quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. All except mine, which don't exist. Isn't that the characteristic of a psychopath?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
He's intelligent enough but he simply doesn't engage with the substance of anyone else's posts: he treats them as abstract objects to be challenged rather than a part of what could be a constructive dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Someone who never answers questions isn't interested in having a discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
...
But if you refuse to order a book for any customer, then you're discriminating against the book. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Russ: is it that you don't believe sexuality should be a protected characteristic? Or that if it *is*, other characteristics should also be protected? Or that you don't believe there should be *any* protected characteristics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What kind of idiot equates "discriminating against books" with real-life discrimination against real people? Russ, come over here. I want to show you The Big Book of Rusty Farm Implements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Russ: is it that you don't believe sexuality should be a protected characteristic? Or that if it *is*, other characteristics should also be protected? Or that you don't believe there should be *any* protected characteristics?

---

I think the issue here might be that sexuality can be a protected characteristic; but right now it is being afforded protection at the wrong level, so that it receives not merely equality but inappropriate special status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oooh, two for one! It isn't receiving any more special Statius than other protected characteristics, it is simply that Christians are being forced to act more Christian.

---

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

I've rechecked my original comment, and as I remembered it doesn't say 'homosexuals are "the worst"'. It's a comment on that general phenomenon, seen also in the constant revisional euphemisms for the 'toilet', whereby when people try to hijack a nice word for something in fact ugly, you simply lose the nice and have ugliness left. All those joyous and delightful meanings the word 'gay' used to have, and now it's about men doing sex by stuffing their penises up other men's shitholes.... A major improvement of the use of English, I don't think!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

I've rechecked my original comment, and as I remembered it doesn't say 'homosexuals are "the worst"'. It's a comment on that general phenomenon, seen also in the constant revisional euphemisms for the 'toilet', whereby when people try to hijack a nice word for something in fact ugly, you simply lose the nice and have ugliness left. All those joyous and delightful meanings the word 'gay' used to have, and now it's about men doing sex by stuffing their penises up other men's shitholes.... A major improvement of the use of English, I don't think!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

I've rechecked my original comment, and as I remembered it doesn't say 'homosexuals are "the worst"'. It's a comment on that general phenomenon, seen also in the constant revisional euphemisms for the 'toilet', whereby when people try to hijack a nice word for something in fact ugly, you simply lose the nice and have ugliness left. All those joyous and delightful meanings the word 'gay' used to have, and now it's about men doing sex by stuffing their penises up other men's shitholes.... A major improvement of the use of English, I don't think!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see quite nakedly what lies behind 90% of the righteous homophobia in this world: The Ick Factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

I've rechecked my original comment, and as I remembered it doesn't say 'homosexuals are "the worst"'. It's a comment on that general phenomenon...

---

quote:

---

OK, just being a bit annoyed that as usual we lose the best of our wonderful language to the worst ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see quite nakedly what lies behind 90% of the righteous homophobia in this world: The Ick Factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see quite nakedly what lies behind 90% of the righteous homophobia in this world: The Ick Factor.

---

It was quite obvious ages ago, as I drew attention to here: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000625;p=9#000414

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

anal sex obsession

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

anal sex obsession

---

Time to do some math, Steve. The overwhelming majority of anal sex acts are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;

quote:

---

Since you are here dear heart, can you be ever so kind and explain why homosexuals are "the worst"?

---

I've rechecked my original comment, and as I remembered it doesn't say 'homosexuals are "the worst"'. It's a comment on that general phenomenon, seen also in the constant revisional euphemisms for the 'toilet', whereby when people try to hijack a nice word for something in fact ugly, you simply lose the nice and have ugliness left. All those joyous and delightful meanings the word 'gay' used to have, and now it's about men doing sex by stuffing their penises up other men's shitholes.... A major improvement of the use of English, I don't think!

---

You putrescent piece of festering shit. "Gay" does not mean anal sex. Many gay couples eschew anal sex; many straight couples enjoy it. Learn something about the world next time you go away and come back again with your ignorant stereotypes. Or at the very least, stop being the ugliness you deride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
With apologies to Gertrude, the bigot doth protest too much, methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
With apologies to Gertrude, the bigot doth protest too much, methinks.

---

Based on what? You can think all you want. It would be better, in fact, if you did it a little more than this response demonstrates.

---

quote:

---

With apologies to Gertrude, the bigot* doth protest too much, methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
With apologies to Gertrude, the bigot doth protest too much, methinks.

---

Based on what? You can think all you want. It would be better, in fact, if you did it a little more than this response demonstrates.

---

It's clear from the context I wasn't directing my comment at you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Gaaa. I have been googling doctors all day and now you're going to make me google a cultural reference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Gaaa. I have been googling doctors all day and now you're going to make me google a cultural reference.

---

Taxi Driver: "You talkin' to me?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I see nothing has changed during my latest vacation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I see nothing has changed during my latest vacation.

---

Welcome back!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
**I've run out of porn to watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
That ain't frosting

---

 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
That ain't frosting

---

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If you lot are finished wanking off, I'd like to get back to the wanker for whom I started this thread.
I think it fairly obvious by now that engaging the fatuous tosser merely serves to help him stroke himself silly. He's getting to spew his bigoted slime all over the thread under the pretence of being "fair".
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see quite nakedly what lies behind 90% of the righteous homophobia in this world: The Ick Factor.

---

Wouldn't the "Ick Factor" be a fetish involving lizard people?
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

A lot of folk thought he'd gorn nutty over that Lizard business, now he's loaded. H'mmm....
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it fairly obvious by now that engaging the fatuous tosser merely serves to help him stroke himself silly. He's getting to spew his bigoted slime all over the thread under the pretence of being "fair".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Highjacked? "Gay" has carried a connotation of immorality for at least 400 years; it has been used to mean homosexual for at least 150 years. What you inaccurately describe as highjacking is people successfully taking control of a perjorative used about them.

Language changes. In this case, yes, I think it has changed for the better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Highjacked? "Gay" has carried a connotation of immorality for at least 400 years; it has been used to mean homosexual for at least 150 years. What you inaccurately describe as highjacking is people successfully taking control of a perjorative used about them.

Language changes. In this case, yes, I think it has changed for the better.

---

I don't think this is correct re time frame. In my youth, 1960s and into the early 70s, we watched The Flintstones cartoon, lyric of the theme included "have a gay old time". Which meant 'kick up your heels fun'. A friend, who no longer uses the first name Gaye would not have been named such in the 1950s if the word's meaning had changed. Thought perhaps it meant something else sooner in some places, a code word perhaps?

A brief look through the every somewhat reliable web suggests that the usage of a word which sounds like 'gay' was not widespread until quite a bit later. I recall when I first heard the new meaning, it was ~1975 and I didn't understand. Not sure when The Flintstones changed the theme lyric to "great old time".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If this is your principle, do you consider that "disadvantaged status" once acquired is for all time ? Or is there some statistic that you would look at every year to assess whether your list of disadvantaged groups was still applicable ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Highjacked? "Gay" has carried a connotation of immorality for at least 400 years; it has been used to mean homosexual for at least 150 years. What you inaccurately describe as highjacking is people successfully taking control of a perjorative used about them.

Language changes. In this case, yes, I think it has changed for the better.

---

I don't think this is correct re time frame. In my youth, 1960s and into the early 70s, we watched The Flintstones cartoon, lyric of the theme included "have a gay old time". Which meant 'kick up your heels fun'. A friend, who no longer uses the first name Gaye would not have been named such in the 1950s if the word's meaning had changed. Thought perhaps it meant something else sooner in some places, a code word perhaps?

A brief look through the every somewhat reliable web suggests that the usage of a word which sounds like 'gay' was not widespread until quite a bit later. I recall when I first heard the new meaning, it was ~1975 and I didn't understand. Not sure when The Flintstones changed the theme lyric to "great old time".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Straight, white male Christians have never had it so hard, and we still insist on all these laws that were based on discrimination against women and blacks and queers.

I read a brilliant article earlier this year about how when you're used to being privileged, equality feels like persecution. All this taking the rights of others into account, it's so tiring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Words change their meaning all the time. The word "with" now means almost the exact opposite of its original meaning of "against".

To describe this process as "hijacking" involves a view of language that is at odds with the reality of how language constantly evolves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Was woman on woman sex ever punishable with a jail term in the U.K. ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What you are aware of is when, following Stonewall, the word began to be used primarily or exclusively to mean homosexual, and moved beyond being slang known mainly in certain circles. And perhaps I should have said 100–150 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The change that has occurred with the word 'gay' involves a much more deliberate misuse of the word and more of a "knowing what we're doing" situation, and I think the phrase 'hijacked' is basically appropriate to what happened. I may have to accept it - but like what's happened to 'refute', not without protest!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The change that has occurred with the word 'gay' involves a much more deliberate misuse of the word and more of a "knowing what we're doing" situation, and I think the phrase 'hijacked' is basically appropriate to what happened. I may have to accept it - but like what's happened to 'refute', not without protest!!

---

But would you protest it so vigorously -- or indeed at all -- if you didn't have such a hardon of hate against gays?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The change that has occurred with the word 'gay' involves a much more deliberate misuse of the word and more of a "knowing what we're doing" situation, and I think the phrase 'hijacked' is basically appropriate to what happened. I may have to accept it - but like what's happened to 'refute', not without protest!!

---

But would you protest it so vigorously -- or indeed at all -- if you didn't have such a hardon of hate against gays?

---

I care about gays; the Greek word for care is, I believe, 'agapE'. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you don't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

anal sex obsession

---

Time to do some math, Steve. The overwhelming majority of anal sex acts are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The change that has occurred with the word 'gay' involves a much more deliberate misuse of the word and more of a "knowing what we're doing" situation, and I think the phrase 'hijacked' is basically appropriate to what happened. I may have to accept it - but like what's happened to 'refute', not without protest!!

---

But would you protest it so vigorously -- or indeed at all -- if you didn't have such a hardon of hate against gays?

---

I care about gays; the Greek word for care is, I believe, 'agapE'. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you don't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The change that has occurred with the word 'gay' involves a much more deliberate misuse of the word and more of a "knowing what we're doing" situation, and I think the phrase 'hijacked' is basically appropriate to what happened. I may have to accept it - but like what's happened to 'refute', not without protest!!

---

But would you protest it so vigorously -- or indeed at all -- if you didn't have such a hardon of hate against gays?

---

I care about gays; the Greek word for care is, I believe, 'agapE'. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you don't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I care about gays; the Greek word for care is, I believe, 'agapE'. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you don't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

anal sex obsession

---

Time to do some math, Steve. The overwhelming majority of anal sex acts are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

---

1) Please remind me where and in what context I posted the phrase 'anal sex obsession'. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

unacknowledged anal sex obsession

---

quote:

---

You often post in great length and detail about anal sex,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
fudged out

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Though I have occasionally 'spelled it out' so that that particular bit of ugly reality doesn't get fudged out by vague and non-specific stuff about 'love'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
About usage of the word 'gay'....

I agree with Nick that from an original meaning of light-hearted etc., the word certainly acquired a secondary implication of ideas like reckless, 'devil-may-care', extremely irresponsible and so general loose-living. That someone 'went gaily on his way' tends to carry an implication of 'indifferent to the harm he had caused and the havoc he left behind him'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Though I have occasionally 'spelled it out' so that that particular bit of ugly reality doesn't get fudged out by vague and non-specific stuff about 'love'.

---

quote:

---

So why do you think I mention it so often??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sticking your twig up to the berries in the naughty hole, especially if it another bloke's

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
And I wish his mind hadn't gone to the word 'fudged' in that context, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... I wish Steve would come out with his real feelings about this, and not beat around the bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... I wish Steve would come out with his real feelings about this, and not beat around the bush.

---

Beating around the bush is probably his main extracurricular activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.

---

Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, they are yet another bit of marketing which makes women more insecure about themselves, just like the beauty industry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.

---

Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?

---

An article among many.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.

---

Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?

---

An article among many.

---

Right. I shall avoid vaginal douching in future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Getting back from the tangent, I'd say that Russ is both incredibly stupid and a trolling bigot. He shows no signs of having read any of Eliab's detailed posts for example, but instead tries to get away with a Mousethief-like one liner when he can't properly answer a post. Then there's the continual retreat to a question that has been answered so many times it's not funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.

---

Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?

---

An article among many.

---

Right. I shall avoid vaginal douching in future.

---

A quick Google search indicates it might not be a good thing rectally either.

ETA: The Ship has made my search history a good deal more varied in areas I would have never thought it would go. No wonder the automatic generated ads never target me well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I bet Russ is so horrified by this discussion that he's had to read it OVER AND OVER AGAIN, MANY TIMES.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
About usage of the word 'gay'....

I agree with Nick that from an original meaning of light-hearted etc., the word certainly acquired a secondary implication of ideas like reckless, 'devil-may-care', extremely irresponsible and so general loose-living. That someone 'went gaily on his way' tends to carry an implication of 'indifferent to the harm he had caused and the havoc he left behind him'.

---

Like the members of tiny sects that are trying to "Hijack" the word Christian to apply only to their own practice and not the common and historical usage. They want it to mean their practices which are "indifferent to the harm they cause to others and the havoc they wreak."

That would be you Steve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

If by the 'common and historical usage' you're referring to the Orthodox/RCC/ and other state churches or would-be state churches like Anglicans, you're basically talking about a big heresy against the original usage by Jesus and his apostles/ambassadors, 'common' only in the sense of being a widespread nominal belief artificially upheld by state power....

---

quote:

---

I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[Q
1) "...tiny sects..."
As per the example of Elijah in his opposition to the priests of Baal in I Kings 18, the tiniest sect possible, one man, IF that man is in line with God, is effectively an INFINITE majority against, if it comes to it, the billions of the whole of the rest of the human race [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

If by the 'common and historical usage' you're referring to the Orthodox/RCC/ and other state churches or would-be state churches like Anglicans, you're basically talking about a big heresy against the original usage by Jesus and his apostles/ambassadors, 'common' only in the sense of being a widespread nominal belief artificially upheld by state power....

---

You have asserted and reasserted this many times over the years. But you've never adduced real or adequate evidence to justify it. SImply saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. And, it seems to me, that's what you are doing.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....

---

This is, you may remember, an international board. In most anglican churches around the world the 39 articles are a historical document with only historical relevence to theology or doctrine. I don't see how mentioning that many anglicans don't accept one or more of the articles -- which everyone knows and has gotten over for decades -- adds anything to any argument, much less the one you're trying to make.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
..really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think one reason why people like Langton and Russ desperately want a one-time-forever-and all-time-valid-everywhere-and-always universal set of rules to follow is simply that they're incapable of learning from their mistakes. Incapable of admitting they don't know everything. Incapable of acknowledging they've been wrong. They have to get it all set up perfectly at the start because they can't change course even when it's patently obvious they're lost.

---

quote:

---

You have asserted and reasserted this many times over the years. But you've never adduced real or adequate evidence to justify it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

1) What on earth are you actually arguing for here?? Do you even have a coherent position??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Why is it such a problem to you to accept that Christian rejection of "Christian countries" and "State Churches" actually goes back to Jesus himself and should therefore ideally have been what his followers practiced from NT times??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Why is it such a problem to you to accept that Christian rejection of "Christian countries" and "State Churches" actually goes back to Jesus himself and should therefore ideally have been what his followers practiced from NT times??

---

The concept of a Christian country is an absurd anachronism if you're talking about the first century, and it's nonsense to suggest that the early church either di {guessing this bit has something missing? ('...did or "should...??) Please advise... SL} ot (should therefore ideally" have taken a position on it.

---

quote:

---

by John Holding;

As for a "state church" -- that was the norm at the time, in every country or nation, there was an approved religious system with a god or gods at the top to which everyone in the state was expected to give obedience. Just as, for example, Jews were expected to give reverence to YHWH, and Romans were expected to give formal reverence to Jupiter and his friends and relations, and the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon to whichever of the local Baals was on top at the time. But no where does Jesus express any criticism of this system. To conclude from this silence that he disapproved of this reality (or didn't, for that matter) is perverse. I could argue that if he had wanted to criticize it, he would have done. I prefer to think he thought it irrelevant to what he was about.

---

quote:

---

As it happens, I'm nearly as anti-Constantinian as you are...not as a matter of theology, but as a matter of practical politics and evangelism. And I don't see what happened back then as a massively perverse conspiracy (by whom, for what end?) as you do. It's an historical fact, with consequences -- some good, many not -- but not a theological fact, given the silence of scriptures (except, of course, for the acceptance -- indeed, the specific approval of -- theocracy as God's will for Israel).

John

---

I do see it as a matter of theology precisely because the NT does in fact teach on the subject and is not remotely silent.

I do not see it as a "massively perverse conspiracy" - perverse, yes, but ordinary human perversity - essentially it was something that kind of slipped into existence over some 70-80 years between 311 and c391CE. Constantine tolerated but also gave positive support which ultimately tipped the balance to make possible Theodosius' decision to make Christianity compulsory. Constantine's "end" appears to have been an attempt to unite Rome around a religion by then somewhat more alive than paganism; Theodosius' "end" would just be that he wanted conformity in his empire.

I also see it as something God allowed, rather as he allowed Israel to have kings even though that was in itself a bad idea - I see it as a bit of a case of humanity needing to see the problems in order to realise the way the Christian country/state church was wrong. As of now, mind, he must be getting a bit impatient that so many people still refuse to return fully to the NT model and give up the realistically now-discredited 'Christian country'idea.

And also I can't see God being all that happy that people - both Christian and nominal Christian - won't recognise that the rejection of the state church is something he told us in the NT rather than something we modern humans 'cleverly' worked out in recent times....

And I mentioned it in this thread because of course one of the many bad consequences of the state church was the criminalisation of homosexuality, and I wanted to register clearly that my own approach and attitude to 'gay' issues is not that of Constantinians - but yes ideally we should now take this part of the discussion elsewhere ... I understand I am allowed to discuss this in such a dedicated thread whatever....

I've probably missed something but it's been a busy day....
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Sorry - obviously missed the hostly intervention while preparing a long and complex reply to John...
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
John, as a logical consequence of tripping Steve's wire, Team Hell will have to ask you to provide for us a YouTube video of yourself reciting Steve's very thorough response.

In Hindi.

Is two days a good enough window for you?

[wisass mode off, interim Hellhost mode on]

Steve, now that you have seen Doc's host post, I trust you will adhere to it.

Everybody carry on.
Kelly Alves
Interim Hell Host
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.... And directly on the thread topic, the original belief of Christianity was clearly that 'gay sex' is sinful conduct....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... one of the many bad consequences of the state church was the criminalisation of homosexuality ...

---

quote:

---

You know, you did a hell of a lot of typing to say just that. So fucking what? Apparently you think same-sex relationships are sinful but not a crime. So?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.

---

I do wonder if they connect with such a God, so as to fit their own persecutory nature. After all, condemning others is a fine pleasure, and possibly makes one feel better for it. Well, we all do it, probably, but religious bigots also get a divine endorsement! This seems like double cream on top of chocolate cake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...
Basically if you commit a crime, the state may penalise you with fines, restraining orders, imprisonment, possibly death, affecting your position adversely throughout the nation.

If you commit a sin, then while obviously telling you that you are wrong - which you may not like - the church is supposed to treat you with loving pastoral concern in an attempt to persuade you to repentance....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.

---

I do wonder if they connect with such a God, so as to fit their own persecutory nature. After all, condemning others is a fine pleasure, and possibly makes one feel better for it. Well, we all do it, probably, but religious bigots also get a divine endorsement! This seems like double cream on top of chocolate cake.

---

"Oh, I don't wish to hate and persecute you, but God will hate me if I don't"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I really, really do not want to be treated with loving pastoral concern by the people who sell me books and cakes. I want them to sell me the stuff I want and keep their fucking judgments of my sinfulness to themselves, just as they do with all their other customers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.

But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.

But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Soror Magna;

quote:

---

You know, you did a hell of a lot of typing to say just that. So fucking what? Apparently you think same-sex relationships are sinful but not a crime. So?

---

At any rate for my kind of Christian many things are seen as wrong in God's eyes and therefore 'sinful'; yet the state may quite reasonably not regard those things as 'criminal' requiring the state law to intervene.

Basically if you commit a crime, the state may penalise you with fines, restraining orders, imprisonment, possibly death, affecting your position adversely throughout the nation.

If you commit a sin, then while obviously telling you that you are wrong - which you may not like - the church is supposed to treat you with loving pastoral concern in an attempt to persuade you to repentance.

If you are particularly obdurate and stroppy about it, the church may feel it necessary to 'excommunicate' you - ie withdraw certain privileges of membership - and in a really bad case they may ask you to leave until you have changed your mind about your sinful conduct. This is similar to what a sporting association may do if you're determined not to keep their rules. Like a person expelled from a sport, you will suffer no penalty within the state unless your conduct has also constituted a secular crime such as theft.

This is a considerable difference in treatment - you should not be scornful about it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.

But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.

---

.
Before you joined this thread, I asked why he could not be both. I still think that's a real possibility

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

You may be onto something there. It's the best explanation for continuing, for example, to equate choosing which books to stock with choosing which words to write on a cake made from the same ingredients and the same icing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, it's an absurd implicit belief that "gay" cakes have different ingredients to "straight" ones.

Kind of like transubstantiation, only with a focus on sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
Godwin's Law wins again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The 'gay cake' is certainly no different to other cakes in its physical ingredients. But its slogan expresses a view of the world which can quite reasonably be disagreed with; and confusing that point, as orfeo's post does, is also a questionable move.

---

quote:

---

You are literally giving equivalence between Nazism and gay rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor

quote:

---

You are literally giving equivalence between Nazism and gay rights.

---

No, and it says something about your bigotry that you can't follow the argument.

---

quote:

---

And even gay activist Peter Tatchell was I believe a bit unhappy about that aspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is objectionable is the writing, the views the book expresses. It is the same with the 'gay cake' - the ingredients are not different from a cake saying 'Happy Birthday' - but the sentiments expressed - "Support Gay Marriage" are still a good deal more controversial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's still making a parallel between gay and Nazi. What do you think it is like for a gay person to read that? FFS.

Ah well, at least I do know that not all Christians are so mind-fuckingly dumb/numb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, it's an absurd implicit belief that "gay" cakes have different ingredients to "straight" ones.

Kind of like transubstantiation, only with a focus on sex.

---

Of course 'Mein Kampf' has the same 'ingredients'
as any other physical book - its ideas and principles, on the other hand.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

The point of what I said was in response to Palimpsest to make the point that I'm mostly in line with the common and historical usages of Christianity - really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm waiting for a comparison between gay and paedophilia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

The point of what I said was in response to Palimpsest to make the point that I'm mostly in line with the common and historical usages of Christianity - really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.

---

So then why do you endlessly need to bring up your obsessions about Constantine ruining Christianity? Why derail discussion after discussion by bringing up this topic if there's no discernible difference between your sect and everyone else who hasn't rejected the Constantine Heritage who cares other than to remind you that you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is objectionable is the writing, the views the book expresses. It is the same with the 'gay cake' - the ingredients are not different from a cake saying 'Happy Birthday' - but the sentiments expressed - "Support Gay Marriage" are still a good deal more controversial.

---

quote:

---

Since the judgement, I've wondered what happens to, say, wedding-related businesses who have similar principles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My apologies for having crossed the boundaries of banned topics. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

---

quote:

---

So you do maintain the equivalence between printing Mein Kampf and putting a message supporting gay marriage on a cake, despite Nazism and gay rights being two separate and distinct things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If the law bars refusal of service to gay people it should bar refusal of service to straight people, because people should have equal rights under the law.

---

Anti-discrimination law does not prohibit the refusal of service to gay people. It prohibits the refusal of service to anyone if that refusal is on the grounds of sexuality.

---

Yes. But the "social damage" argument being put forward for it is an argument for officially-recognised minorities to have a protected status in law that is denied to both unrecognised-minorities and the normal majority.

If that argument were valid it would justify people not being equal under the law. People should be equal under the law. Therefore that argument is not valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Spoken like a privileged white pig.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:


If IfZ (a respectable, if not stodgy, academic publisher) can hold their noses long enough to publish a new edition of Mein Kampf, surely your friendly neighbourhood baker can hold his (or her) nose long enough to pipe 'Congratulations Andy and Barry' on a wedding cake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--

1) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, and given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has.

2) LGBT folks, women, and others have been treated unequally and unfairly, and not given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has. Sometimes, even the law and/or its interpretation is against them.

3) Making sure the folks in #2 are treated in line with #1 isn't giving them special rights--it's giving them the same rights as everyone else.

Compare with the way Irish immigrants were treated in the US.

---

quote:

---

That's not even vaguely the same thing. A publisher has chosen for a variety of reasons to print Mein Kampf. I don't know this publisher, but we can assume they believe it is better to have Hitler's hateful ideas out there discussed and analysed rather than contribute to the Neo-nazi conspiracy theories that they're being hidden and/or censored.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

But that's not the point of the NI 'gay cake' case that revitalized the Dead Horses thread. The point there, as fletcher christian said, is that the bakery entered into a contract to provide this cake and then broke it. The reason why they broke it is almost irrelevant*. They are getting all het up about it because it Goes Against Their Religious Principles, but actually all the law is concerned with is that they had no right to break the contract.

*though not to all the other gay couples queuing up to order cakes from them, of course...

---

quote:

---

f it is the case that the legal point on which that case hinged was about breaking the contract (ie accepting the order and then later breaking it because of a moral qualm about the message) then that's (a) not something which has been clear from any of the media stories I've read and (b) not the point that people have been arguing about on that thread.

Indeed, the consistent point has been that all bakers who offer to ice cakes should be icing any (legal) message whether they agree with it or not. If in fact the legal point is regarding breaking a contract, that's a different point to whether the baker is forced to accept the contract in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, I don't think Russ is trying to draw a straight-line comparison, he appears to be trying to understand where the line lies for a trader and the moral choices he/she makes on the produce they sell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--

1) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, and given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has.

2) LGBT folks, women, and others have been treated unequally and unfairly, and not given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has. Sometimes, even the law and/or its interpretation is against them.

3) Making sure the folks in #2 are treated in line with #1 isn't giving them special rights--it's giving them the same rights as everyone else.

Compare with the way Irish immigrants were treated in the US.

---

3) is a little more complex than you suggest here. Under British law, sexuality cannot be a reason for discrimination of service, which means that in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Others are telling him it is quite straightforward - namely that if one is a specialist store, one can choose to limit your stock or orderlist, if it is a general store-which-takes-orders then you must order anything asked of you that you can reasonably get hold of and/or make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it is the case that the legal point on which that case hinged was about breaking the contract (ie accepting the order and then later breaking it because of a moral qualm about the message) then that's (a) not something which has been clear from any of the media stories I've read and (b) not the point that people have been arguing about on that thread....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, I don't think Russ is trying to draw a straight-line comparison, he appears to be trying to understand where the line lies for a trader and the moral choices he/she makes on the produce they sell.

---

I don't see that Russ is trying to understand at all. He's trying to justify.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
....which means that in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you saying that [persons of different] sexuality is the only protected group that it's not legal to discriminate against?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't think this is true. The provider of services might *feel* they are in this position, because they *do* need to have really good, non-protected-characteristic grounds for refusing service, but it still isn't true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
However, it does uphold the principle that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to get out of a contract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As long as this code didn't directly adversely affect homosexuals (or other protected groups)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The only sense in which people being discriminated against can "force" someone to deal with them is that when the discrimination stops, the amount of service those people will receive will increase.

---

quote:

---

This is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM with people like Russ only noticing the change and not noticing the baseline. This is exactly why people in positions of privilege cry and wail about the loss of their privilege, because that privileged state was "normal" to them.

---

quote:

---

If you're in a field where men have typically got 90% of the power, do you know what happens when women achieve equality? The more wankerish men don't shout "we've only got 50% of the power". No, what they shout is "our share of the power has decreased by 40 percentage points!".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And can you kindly stop perpetuating this piece of crap which is exactly the same rubbish that is being corrected for Russ elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Homosexuals are not a protected group. Sexuality is a protected characteristic. You cannot exclude heterosexuals for being heterosexual either.

---

quote:

---

Here in Australia I know of several gay/lesbian bars that have had to seek special exemptions in relation to sex/sexuality discrimination, because unlike you they grasped that excluding straight people or excluding one gender would otherwise be discriminatory.

---

quote:

---

Women-only gyms have had to seek exemptions as well, because excluding men is just as discriminatory as excluding women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A barman can refuse to serve me because I'm wearing a moleskin coat, he can't because I'm gay. Therefore being gay means that I can force traders to trade with me in a way that I can't when wearing specific clothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In case you've not grasped that there might be a difference between the laws in different jurisdictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

You seem to be in this alternative universe where people have one single, defining characteristic. In which case no wonder you can't make sense of how discrimination law actually works. Meanwhile, here in the real world, people possess multiple characteristics. And discrimination law here on Planet Earth simply tells you which criteria you cannot use. What it doesn't do is say "and therefore people are immune from all other possible reasons for non-service".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


It's a complete non sequitur. Being gay doesn't confer any kind of special right to service. The whole point is that being gay or non-gay confers no change in status whatsoever. Gay people don't have an automatic right to service IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE DON'T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Homosexuals are not a protected group. Sexuality is a protected characteristic. You cannot exclude heterosexuals for being heterosexual either.

---

In some circumstances you can, actually. As shown by a case when a heterosexual couple was refused leave to get a civil partnership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, according to you, one can walk into a general bookstore and expect to be able to order whatever the fuck you like because you happen to be gay (and or it is somehow about "being gay"), whereas a person who has a fascination with antique aeroplanes cannot force the bookseller to get him the book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What total bullshit. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I expect to be able to order exactly the same things a straight person could order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A barman can refuse to serve me because I'm wearing a moleskin coat, he can't because I'm gay. Therefore being gay means that I can force traders to trade with me in a way that I can't when wearing specific clothing.

---

Yes, because people who wear moleskin coats have faced just as much discrimination and hatred down the years as people who are gay.

You don't need specific laws to force people to do business with you if they're not trying to avoid doing business with you in the first place.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Yes, because people who wear moleskin coats have faced just as much discrimination and hatred down the years as people who are gay.

You don't need specific laws to force people to do business with you if they're not trying to avoid doing business with you in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
cakes with SSM slogans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's an SSM slogan look like?

I've already gone through the complete stupidity of treating the stocking of books as equivalent to the writing of things on cakes in Dead Horses. I'm not going through it again. Let's just focus on exactly how you think a "same-sex" wedding cake looks different to a "regular" wedding cake.

---

quote:

---

What makes a slogan into an SSM one? I mean, I'm really confused here. What happens when you've got a couple with names like "Chris" and "Lindsey" and you can't guess the genders? How can the same message be an "SSM slogan" and not at the same time?

---

quote:

---

What EXACTLY is it that you think homosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes that is different to what heterosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes?

Don't strain yourself by thinking about it too quickly, I'm off to bed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But the end result is that anyone who truly wants to discriminate against a gay person need only to say it is because of their coat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But the end result is that anyone who truly wants to discriminate against a gay person need only to say it is because of their coat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

To suggest that merely using the same ingredients for the cake makes its 'message' irrelevant is seriously confused thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What total bullshit. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I expect to be able to order exactly the same things a straight person could order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, then it ought to be fine to refuse to make cakes with SSM slogans or to refuse to stock specific books - providing the refusal is equally made to both gay and straight people (and people with other sexualities not mentioned here).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.... like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
When I raised the point about books it wasn't to start a massive tangent about bookselling.

The point was that some unthinking person was trying to say in effect that because the controversial cake was made from the same ingredients as other cakes it was no different.

I used the example from the book world to make the point that although books are pretty much all made from the same ingredients - paper, ink, etc. - the actual content of the book, what its text was about, made a considerable difference. I quoted 'Mein Kampf' as a clear example of that kind of difference.

In the case of the cake, of course it was made from the same flour, butter, eggs, sugar etc. as any other cake. The problem was that the cake was adorned with a specific controversial slogan - and as in the case of books, that slogan can make a considerable difference to the implications of making/selling/using the cake.

To suggest that merely using the same ingredients for the cake makes its 'message' irrelevant is seriously confused thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's an SSM slogan look like?

I've already gone through the complete stupidity of treating the stocking of books as equivalent to the writing of things on cakes in Dead Horses. I'm not going through it again. Let's just focus on exactly how you think a "same-sex" wedding cake looks different to a "regular" wedding cake.

---

It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. Have you been paying any attention at all?

quote:

---

What makes a slogan into an SSM one? I mean, I'm really confused here. What happens when you've got a couple with names like "Chris" and "Lindsey" and you can't guess the genders? How can the same message be an "SSM slogan" and not at the same time?

---

The slogan was "Support gay marriage" and it appeared below two cartoon characters.

quote:

---

What EXACTLY is it that you think homosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes that is different to what heterosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes?

Don't strain yourself by thinking about it too quickly, I'm off to bed.

---

It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. It was a cake with the slogan, if it had been a simple wedding cake there may not have been a problem at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Okay? It's not rocket science. If the baker can show that actually, other people who ask for slogans on cakes also get told no, because the bakery isn't keen on slogans, then there's no problem.

The law focuses on the customer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given that you seem to know feck all about the thing under discussion, it is impossible to tell how you could possibly know that.

---

quote:

---

In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious belief in relation to sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be willing to bet a healthy sum the reason that they didn't "try as a defence" showing that they'd refused other slogans was because they hadn't refused them.

Because that's about a clear an explanation of where their legal escape route would've been as you can find.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
because that's not even slightly relevant.

---

quote:

---

The judge reached the following conclusions:

1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.

District Judge Brownlie concluded that the appellants’ actions amounted to direct discrimination contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the 2006 Regulations.

In relation to the claim for discrimination on the ground of political opinion, District Judge Brownlie noted the 1998 Order did not provide a definition of political opinion and adopted the analysis contained in the authorities that political opinion means opinion relating to the policy of government and matters touching upon government. In light of the ongoing political debate as to whether the Assembly should legislate on same-sex marriage, she found that the respondent’s support for same-sex marriage was a political opinion. The judge concluded that the appellants disagreed with the religious belief and political opinion held by the respondent with regard to the change in law to permit gay marriage and, accordingly, they treated him less favourably by refusing to provide him with the service sought. In those circumstances the appellants had directly discriminated against him. The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondent’s religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion.

---

quote:

---

No, what is confused thinking is believing that booksellers make books in the same way that bakers make cakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Anyway, where does this weird unstated assumption come from, that reading Mein Kampf is inextricably linked to liking Hitler?

The fact that counterterrorism experts read material published by ISIS must make your brain explode.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.... like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.

---

*waves* It was me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Anyway, where does this weird unstated assumption come from, that reading Mein Kampf is inextricably linked to liking Hitler?

The fact that counterterrorism experts read material published by ISIS must make your brain explode.

---

Smallest explosion ever

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By Mr Cheesy Logic (patent pending), a naked gay man with no money can go to a bakery, ask for a cake saying "Support Same Sex Marriage", and when he's refused he can say "but there's a court case that says you have to do it".

Every adult in the room can see that this isn't true and why it isn't true, but under Mr Cheesy Logic the bakery is forced to serve gays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:


Likewise although two cakes may be made from the same physical stuff in terms of flour, eggs, sugar etc., they can be considerably different in their practical implications depending on the different slogans the two cakes may carry. As with books, the identical physical composition is not relevant to issues raised by the wording the physical elements are used to convey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The comparison was a simple one; they stipulated that they would have made a pro-heterosexual-marriage cake but not a SSM slogan one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Sounds fair enough for that to be considered evidence of illegal discrimination doesn't it?

---

• West Ham for the Cup
• Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
• Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
• Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
• Down with marriage
• I hate my mother-in-law
• SSM Rules

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Sounds fair enough for that to be considered evidence of illegal discrimination doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The point (from this case) apparently being that all things being equal (and legal), you can't decide which slogans to make if they happen to entail the protected characteristics. You can discriminate all you like on slogans about things that are nothing to do with protected characteristics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Put it this way, Steve. As a baker would you turn down icing any of the following;

• West Ham for the Cup
• Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
• Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
• Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
• Down with marriage
• I hate my mother-in-law
• SSM Rules

My guess is you could disagree with all of these. But if the last one is the only statement which you wouldn't ice isn't that a problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not totally sure what the point is - to clarify I think that had the reason for not doing the slogan been "we don't do abbreviations" or "it's too long" then I don't think the inclusion of protected characteristics would have allowed the case to go ahead. (Unless it was shown that the excuses were just a smoke-screen for discrimination vs protected characteristics).

---

quote:

---

If the ONLY slogans that get refused are the ones that are frequently asked for by gay people, it's not hard for a court to conclude that what is happening isn't about the words, it's about the people. And fixing that is NOT giving some special favour to gay people that enables them to "force" service, it's putting them in the same position as all the other people who are ALREADY getting service.

---

quote:

---

In this case the defendants seem to have admitted guilt quite readily so it was easy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The court compared this cake with a theoretical cake supporting heterosexual marriage not all the other cakes that they might have refused in the past or pontentially might refuse if asked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems like a fairly fine difference - the principle is the same surely? Simply that in practice detailed evidence to show discrimination wasn't necessary as the couple concerned readily admitted it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the argument is that if they could show a range of slogans that they'd not make - or have not made - they'd be showing that they were not singling out Gay Marriage as the one cause they wouldn't ice and therefore this cause wasn't getting any special refusal, it was just one amongst a bunch of others that the bakers wouldn't ice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's the simple point here. There was no comparison with other groups that they wouldn't have served or other slogan cakes they wouldn't have made.

---

quote:

---

In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message.

---

quote:

---

Mein Kampf is a perfectly legal book as far as I'm aware (certainly it's legal in Germany).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Put it this way, Steve. As a baker would you turn down icing any of the following;

• West Ham for the Cup
• Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
• Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
• Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
• Down with marriage
• I hate my mother-in-law
• SSM Rules

My guess is you could disagree with all of these. But if the last one is the only statement which you wouldn't ice isn't that a problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;

quote:

---

Mein Kampf is a perfectly legal book as far as I'm aware (certainly it's legal in Germany).

---

Again, a point I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure we'd all be worried if there was a state of affairs where refusing to publish or sell Mein Kampf would get you into legal trouble....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.... like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.

---

*waves* It was me.

---

Sorry, EM. Wasn't slighting you, was just too lazy to look.

---

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
WHO THE FUCK IS IT THAT YOU THINK IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I'm pretty sure we'd all be worried if there was a state of affairs where refusing to publish or sell Mein Kampf would get you into legal trouble....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
WHO THE FUCK IS IT THAT YOU THINK IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

---

Discrimination is being discriminated against. Steve, the Homophobe, Langton is protecting the right to hate those Jesus hated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I'm pretty sure we'd all be worried if there was a state of affairs where refusing to publish or sell Mein Kampf would get you into legal trouble....

---

If you agreed to order a copy of Mein Kampf for a customer and accepted payment for it but then later decided that selling it was against your beliefs, I'm pretty sure you could be sued for breach of contract if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
WHO THE FUCK IS IT THAT YOU THINK IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

---

Discrimination is being discriminated against. Steve, the Homophobe, Langton is protecting the right to hate those Jesus hated.

---

Overnight, with the opportunity for some calmer reflection, I concluded he's probably concerned about discrimination against Godwin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My admittedly somewhat rusty law degree says you are likely right about that. But it would legally be a very different issue either from the one I actually outlined there, or from the 'gay bakery/discrimination' issue. You might be in breach of contract, but there wouldn't as far as I can see be issues of hate crime etc.

---

Point of information. Is discrimination (say by not selling to gays) a hate crime? I thought hate crimes were by and large criminal (and in particular violent) and not civil offenses.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
You're asking Langton for information?


 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You're asking Langton for information?

---

quote:

---

issues of hate crime etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My admittedly somewhat rusty law degree says you are likely right about that. But it would legally be a very different issue either from the one I actually outlined there, or from the 'gay bakery/discrimination' issue. You might be in breach of contract, but there wouldn't as far as I can see be issues of hate crime etc.

---

Point of information. Is discrimination (say by not selling to gays) a hate crime? I thought hate crimes were by and large criminal (and in particular violent) and not civil offenses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And that's precisely why we have DH. If anyone (let alone Russ) could come up with something new, that, in itself, would be a novelty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

But I'm not sure why you think our current society's social construction of race is such an important and valuable idea that it needs to be perpetuated. Guess it's part of the myth of social progress.

---

quote:

---

Beats me how you can think you're adequately prepared to consider any case if your principles are based on your vocabulary and your vocabulary is so vague that you don't know what the word "racism" refers to.

---

Says the man who cannot maintain a consistent, coherent POV.

In the same post, you said "Beats me". Man up and come down here so that I may help you with that.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well he did manage to get a Dead Horses thread closed for going around in circles. Quite an achievement. And sympathy to the Dead Horses hosts who had to read it all.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
What a sickening thread that turned in to. When someone is defending the idea that if a person believes black people are dirty, it's reasonable for that person not to want to be served by them, I guess it is time to stop feeding the troll.

I keep thinking of all the healthcare professionals over the years who have had racist patients tell them to "Get your [filthy] black hands off me."


 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
There was an episode of "Grey's Anatomy" that dealt with that, EM.

I need to set this up a bit. Show takes place at a teaching hospital. Dr. Miranda Bailey is shepherding (pun intended, for fans) a group of young doctors through their residency. She's good, but very, very tough--so much that she's called "The Nazi". She also happens to be African-American.

Now to the pertinent bit: A patient, in bed and waiting for surgery, awkwardly refuses Bailey's help. Turns out he has a swastika tattoo, and didn't want her to see it...or to work on him. Bailey vents to various people. I don't remember the details, but I think they made a point of having staff members of color work with him. After it all played out, Bailey decided she'd never let anyone say that "The Nazi" nickname again. It wasn't funny anymore.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I dropped out of that thread some while back because it became apparent his only two modus operandi are grasping for straws, and flinging sand in the other's face. He's a bigot and will do anything to keep from facing the fact, or at least from admitting it. I fear he is the epitome of a particular bloc of the Republican Party in this country, and of course other groups in other countries. His mind is closed, and what it has closed around are grotesque prejudices from the 1950s.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
He's a bigot and a troll. I maintain he deliberately wound people up rather than honestly engage. Though I commend the people who engaged him as it may have had benefit to others who read their words.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I agree. A sickening thread to read, so much exculpation of prejudice, plus the interminable Gish gallop. An unhealthy mind on display really.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that he's an example of the ruin that can be wreaked on impressionable minds if they read Ayn Rand at the wrong stage.

I might be wrong. But he expressed a belief that helping other people is not a moral obligation, and a Dunning-Kruger respect for the idea of rationality at the level of the schoolboy essay. I think he was spewing Randwank.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I brought this down as a souvenir from the DH thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Does the principle of not punishing the innocent mean nothing to you ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He's a bigot and a troll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Perhaps you should pick one explanation and stick to it, rather than two contradictory explanations at once ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He's a bigot and a troll.

---

Having it both ways again, huh ?

You think I'm simultaneously expressing my own racial prejudice and only saying things to wind people up ?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you should pick one explanation and stick to it, rather than two contradictory explanations at once ?

---

quote:

---

Or better still, stop trying to explain my words in terms of some concealed motivation and focus on what, if anything, is mistaken in those words ?

---

quote:

---

But somehow even otherwise-sensible people like Karl don't seem to be able to put forward a coherent view of what those limits are.

---

Karl thinks you were once reasonable, so he gets a bit of a pass?

quote:

---

So this fool rushes in and makes an attempt to set out such a view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The starting point for that thread was the question of whether people's moral right to freedom from (racial or other) harrassment goes as far as forcing retailers OF CAKES to sell "GAY CAKES".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
the solution to being told that you are racist, albeit unconsciously, is not to try and justify it but to self-examine and attempt to change your attitudes.

---

quote:

---

And then you threw in suggestions like having to consider every country in the world for holidays and that surely that means we should consider Rwanda. Not helped by the discussion I'd had the night before where we had suggested relief work in Rwanda as a possible holiday destination. That looks like and smells like trolling it's so ridiculous.

---

An unfortunate coincidence.

The suggestion was simply that there are (private) decisions that it's OK to make based on preference or whim, without any obligation to make a reasoned and impartial assessment of all possible alternatives. And the fact that the human race comes in a variety of skin colours doesn't change that.

Don't see what's wrong with trying to make a point vividly and memorably. Taking someone else's argument to an extreme of ridiculousness to show that there's something wrong with it seems like legitimate rhetoric to me.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, you are going to attempt to make this thread go 30 pages with your disingenuous bullshit?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
lilBuddha, I'm disappointed in you. "Disingenuous bullshit"? Russ only wants everybody in the English-speaking world to agree on a single definition for "racism" before he can decide whether or not he feels happy that he's a racist, or inclined to stop being one. Surely that's not unreasonable?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Forgive me fo being such a horribly unreasonable person.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Seriously, Russ. We're not going to discuss whether you're racist here. That - over thirty fucking pages - is decided, and yes, you are a racist.

The only - and I mean only - question that has been left hanging after your ridiculous and mendacious exhibition in DH, is just how stupid you are.

I'm going for somewhere between 'extraordinarily buffoonish' and 'cartoonishly transparent'.

Now fuck off.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:


I tend to believe that most people are as a general rule more comfortable with people of their own subculture. That doesn't make them evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:


I tend to believe that most people are as a general rule more comfortable with people of their own subculture. That doesn't make them evil.

---

I don't know about "evil", but it does make us sinful, sin being what separates us from God and stops us from clearly reflecting His image.

It should, therefore, be recognised as a fault, and tackled through prayer, the sacraments and a firm resolution of amendment.

---

quote:

---

"The primary sources of evil are indifference and self-deception. Both lead me to a life of convention, simply living up to the code of conduct given to me by my society... The problem comes when the society [eta: or subculture] giving me the rules happens to be Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia." (or apartheid South Africa, or Chechnya right now...)

From the essay by Neil Mussett, "Is Anyone Actually Chaotic Evil?", p. 56-7. [in Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy, ed. C. Robichaud, published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2014 ]

---

quote:

---

quoted by Jane R:
a life of convention, simply living up to the code of conduct given to me by my society... The problem comes when the society giving me the rules happens to be Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
But from my perspective, the people seeking to identify and apply a clear framework of coherent moral principles are those striving to do better than the "moral transparency" that this quote refers to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
So it's true: all gall is divided into three parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously, Russ. We're not going to discuss whether you're racist here. That - over thirty fucking pages - is decided, and yes, you are a racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As I said, I'm not taking another 30 pages to do that. Go and seek self-enlightenment elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You've pronounced the verdict.

---

quote:

---

And gestured vaguely in the direction of some evidence.

---

quote:

---

I'm waiting for the bit where you bring the accused to an understanding of the charges against him...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

I'm waiting for the bit where you bring the accused to an understanding of the charges against him...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As I said, I'm not taking another 30 pages to do that. Go and seek self-enlightenment elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

[1] a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race (Merriam-Webster online)

---

quote:

---

[2]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against a race or their supposed characteristics

---

quote:

---

[3]any proposition that the speaker disagrees with that has any relationship to race

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As I said, I'm not taking another 30 pages to do that. Go and seek self-enlightenment elsewhere.

---

Getting any enlightenment from you is clearly out of the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Getting any enlightenment from you is clearly out of the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

[2]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against a race or their supposed characteristics

---

I don't think I feel hostility towards other races, and don't see how my words could be interpreted as such.

---

quote:

---

A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one's cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being; (also) a belief that the members of different racial or ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities, which can be compared and evaluated.
Hence: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I guess that what you object to is that I put forward an ethic that omits your Eleventh Commandment "thou shalt not be racist".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

[2]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against a race or their supposed characteristics

---

I don't think I feel hostility towards other races, and don't see how my words could be interpreted as such.

---

Shall we play this game?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
faux-naif

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

Perhaps you tell yourself that you are amusing more than just yourself with your faux-naif displays of looking for insight as excuses to make racist rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
with as much dignity as I can muster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shall we play this game?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You haven't got the point yet, have you ?

---

quote:

---

What this thread is about seems to be whether the Ship can good-humouredly accommodate the spectrum of views on homosexuality, or whether it will in effect come down on the progressive side by deeming any contrary opinion to violate the rules of civilised discourse between individuals.

If we allow Thunderbunk's approach to apply to all issues - "I identify as a Methodist so any negative view of Methodism is something I'm entitled to take as a personal attack to which I want to be allowed to respond with personal abuse" - then it's hard to see how the Ship could continue.

No-one's suggesting that this should apply to all issues. Yet. But it would set a precedent...

Progressivism is too big a topic to tackle here. But part of it involves the idea of social change as a ratchet, that people have some sort of moral duty to keep up with.

Some of us reject this doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity Killed
So you're using a computer, driving a car and wearing mixed fibres? So why is that progressivism allowed and other progressivism not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

So you're using a computer, driving a car and wearing mixed fibres? So why is that progressivism allowed and other progressivism not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
CK, I believe this is what he is looking for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And the internet has had no impact on social change?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
.... So if people want to enthuse about latest trends and new ways, fine. But I'm for giving others the space to accept or reject particular changes, or adopt them at a slower pace.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So you can keep #SoWhat and LGBTXYZ; I'll carry on farming my little bit of land, thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The optional/compulsory dimension is one I tend to find significant - one of the constructs on my repertory grid, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I just haven't decided yet whether or not to treat gay people as human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Progressives are human beings, with the right to believe in a narrative of change from the Bad Old Days of discrimination and prejudice. To order their own lives by that narrative, and seek to convince others of its truth by persuasion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Geez, Russ, you really are determined to show yourself in the worst possible light here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Progressives are free not to discriminate.

---

quote:

---

Everybody else is free to discriminate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
I sincerely hope that you become a person of greater vision and compassion... partly because it's true, and partly because it's the most effective version of "Fuck you" I can think of.

---

quote:

---

3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.

If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.

Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track.

---

Having been puzzled by the endless weird analogies, slippery-slope arguments, coy insinuations, whataboutery, and other odd angles used by Russ in his postings on this and similar subjects, I was enlightened by descriptions in the article. I couldn't put my finger on why his posts were so "off". Now I know. It took me much longer than it did lilBuddha to figure this out.

This is a handmade public service announcement for the Purgatory thread: "Warning! This conversational bridge has a troll under it."
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Russ--

What about all the horrible ways the Irish have been treated, over hundreds of years (at least)? Was/is that ok? Is it permissible for non-Irish to treat the Irish that way?

Respectfully, I've asked this several ways, on several threads. TTBOMK, you've never answered the questions. Please answer this time.

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
I'm starting to see his contributions as little more than attempting to give himself some moral basis for being a complete ****.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Conclusion: he's a trolling bigot.

I'm not sure exactly what game he is playing or why - but surely only a complete and utter turd claims that something is "biblical" when in the same sentence saying something that is clearly not biblical.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
It's easy, over time, to justify believing a lie. Not to notice that that is what you're doing. I'm wondering now what lies I have convinced myself are truths.


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's easy, over time, to justify believing a lie. Not to notice that that is what you're doing. I'm wondering now what lies I have convinced myself are truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's easy, over time, to justify believing a lie. Not to notice that that is what you're doing. I'm wondering now what lies I have convinced myself are truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's not the behaviour of someone who has, in time, persuaded themselves of a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:


[ETA: Once someone's got to that point, they're so invested that it's almost impossible to get them to shift. However finely honed your arguments or the existence of actual facts]

Tubbs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:


[ETA: Once someone's got to that point, they're so invested that it's almost impossible to get them to shift. However finely honed your arguments or the existence of actual facts]

Tubbs

---

It's what the DH board is for.

---

It applies to almost anything, not just the usual suspects

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's not the behaviour of someone who has, in time, persuaded themselves of a lie.

---

Sure it is. Confirmation bias is a powerful force.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's like a fucking scab. You know you'll regret picking it, but it itches and itches and itches until you succomb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Er yeah, I think it has taken me a while to get to this point - having tried to engage with a number of different arguments and angles he put forwards.

But you're right, I could have more profitably invested time in something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Couldn't we all...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's like a fucking scab. You know you'll regret picking it, but it itches and itches and itches until you succomb.

---

It’s perfectly possible to train yourself to ignore itching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Roger me sideways with a prize-winning marrow. This is *still* going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Russ is trolling the boards. I really don’t see any other conclusion. Other than a difference in style, I don’t see a substantive difference between him and beano or romanlyin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Roger me sideways with a prize-winning marrow.

---

You may owe me a keyboard.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But these are not all trolls of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... And yes, I was one of the donkeys that wandered in. In my defense it was after I'd been away from the Ship for a while. Once I got my bearings I realised my mistake.

---

quote:

---

I wish I understood economics better.

---

So do we, Russ. It might stop your parade of ignorance for a few minutes.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Please don't feed the Vogon, he will read you some more of his bloody awful poetry and then you'll be sorry.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...though, in "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", the unexpected solution to that situation was to blithely praise the Vogon's poetry.


Not suggesting that, but it was a good scene.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Meanwhile, on the "Is Gold a myth?" thread...

quote:

---

I wish I understood economics better.

---

So do we, Russ. It might stop your parade of ignorance for a few minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
...though, in "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", the unexpected solution to that situation was to blithely praise the Vogon's poetry.


Not suggesting that, but it was a good scene.

---

Didn't work, though. Like most extended lies, Arthur couldn't keep it coming with wholeheartedness and consistency.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Lyda--

Well, you want to quibble!

I went to double-check, and ISTM Ford sure did his share of messing up (Clivebanks).

Fortunately, the Heart of Gold was passing by.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
He's running some line of "Goodwill and sympathy" now. As per usual he professes to have these virtues but hedges them round in such a supercilious and patronising manner that he might as well not bother. Not that he actually does of course.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
In Russlish, "goodwill" means "tough love" and is a good thing, and "sympathy" is an excuse to cover up envy and spite.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
People are still trying to debate with Russ on his "Social-Progressive mindset" thread, but they should know better for it is like wrestling with a pig: While the pig enjoys it, you just get dirty.

Find some thing useful to do people and leave him to his intellectual masturbation.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, it's interesting that people like Russ tend to suck people in, and draw them into long discussions, when in fact, they seem to be spinning them along, and creating a kind of gaslighting atmosphere. But then this is seductive, isn't it?

Well, it's not as strong as gaslighting in the traditional sense of making you doubt your sanity, as in the film 'Gaslight', but continually putting forward false premises.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
People are still trying to debate with Russ on his "Social-Progressive mindset" thread, but they should know better for it is like wrestling with a pig: While the pig enjoys it, you just get dirty.

Find some thing useful to do people and leave him to his intellectual masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's interesting that people like Russ tend to suck people in, and draw them into long discussions...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's interesting that people like Russ tend to suck people in, and draw them into long discussions...

---

On the positive side, I think it shows a great deal of charity from some shipmates. I think my charity has run out.

---

quote:

---

Wrong.
Morally wrong.
Morally, psychopathically bankrupt.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0