boyfriday Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Having another 'dig' I see bf. Why are you defending Phelps? It isn't a dig since that's how many pastors/preachers in American churches earn their living, you did know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 What bf said is also an insult to the intelligence of his congregation and an assumption about their financial status. What I dislike is this continual 'head hunting' regardless of whether it is the Royal Family or their neighbours car parking habits. Everyone seems to be fair game. I try to look at the whole picture while others focus their bile according to their prejudice. Grahame, you're turning me back to my previous view that you are in fact a dedicated atheist laughing uncontrollably at us from behind your keyboard. Well done fella you got me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What bf said is also an insult to the intelligence of his congregation and an assumption about their financial status. What I dislike is this continual 'head hunting' regardless of whether it is the Royal Family or their neighbours car parking habits. Everyone seems to be fair game. I try to look at the whole picture while others focus their bile according to their prejudice. G, come on. some things just can't be defended. the 'intelligence' of a 'congregation' that's fixing to picket a nine year old's funeral? really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You think that's how intelligent people behave? really? No. Which is why bf is wrong to say they give their money to Phelps. Intelligent people wouldn't do that as you imply. Bf statement is born out of pure prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What bf said is also an insult to the intelligence of his congregation and an assumption about their financial status. What I dislike is this continual 'head hunting' regardless of whether it is the Royal Family or their neighbours car parking habits. Everyone seems to be fair game. I try to look at the whole picture while others focus their bile according to their prejudice. His congregation are as bad as he is. They wave the same banners and show up to offend the same mourners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 His congregation are as bad as he is. They wave the same banners and show up to offend the same mourners. As far as I can make out his 'congregation' is his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 No. Which is why bf is wrong to say they give their money to Phelps. Intelligent people wouldn't do that as you imply. Bf statement is born out of pure prejudice. Do you ever look back at the continuity of your posts Grahame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Do you ever look back at the continuity of your posts Grahame? Explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 In other words, it is a classic example of the 'but what about 'sydrome, i.e. the tendency to respond with 'but what about.....' whenever there is a discussion about a particular issue or group. 'Whataboutery' certainly has a strong presence on this Forum. Indeed, some forumers appear to have a chronic case of 'whataboutitis', giving rise to some unintentionally amusing posts. For example, one chronic sufferer recently said something like 'but what about the Irish potato famine' when I briefly mentoned the virtues of market capitalism. Citing examples to either falsify or qualify a statement is standard practice in any debate. Indeed, it has been described as the scientific method. What do you find troubling about that? As for the potato famine, the market dictated the export of food from a country suffering a famine, it as an example illustrates how market capitalism in its ideological form is divorced from the interests of the people. That is standard analysis, you may prefer or have a different view, but on an open forum when putting forward contentious views you should expect people to make counter arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Explain... Tere's no point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.