Lotusflower Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I do understand the words I use(GCE O level English language) The conclusion was my conclusion and not the conclusion of the debate. Did you buy your grandfather the book I recommended for him ? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:53 ---------- I don't know if anyone in any of the 6 countries has brought a case of discrimination before the court, but would think a case would be upheld if brought. Hiya Harvey, Have a listen to Canon Giles Fraser from yesterday morning on Radio 4. It's towards the end of the programme. I think you may find it interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qhd0c/Sunday_10_02_2013/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 What is the point of having religions if the government can overrule them? Religion brings a great deal of comfort, communality and caring into the lives of those who accept that the unreasonable must be filtered out. Those who comport themselves in a manner which underlines the positive and inclusive elements of their religions should serve as shining beacons to those who are slaves to Leviticus and use religious anachronisms to calcify their innate bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 What is the point of having religions if the government can overrule them? What is the point of having religions if the government cannot overrule them? Don't really understand your motivation for this line of inquiry. You're well versed in being a critic of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 [ How is that different from saying please don't point out the massive and obvious flaw in my reasoning to rubbish my point? Because I don't think it fair to use people with medical problems o score points The problem with the slippery and disingenuous equal but different defence, Harvey, is that in the case of same-sex marriage equal has a point and a practical purpose different does not. I'll ask again as you failed to answer the last time - can you show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage? If you can I'll happily consider it. Maybe I could answer with a question. What are the practical and positive differences between a marriage and civil partnership when both are equal and held with the same regard. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 15:18 ---------- Hiya Harvey, Have a listen to Canon Giles Fraser from yesterday morning on Radio 4. It's towards the end of the programme. I think you may find it interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qhd0c/Sunday_10_02_2013/ Thanks, will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 The problem you have here MrSmith is that the comments made by the poster you claim was insulted that elicited the responses you quote were indeed both bigoted and homophobic and I give two examples below - You're opinion might be correct but how does pointing it out and causing offence further the dissuasion? If I was having a discussion with to someone that appeared to be homophobic then I wouldn’t continually point out that they are homophobic, because that would just stop them discussing the reason they think the way they think. Insulting someone that you are trying to talk to is counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I do understand the words I use(GCE O level English language) The conclusion was my conclusion and not the conclusion of the debate. Did you buy your grandfather the book I recommended for him ? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:53 ---------- I don't know if anyone in any of the 6 countries has brought a case of discrimination before the court, but would think a case would be upheld if brought. You came to this conclusion with your great legal experience? Perhaps the government should have consulted you before they concluded that this wasn't a big risk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yes, one takes offence when someone does, says or writes something they deem offensive. Someone causes offence when they do, say or write something that causes offence. It is possible to cause offence unintentionally by doing, saying or writing something that you didn’t think would be offensive and in those situation it is customary to apologise for causing offence, if no apology is forthcoming then it’s likely the person causing offence did it intentionally, if they continue doing that which caused offence then they are being deliberately offensive. Example, my friend is fat; he contains a large amount of fat so he is by definition fatty, if I call him fatty in jest and he takes offence then I would apologise because it wasn’t my intension to offend him, I would then refrain from calling him fatty in the future, clearly most sensible people wouldn’t call him fatty in the first place because most sensible people would know that it would be offensive. So by the part of your definition I have highlighted you would be entitled to deem absolutely anything I said to you as offensive , intended or not. Balderdash is what that amounts to Mr. Smith. If someone makes a statement that is clearly homophobic or bigoted they can hardly cry foul when it is pointed out to them...or maybe they can in your world. Not in mine! Anyone offended in such a situation deserves to be offended. It's part of growing up and seeing where we are wrong in order to be able to broaden our horizons. This applies to us all! What you are saying is emotional blackmail is ok..."Don't say that or I'll be hurt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 You came to this conclusion with your great legal experience? Perhaps the government should have consulted you before they concluded that this wasn't a big risk... I accept your praise with modesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 You're opinion might be correct but how does pointing it out and causing offence further the dissuasion? If I was having a discussion with to someone that appeared to be homophobic then I wouldn’t continually point out that they are homophobic, because that would just stop them discussing the reason they think the way they think. Insulting someone that you are trying to talk to is counterproductive. Accurately describing the behaviour could only be construed as an insult if they didn't believe that their behaviour fitted the category. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 15:33 ---------- I accept your praise with modesty. It was a question, didn't the ? give it away? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 15:34 ---------- What is the point of having religions if the government can overrule them? I think you've got a point, there isn't a point to them, lets be done with them and grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 You're opinion might be correct but how does pointing it out and causing offence further the dissuasion? If I was having a discussion with to someone that appeared to be homophobic then I wouldn’t continually point out that they are homophobic, because that would just stop them discussing the reason they think the way they think. Insulting someone that you are trying to talk to is counterproductive. Homophobia, like all insidious discriminatory behaviour, has no place in a civilised society. It is the moral duty of those who consider themselves civilised or at least to be striving towards it to challenge it. In order to challenge it effectively it is necessary to identify it. To classify is not to insult. To challenge discrimination is not a negative and insulting act it is the positive affirmation of tolerance and diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.