anti gay. As for opposing same sex marriage and adoption I have known people who are gay who opposed those things - so where exactly do they fit into your matrix?

Just because a person holds and expresses an opinion does not automatically mean they will be a rude abusive offensive individual.

You are committing the very offences that you claim you are opposed to simply because you do not like a certain group and you are too blind to see it.

I dont claim they were do all those things, just some of them.

And I have yet to meet someone, either in real life or online, who clearly sees homosexuality as abnormal but does not oppose marriage rights. Certainly on the forums here those with anti gay views seem to encompass both, like monk for instance.

And no I don't like those who oppose what I am for no good reason- because their dislike of what I am is irrational- disliking someone because they view you as abnormal is perfectly rational don't you think?

My dislike is of being vilified for speaking the truth.


And of being forced to think that something that is abnormal, unnatural and wrong is actually normal, natural and right....

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Monk, your ramblings and ignorance on the subject are boring; you fail to understand the concept of love entirely (your username is apt perhaps haha). The only thing I've found fruitless is discussing things with you...

The reality is he is trying to justify discrimination and fails to even see that, based on his view he feels something is unnatural which is complete balderdash, being as homosexuals are born gay, they have no choice over this as you well know better than most of us Eilzel..
We both know his views are also very homophobic based on previous debates elsewhere, even if he tries to attempt to disguise this here of recent late
The reality lets say use his argument on smokers, which using his logic is unnatural, we are not designed to smoke, in fact it is very dangerous to us and others around us, would he bash smokers in the same way he views homosexuals?

I very much doubt it, I mean are smokers on the receiving end of such verbal abuse and violence compared to homosexuals? They at least have a choice to smoke, those for those who start it is difficult to give up, me being one of them.

No and it shows why his argument has little validity, where the reality is his views are very homophobic based on his dislike of homosexuals.
I can use plenty of examples on his view point of unnatural, but the reality is he would not advocate the same passionate arguments against them, proving his true intentions

Born gay?

Have they found the gay gene(s)? Show me the scientific paper?

Or at least, prove there is an in utero process that makes some one gay?

I've had twitter conversations with Dr Christian Jensen (and Boy George) and even he couldn't provide these documents.

But of course, you're far more resourceful and intelligent - so will have no problem complying with my requests.

Eilzel wrote:I dont claim they were do all those things, just some of them.

And I have yet to meet someone, either in real life or online, who clearly sees homosexuality as abnormal but does not oppose marriage rights. Certainly on the forums here those with anti gay views seem to encompass both, like monk for instance.

And no I don't like those who oppose what I am for no good reason- because their dislike of what I am is irrational- disliking someone because they view you as abnormal is perfectly rational don't you think?

My point is not that everyone who dislikes homosexuality does not oppose same sex marriage my point is that not everyone who opposes same sex marriage dislikes homosexuality.

If you are not claiming they would all do those things why do you have a problem with those who do not do those things expressing their opinions?

People are free to express such opinions, they are also free to be critisized and maybe ridiculed for them- or is the freedom of opinion only one sided for you?

But their other views should also be questioned, if itbturns out theirs beliefs lead them to want to infringe on gay peoples rights, then we have a problem.

People are free to express the opinion that homosexuality is normal, natural and right, but they are also free to be criticised and ridiculed for these opinions - or is the freedom of opinion only one sided for you?

Eilzel wrote:People are free to express such opinions, they are also free to be critisized and maybe ridiculed for them- or is the freedom of opinion only one sided for you?

But their other views should also be questioned, if itbturns out theirs beliefs lead them to want to infringe on gay peoples rights, then we have a problem.

This thread was not started to criticise or ridicule or question. It was started to suggest that they did not have the right to express the opinions and that newspapers or other media outlets should not be allowed to publish such opinions.

So what did the man actually say - deal with what he said not whether or not he should have said it.

sphinx wrote:Awww Didge - are you so opposed to UKIP and so loyal to the current political systems that you have no allowance for the concept that a member of a political party may have opinions that either differ from the party line or are not covered by the party line at all?

Or maybe you give you too much credit and imagine that my position within the party is much higher than it is and has a direct impact on policy?

Prejudice based on team supported is a personal experience of mine.  Nothing to do with UKIP.

UKIPs policy is meritocracy - the best person for a role regardless of gender, sexuality, faith, race, hair colour or football alliance.  

I want to get a job because I am felt to be best for it - not because I am female or disabled or support Liverpool.

Again text book UKIP babble.
No where did I state people should be given jobs because of their gender, faith, ace, but on their abilities to do the job, but the blatant point you are missing is many people within these brackets have been better qualified and have been denied jobs based not on their ability but on a discriminating view point, something that again seems to go way above your head.
So why were discriminating laws passed into law?
Simple because people had been getting away with discriminating against people based around many things, and the factual evidence on this is damning all of which the mindless UKIP bandwagon ignores, which is quite evident from your replies and UKIP views that they would like to stop having protection for people and go back in time to when people where discriminated constantly, that is the daft logic of UKIP .

Now you state you should be employed for your abilities and I agree, but you are not being employed for one simple reason and this is your condition, is that fair? No it is not fair it is discrimination, but that is the harsh truth of the matter and what do you spend your time doing? Actively trying to educate employers on your condition that you should be employed, you are placing to rest misconceptions. Now this is the same from racism to any form of discrimination, where we tried to educate, but some people hold irrational view points like yourself, hence we have laws to protect people. You see your own party would try to do away with a system that actually protects you.

Now as Quill has stated you hold an illogical view point, you find racism wrong but find it okay that someone is racist, that is completely illogical and thus you then find racism itself acceptable within society, as to be against racism, you are against any who profess racism, hence why if someone expressed racist view points in the work place, many would find this detrimental to the working environment, all of which seems to go way above your head. Such view can cause affects in the working atmosphere, which is not productive for any company or the fact any employer should be felt to be deemed inferior or may other horrible perceptions people would have. Now imagine you were a teacher and a colleague out for the night expressed an opinion they fantasize with having sex with girls ad boys and that it was perfectly okay to do so and that it should be law. Are you saying you would not be straight on the phone to the school, with a teaching working with such an opinion working with kids? Of course you would as you would fear for the children, just as  any rational employer fears for his employees where there is someone holding abhorrent views. It proves your argument is daft and moot, because if you use the same principle on any opinion which is of a negative or criminal affect within work or school people will rightly act against it.

Either racism and homophobia are wrong, and you denounce both, or you make acceptable, there is no middle ground.

As to UKIP supporters, sadly some seem to be very gullible, there is not much choice in parties, ad I do not back every Tory policy, far from it, but to me they are the best of a bad bunch with UKIP being the most comical.

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:People are free to express such opinions, they are also free to be critisized and maybe ridiculed for them- or is the freedom of opinion only one sided for you?

But their other views should also be questioned, if itbturns out theirs beliefs lead them to want to infringe on gay peoples rights, then we have a problem.

This thread was not started to criticise or ridicule or question.  It was started to suggest that they did not have the right to express the opinions and that newspapers or other media outlets should not be allowed to publish such opinions.

So what did the man actually say - deal with what he said not whether or not he should have said it.

The sign of things to come, you are being dictated to Eilzel, the way of UKIP.
Why I find their insanity a grave concern.
Yes lets look at what he said, was any of it right Sphinx?

We are currently being dictated to by the lib lab con cosy alliance and their EU masters.



UKIP are growing in popularity because they are saying the things that people are thinking and wanting, rather than the current situation where our politicians are doing the things against what people are thinking and wanting.

Tommy Monk wrote:We are currently being dictated to by the lib lab con cosy alliance and their EU masters.



UKIP are growing in popularity because they are saying the things that people are thinking and wanting, rather than the current situation where our politicians are doing the things against what people are thinking and wanting.

Babble, you can vote, if the majority disagrees with you, then you either accept the democracy or fuck off, uite simple really!

I am currently being dictated to that I have to accept and think that homosexuality is normal, natural and right, when it clearly is none of those things.



When did anyone vote for a dictatorship?

Tommy Monk wrote:I am currently being dictated to that I have to accept and think that homosexuality is normal, natural and right, when it clearly is none of those things.



When did anyone vote for a dictatorship?

You are not being dictated to,people are trying to educate you, sadly some people are just quite ignorant unfortunately.
The majority in this country right see nothing wrong with two consenting adults being in love if they are of the same sex, that is democracy, so again maybe you would be better placed living in a country like Saudi, where they do not.
Send me a postcard.

Educate me???



By being vilified for speaking the truth???




All opposing views against the agenda must be silenced!


This is the lefty way....

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

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but certainly...

The problem is that influential people propose illogical assertions all the time, and people accept them at face value.  Look at how many question climate change, despite clear evidence to the contrary.  Then they propose the absurd argument that wrong should be heard as well as right.

That's the reason why I gave the example of Roman Hurska.  Here was a US senator arguing that mediocrity deserved as much legitimacy as excellence, as if it was a mere option.  With ideas like that, why bother having a scale of superiority at all?

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.

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.

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.

Excellent post again Quill +1

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

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.