Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[RW]

Don’t stop.

Happy for this thread to continue as long as people respect the 'play nice' tag (which everyone has, so that isn't an issue) as it gives people something to talk about in the off-season. We'll probably move it to the BSB later when the focus returns to the footy (Round 1 hurry up).

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So Bruce, go north to get south quicker in the Volvo HK to NZ

Haha.....

#offtopic

 

[Kirkswan]

Facts are facts. You can't just pick and choose.

Why can't you? What law says that you can't... And what is wrong with living in faith. Why is that not a valid life style choice.

I also see no reason not to pick and choose which "facts" I believe. Think back to the 'children overboard' incident of 2000 (or thereabouts). That was fact until it was proven to completely false and totally made up. Happens all the time. Facts are not necessarily facts for all time, they change with perception, time, scientific advancements, social upheaval, etc. Once upon a time the world was flat. That was 'fact' for hundreds of years. Then it changed. Once upon a time if you got cancer, you died. Then it changed.

For the record, I am atheist and voted yes, but I am totally opposed to the vilification of those who are not and/or did not.

vilification
ˌvɪlɪfɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. abusively disparaging speech or writing.
   "the vilification of minority groupings"
   synonyms: condemnation, criticism, censure, castigation, denunciation, vituperation, abuse, flak, defamation, denigration, disparagement, obloquy, opprobrium, derogation, slander, revilement, reviling, calumny, calumniation, execration, excoriation, lambasting, upbraiding, a bad press, character assassination, attack, invective, libel, insults, aspersions;

 

[Angry Red Bull]

.

You seriously can’t comprehend a straight guy promoting marriage equality can you? Are you seriously that divorced from reality? What world do you live in?

You have bought into “gay agenda” conspiracy theories. I’m straight as a ******* arrow. Go through my post history on social issues if you like, you’ll probably find previous references to my being straight. Normally I wouldn’t care if someone thought I was gay. The only reason I’m stressing the point is that you think the only reason I could hold the position I hold is that I’m actually gay, and it’s important I highlight how preposterous that is.

Fact is, marriage has included people who can’t procreate since forever. Why must you feel the need to exclude a subset?

Marriage has always been heterosexual in the past, sure. What harm does it do to be more inclusive now? Why must we cling to what used to be? Gay couples can already have children. Those that don’t want to are no different from the straight married couples who can’t or don’t want to. What are we losing? What is the cost? There isn’t one.

Yes absolutely I thought you must be gay. Only those with a vested emotional interest in a yes vote would be prepared to accuse an innocent person of both discrimination and homophobic persecution simply because they voted no with reason. I could excuse the behaviour in those circumstances because at least it would be projection. The fact that it's not makes your accusations disturbingly worse IMO.

Firstly in order to emphasise that same sex couples can't procreate I referred using unsanitised dialogue that a man ejaculating in another mans rectum and the little blighters attacking a turd will never produce a baby. You say homophobic! Newsflash buddy. I'm pretty confident that anal sex occurs between gay men and that on many occasions that will result in an ejaculation. Can state with certainty that bowels contain fecal matter and even if said fecal matter is swamped by a billion little swimmers there will never be a baby. So I'm intrigued as to what you find as homophobic in those statements of fact? Did I say it was horrible that occurs? Or that it shouldn't occur? Or that it disgusts me? No I didn't because none of those are true. In fact (not that I want to inundate the board with gratuitous dissertations of my sex life but) I have had anal sex with at least one of my partners in my life. No biggie. But you filled those gaps for motivation yourself which is insightful as to your purpose. So what then motivated you to take the quantum leap to unjustified conclusion? Shall I deduce? Your discrimation. You see discrimination or persecution arises when someone is treated differently merely by virtue of being gay in either a positive or negative way. You have made yourself self appointed protector of gays on this thread and prepared to attack me (which I just proved is unfounded) because why? You feel they need 'protecting'. Why? The inescapable conclusion is that you are trying too ernestly to show yourself as being the gay friend and be an advocate of anti discrimination and change your behaviour accordingly......which itself is discrimination of a different kind. How heroic but alas bigoted of you. Reflect on it.

I see no need to treat gays differently whatsoever which ultimately is what all should aspire to if they have equality as a value precious to them. That means I can be capable of making a decision on change to the definition and tradition of marriage for whatever reason is important to me providing it's nothing to do with persecuting gays. Your theory through your beliefs is I can't make that decision for ANY other reason than persecuting gays. But I've already cited that the definition as it stood was only ever a heterosexual incarnation which had procreation as it's central theme and that can never apply to same sex. Is that not a reason? I'm very much a romantic idealist and I grew up being fed silver screen images of man meets woman, man courts and falls in love with woman, man overcomes adversity to win his right to be with woman and together they marry live happy ever after creating family. So my emotional tie to the historical tradition in some subliminal way is tied to that idealism. Is that not a reason?

The definition and tradition hasn't just changed a little around the edges. It's been entirely replaced with a new definition contrary to the original purpose - to indoctrinate a system around heterosexuals emotional bond as man and woman to procreate. Is that not a reason? And seemingly your response to that is - not good enough......and because YOU don't believe it's good enough you will then persecute me.

You would say but we need to be all inclusive to establish a new platform of equality. Why? I say I understand that gays are genetically modelled to same sex orientation and entirely accepting of that in all ways. But genetic variations of all kinds exist too short, too tall, weight problems etc etc. Everyone one has to deal with what is the genetic hand they've been dealt. In this instance that genetic hand has meant that gays don't qualify for marriage. Rather than say that's a sad reality and deal with it as occurs for any other genetic predisposition, instead we say that's alright we'll just discard the traditional definition and replace it with something never contemplated. Do you really have to think hard as to why I may so no in those circumstances?. Life is tough or unfortunate on many. Suck it up buttercup and deal with it as my GF often says to me. I have to deal with my genetic aberration. To many having a 12" penis may seem a windful .....never contemplating the tribulations I encounter......the need for a thigh strap, larger size underwear, lightheadedness when so much blood is directed there upon arousal, extra lubricant. See I deal with it!!! lol

 

[TRAWP]

 

[Kapanis]

Why can't you? What law says that you can't... And what is wrong with living in faith. Why is that not a valid life style choice.

I also see no reason not to pick and choose which "facts" I believe. Think back to the 'children overboard' incident of 2000 (or thereabouts). That was fact until it was proven to completely false and totally made up. Happens all the time. Facts are not necessarily facts for all time, they change with perception, time, scientific advancements, social upheaval, etc. Once upon a time the world was flat. That was 'fact' for hundreds of years. Then it changed. Once upon a time if you got cancer, you died. Then it changed.

For the record, I am atheist and voted yes, but I am totally opposed to the vilification of those who are not and/or did not.

vilification
ˌvɪlɪfɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. abusively disparaging speech or writing.
   "the vilification of minority groupings"
   synonyms: condemnation, criticism, censure, castigation, denunciation, vituperation, abuse, flak, defamation, denigration, disparagement, obloquy, opprobrium, derogation, slander, revilement, reviling, calumny, calumniation, execration, excoriation, lambasting, upbraiding, a bad press, character assassination, attack, invective, libel, insults, aspersions;

The poster I was replying to stated all or nothing, that’s all, my post was referred to just that in that context. Abuse? Where?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes exactly. Time to break Groundhog Day and move on. Agree to disagree

 

[Number37]

Why can't you? What law says that you can't... And what is wrong with living in faith. Why is that not a valid life style choice.

I also see no reason not to pick and choose which "facts" I believe. Think back to the 'children overboard' incident of 2000 (or thereabouts). That was fact until it was proven to completely false and totally made up. Happens all the time. Facts are not necessarily facts for all time, they change with perception, time, scientific advancements, social upheaval, etc. Once upon a time the world was flat. That was 'fact' for hundreds of years. Then it changed. Once upon a time if you got cancer, you died. Then it changed.

For the record, I am atheist and voted yes, but I am totally opposed to the vilification of those who are not and/or did not.

vilification
ˌvɪlɪfɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. abusively disparaging speech or writing.
   "the vilification of minority groupings"
   synonyms: condemnation, criticism, censure, castigation, denunciation, vituperation, abuse, flak, defamation, denigration, disparagement, obloquy, opprobrium, derogation, slander, revilement, reviling, calumny, calumniation, execration, excoriation, lambasting, upbraiding, a bad press, character assassination, attack, invective, libel, insults, aspersions;

Facts are by definition proven.
The children overboard thing was ALWAYS false and made up and will always be false and made up.
The world was never flat, people just thought the world was flat because they didn't know that the world was in FACT a sphere.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

My apologies. It appears that it does, but not in all states and territories (???), and here I thought GST was Federal...

Will look into it and get back to you... the rest of the argument stands.

Oh no.... Combining SSM debate with state /v/ federal GST legislation debate?!

*head explodes*

 

[sataris]

Do you believe a business or individual should be forced, against their will, to provide a service to someone? That seems to violate a fairly fundamental principle of consent.

I take that to be a 'yes'. Do you believe you should be forced, against your will, to purchase something from a person or business?

Do you beleive it's OK for a business to deny an aborignal person service because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'.

Do you believe its OK for a bussiness to not hire an aborginal person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legislate that it's OK for a business to not hire a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legistlate that it's OK for a government to deny services to a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for an aboriginal to be denied service from a business or a government?

PS: I'm back in this thread because we're now saying it's OK to be a racist arseh*le. FMD, you'd think the Goodes saga would have made this more poignant in peoples minds.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

My apologies. It appears that it does, but not in all states and territories (???), and here I thought GST was Federal...

Will look into it and get back to you... the rest of the argument stands.

Am a tax agent. GST is a federal tax applied uniformly to all states the proceeds of which are then allocated annually amongst the states for state application on the foundation that certain state taxes would be abolished but most of which never were. I digress .

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Do you beleive it's OK for a business to deny an aborignal person service because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'.

Do you believe its OK for a bussiness to not hire an aborginal person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legislate that it's OK for a business to not hire a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legistlate that it's OK for a government to deny services to a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for an aboriginal to be denied service from a business or a government?

PS: I'm back in this thread because we're now saying it's OK to be a racist arseh*le. FMD, you'd think the Goodes saga would have made this more poignant in peoples minds.

Who in this thread said any of that was ok?

 

[Syd]

Am a tax agent.....

You have my sympathy

 

[sataris]

Who in this thread said any of that was ok?

swansfan51 is saying that it's ok for a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

swansfan51 is saying that it's ok for a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

I don't want to speak for swansfan51 but I understand him to be talking about the right to choose who you do business with being an absolute right, not saying it is ok to refuse service based on race.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Do you beleive it's OK for a business to deny an aborignal person service because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'.

Do you believe its OK for a bussiness to not hire an aborginal person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legislate that it's OK for a business to not hire a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for a government to legistlate that it's OK for a government to deny services to a person because they are aboriginal?

and if you say 'yes'

Do you believe it's OK for an aboriginal to be denied service from a business or a government?

PS: I'm back in this thread because we're now saying it's OK to be a racist arseh*le. FMD, you'd think the Goodes saga would have made this more poignant in peoples minds.

Oh boy......I didn't know you can hire aboriginals they're freely available like that. I assume it's like any hire arrangement and I can put them to any use I choose during the hire period? Is there any bond required at start of the hire if I damage them? Insurance obligation? What types of aboriginals can I hire? Can I for instance hire a busty aboriginal woman? Oh this is exciting just like the good old days of north v South America debate

Oh hang on you don't mean hire as in property hire......ok forget all I said........

As an aside I think it's pretty clearly established that that you can't deny service/ sale to any customer where the reason for that choice is anything to do with race, skin colour, sexual orientation, religion etc etc. And likewise you can't make a hiring decision influenced by that either. So yes you may be obliged to sell service even if you don't want to but that's why the anti discrimination legislation was introduced

Once had a major fracas with the catholic schools office. My son and my daughter two years later both sat the selective schools exam and were accepted. Major educational achievement that only 3% of school population achieve. The catholic primary school recognised every child's achievement from sporting to educational even a singer and fronted the assembly for accolade on regular basis. BUT my children and others selective successes were never brought before assembly for recognition. Went to principal- no. Went to CSO rep- no. In the end I was speaking to one of the head honchos at the CSO. They don't recognise kids selective school test exam successes BECAUSE it promotes non catholic school participation avd they don't want to promote that. You understand puke right? After the 5 minute tirade explaining how I would decimate their pitiful discrimatory arses in court if they didn't give my kids and other kids the accolade they deserved they relented. In the end they changed and agreed to mention every name of every child at assembly who'd achieved such success in the previous 4 years. Think the CSO all schools changed policy thereafter

Bottom line you can't do what you want for any arbitrary reason if that reason somehow involves discrimination and that's exactly as it should be. CSO needed a reminder. Principal didn't speak to me after that and every time id front school for whatever was in the moment his stomach would churn in anxiety for what next I might unleash. lol Some things never change

 

[RW]

Am a tax agent.

I'm sure you're good at what you do, but I sure hope you aren't as open about your private life with your clients as you have been on here!!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I'm sure you're good at what you do, but I sure hope you aren't as open about your private life with your clients as you have been on here!!

Tax agents.............they're like librarians. Take off the spectacles and untie the hair and BAZINGA!!!!!!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm sure you're good at what you do, but I sure hope you aren't as open about your private life with your clients as you have been on here!!

I have a problem ........well several actually but the relevant one is I place obsessive focus on transparency truth and honesty. I tend not to have a filter. You've probably noticed when you edit my BS. lol Certainly I'm more circumspect with clients because there is a focus......their needs as clients......but it's a choice in the way I lead my life. Never have to worry about covering lies or who I've been two faced to and why. Simplifies life really.

How does the saying go....truth sets you free. It does

As for divulging too much here. Who is puke?? lol and even if you knew who puke was people are more concerned with their own lives than something ultimately unimportant like whether puke has ever had anal sex with a GF.

 

[Kapanis]

But those facts don't matter about anything. Because others have different beliefs and practices am I to abandon mine? I don't quite get what you're trying to imply. That its some kind of marriage competition and the winner of what constitutes marriage is who has more types of weddings?

Just re-reading this after Kirkswan implied by post that I had been abusiive responding to you. All I was saying is that 70% of marriages in Australia are non religious, that's a fact. It has nothing to do with people's beliefs, there's no implication.

 

[swansfan51]

I don't want to speak for swansfan51 but I understand him to be talking about the right to choose who you do business with being an absolute right

You can speak for me in future, 100% correct

swansfan51 is saying that it's ok for a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

I said that you should have the right to consent to doing business with any person or company, and the person or business should have the right to consent to doing business with you.

Its why sex is fine, and rape is utterly unacceptable. Because both people have to be ok with it, and that is the fundamental principle of consent - 2 people voluntarily engaging in an activity, without force or threat. And I've never mentioned race once in this thread, until now, and I've only needed to mention it to respond to your strawman accusations.

You have the right not to have sex with someone if you don't want to.
You have the right not to give money to someone if you don't want to.
You have the right not to be friends with someone if you don't want to.
You have the right not to lend your shovel to your neighbour if you don't want to.
You have the right not to sell something to someone if you don't want to.

 

[Kirkswan]

Am a tax agent. GST is a federal tax applied uniformly to all states the proceeds of which are then allocated annually amongst the states for state application on the foundation that certain state taxes would be abolished but most of which never were. I digress .

Thank you! Always enjoy enlightenment!

 

[mtooler]

Just re-reading this after Kirkswan implied by post that I had been abusiive responding to you. All I was saying is that 70% of marriages in Australia are non religious, that's a fact. It has nothing to do with people's beliefs, there's no implication.

All good, I just didnt get what you were inferring at the time by it, no offence taken.

 

[Kirkswan]

The poster I was replying to stated all or nothing, that’s all, my post was referred to just that in that context. Abuse? Where?

I'm pretty sure I didn't state that you were abusive. I have never thought so, and still don't. My absolute sincere apologies for any perceived inference that you were/are.

The error was mine, in that I did not separate my response into two separate posts.

Facts are by definition proven.
The children overboard thing was ALWAYS false and made up and will always be false and made up.
The world was never flat, people just thought the world was flat because they didn't know that the world was in FACT a sphere.

Ships sailed out and never came back. This was taken as proof that they had sailed over the edge. At that time it was considered fact. The children overboard incident was reported as fact, and the vast majority of people believed it.

Things change over time. Facts that I was taught in school turned out to be incorrect, scientific facts become fiction with other scientific advancements.

 

[Number37]

I'm pretty sure I didn't state that you were abusive. I have never thought so, and still don't. My absolute sincere apologies for any perceived inference that you were/are.

The error was mine, in that I did not separate my response into two separate posts.



Ships sailed out and never came back. This was taken as proof that they had sailed over the edge. At that time it was considered fact. The children overboard incident was reported as fact, and the vast majority of people believed it.

Things change over time. Facts that I was taught in school turned out to be incorrect, scientific facts become fiction with other scientific advancements.

Did children overboard actually happen? No.
Did ships actually sail over the edge? No.