Hello everybody

[Flubber]

Well, I'm not sure it's all that rare. Didn't I agree with you about what you said on murder when you corrected me?

That surprised me actually. There have been several other instances where you seem unable to admit error. The fact that you did in that instance showed me that perhaps you are capable of change. But in that case I don't think you had anywhere to twist. You had stated an offense was manslaughter repeatedly and I could demonstrate I believe 3 theories under which it was clearly murder.

But I still do frequently find you to be a "dishonest" poster in your style-- doing things like intentionally and obviously misrepresenting what people say. You have done it to me before and I noticed some tendenices of it in this thread as well but none aimed at me-- you have generally responded to my arguments.

[Ben Kenobi]

You had stated an offense was manslaughter repeatedly and I could demonstrate I believe 3 theories under which it was clearly murder.

You're a lawyer, I am not. Plus I'd never even heard of one of those arguments before, so I learned something. I am amenable, especially to something I've not previously considered.

[Flubber]

You're a lawyer, I am not. Plus I'd never even heard of one of those arguments before, so I learned something. I am amenable, especially to something I've not previously considered.

Yet that did not stop you from stating repeatedly that the offense was a manslaughter. You lacked any knowledge or information to make the assessment yet you were staunch and strong in your position when arguing with others.

Its a style thing sometimes Ben-- you appear to be trying to correct people when you really aren't -- we tangled for a post or two on tax law around that


But as I said , you have been more reasonable with me in this thread than I recall in other threads-- so when I have the time and inclination I will engage from time to time

[notyoueither]

I don't go put words in your mouth, that dishonest tactic is yours alone.

I have pointed out sociological and genetic factors which make population groups to be resistant to change. This has been based on research, and documented in scholarly articles. The biggest sociological impact for gay marriage is the sociological factor that makes people embrace change.

It is all there, if you are willing to think about it.

I see that I conflated two different things being discussed at roughly the same time. My bad.

Or go ahead and continue and demonize everyone who doesn't buy into the argument that to not extend marriage to homosexuals is homophobic prejudice.

It is a lot easier when you can demonize your opponents. It allows you to hate them.

You are engaging in hate speech against a class of people (those genetically inclined (or sociologically inclined) to resist change) due to them being different than you and being unable to accept that they might be different than you. You engage in even more hate speech due to their hate speech, and use that as 'rightness' for your hate speech. Yet you do not understand how your hate speech might cause hate speech on the side you do not understand.

And without a question there are bigots there too. But you are painting all with the same brush. Just like some homosexuals are promiscuous but it is hate speech to maintain that all homosexuals (or even that the majority) are promiscuous.

JM

Here we are back at calling bigots, bigots causing more hate based crimes.

You accuse me of engaging in hate speech. Care to provide a link? In fact, I do not consider all religious people, all Christians, or even all Catholics to be bigots. I have, in fact, said in this very thread that there are people who resist any social change at all, and I called them reactionaries. They may be religious, or they may not be. I wouldn't consider someone opposed to any change for any reason to be a bigot. I might consider them to be pretty peculiar though, and not at all likely to prevail in their wishes. The problem with bigots who clothe their motives in religious dogma is that they are prevailing in the question of same-sex marriage, and much more homophobic and harmful ones, in many jurisdictions.

At least you have provided a rationale for your claim. You are still far from substantiating it.

It seems a lot of people in this thread have a problem with the situation where people who disagree with them or think differently than them are not evil bastards.

It is the same sort of thing (along with politics) which caused people to fight about religion/etc.

It is really disappointing to see.

JM

Funny. I'm seeing you make blind generalisations about others who think differently than you. Myself being one of them, and our differences are not that large AFAICT.

[notyoueither]

Yes- well mentally ill people make ludicrous claims all the time- they too lack any proof or evidence for them.




Harassed ? He was harangued in the street, bombarded with offensive emails, pelted with rotten fruit in the pulpit, or Christian-bashed by the Human Rights Commission ? Or asked to appear in line with well known procedures....



No, it's part and parcel of the Commission's remit as far as I understand it, and you hysterically and inaccurately labelling it 'harassment' and 'persecution' don't make it so.

This is from ACAS in the United Kingdom:

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=797

Just because you don't like the fact that the Reverend was asked to appear before the Commission because other people found his rantings objectionable doesn't mean the Commission was harassing him.

Other people who aren't of the Reverend's particular form of religious persuasion or even necessarily gay or lesbian may have found his screed offensive. That is one of the roles of the Commission, isn't it, to investigate such complaints ?

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/sexual_orientation-eng.aspx

You haven't done anything like 'prove' your argument so far- you stated that your 'faith' was persecuted- and the sole 'proof' of this is an intolerant clergyman being asked to abide by the provisions of an Act which applies to every other Canadian too. I'm fairly sure that the Act doesn't exempt religious bigots, so really there's no 'harassment' or 'persecution' involved. At least not as those terms are understood in the English language...



You're so inadvertently amusing.

Ben is being a bit hysterical, but there are some pretty big problems with how the HR commisions and tribunals are constituted and the things they do.

[Berzerker]

What Jesus said about marriage (and he was discussing divorce, not marriage) needs to be put into context. What did Jesus say? He referred back to a time during Moses when men were allowed to divorce their wives with little or no cause. Jesus said this was not the case from the beginning - apparently before that men didn't divorce wives for little or no cause. Modern divorce can still be a man dumping his wife, but now she gets $$$ - back then I imagine dumped wives were often given little or not support. And back then it was the "husband" doing the dumping, not a consensual break up.

Now if Jesus really wanted to be radical, he could have said women should be allowed to divorce their husbands and take 1/2 the stuff But he was combating a system so slanted in favor of men just asking them to divorce over infidelity was progress. But I seriously doubt Jesus would demand a man and woman stay married when neither wanted it, that just aint logical. What he said about the divorce laws back then is not analogous to modern times where arranged marriages and women as property are becoming antiquated.

[Felch]

I have never seen people so hard up on a dude's nuts before. Ben says hello, and it prompts a 1300 post thread.

[giblets]

I have never seen people so hard up on a dude's nuts before. Ben says hello, and it prompts a 1300 post thread.

Are you done feeling superior?

[Ben Kenobi]

You know, when NYE says you have a point - that says something, Molly.

[Felch]

Are you done feeling superior?

I'm never done feeling superior.

[Zevico]

I'm never done feeling superior.

Racist.

[Flubber]

You know, when NYE says you have a point - that says something, Molly.

and I will echo

There have been instances where human rights commissions had a very strong agenda and IMHO went far further than anyone would have ever imagined. I am VERY far from being socially conservatives but some of the tangents that the commissions went on in targetting conservatives were pretty strong and very far from what most people would see as their mandate.

I don't know about Ben's particular examples as I didn't read those portions of the thread but on the simple proposition that the commissions have gone too far sometimes, I will certainlt support that .



Felch-- If a topic interests me I respond-- The other posters or thread size involved are irrelevent

[Ben Kenobi]

I am VERY far from being socially conservatives but some of the tangents that the commissions went on in targetting conservatives were pretty strong and very far from what most people would see as their mandate.

Mission creep is always a problem. Setting something up for a good reason can be well intended, but end up having deletory effects. Especially with bureaucrats. Once they get a job, it's very difficult to get rid of them.

[molly bloom]

Pretty feeble ad hominem argument. Is this the best you've got, Molly?

I didn't say YOU were mentally ill- so it isn't an ad hominem attack. However, your style of argument is remarkably similar to that of those who say they are Napoleon, or God or that the earth is flat- no matter how much factual evidence or logic is applied to the case their particluar form of 'magical' thinking prevents them from seeing that their particular inaccurate world view is incorrect. You simply do the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la...'

So, hauling him before the commission

He was 'hauled ' ? Show proof or skip the purple prose and exaggeration.

The man is being charged for expressing the opinion that homosexuality is sinful.

Really ? That's your biased interpretation.

It is harrassment, and it is persecution.

Yeah, you see, unfortunately you've already agreed earlier in this thread that Anglo-Saxon common law takes precedence over Biblical teachings, so this Reverend, in common with all other citizens of Canada is subject to the laws of the land. That being the case, this cannot be harassment, since he's merely being asked to obey the law- just like everyone else who is a Canadian citizen.

You can keep jumping up and down and shrieking 'harassment' and 'persecution'- but you haven't given any evidence that the Commission went out of its way to target this individual, for his faith or otherwise. I'm fairly sure that the Reverend involved would have been able, had there been sufficient evidence, to pursue a claim for compensation if the Commission had operated outside its remit, or if its employees had made a target of him.

Just because the state sanctions persecution, doesn't make it not persecution.

Only one of us has offered any kind of explanation or link as to what harassment or persecution entails. Please keep up this unedifying and unwittingly amusing repetition- its your time you're wasting, not mine.

You've admitted all the salient points.

No, I haven't.

One, expressing the opinion that homosexuality is sinful is offensive.

I said other people may have found his views on the subject offensive.

human rights commission are charged with investigating complaints of offensive speech.

Isn't that within their remit ? If so, I'm simply clarifying what the role of the Human Rights' Commission is in this case. Since you seem to be completely ignoring its function, in law and society.

So you believe that people do not have the right to express the opinion that homosexuality is sinful?

Whatever I happen to believe about the supposed sinfulness of homosexuality or people's views on the same is irrelevant. I'm more concerned with the definition of persecution and harassment.

Harassment:

harass (har¦ass)
Pronunciation: /ˈharəs, həˈras/verb
[with object]subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation:

if someone is being harassed at work because of their sexuality they should contact the police

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harass

To persecute:

per·se·cute verb \ˈpər-si-ˌkyüt\
per·se·cut·edper·se·cut·ing

Definition of PERSECUTE
transitive verb
1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

— per·se·cu·tee \ˌpər-si-ˌkyü-ˈtē\ noun
— per·se·cu·tive \ˈpər-si-ˌkyü-tiv\ adjective
— per·se·cu·tor \-ˌkyü-tər\ noun
— per·se·cu·to·ry \-kyü-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˌkyü-tə-rē\ adjective


Examples of PERSECUTE

The country's leaders relentlessly persecuted those who fought against the regime.
They were persecuted for their beliefs.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute

I've given on-line definitions, since I can't be sure you have access to reliable hard copy dictionaries. I'd normally opt for Chambers, but these two seem quite serviceable.

[molly bloom]

Oddly enough, the papal bull confirms persecution (including execution), of priests for performing the sacraments. Exactly as I said.

.

So you quote that particular section of the Bull.

Now, if you want to argue contrary

Oh dear. You really don't seem to understand how this goes, do you ? If the Bull agrees with what you've stated, then you can simply quote that section, can't you ?

Documentation, provided by a neutral party here has already substantiated my position.

That's some kind of a joke, right ?

Actually, yes she did. The Percys have the senior claim by male preference Primogeniture from Edward III.

Are you absurdly making the claim that Pius V's Bull is referring to a claim of the Percy family on the Crown of England dating from two centuries previously ?

I'm not particularly interested in what or whose you imagine the better claim to the throne was- I'm interested in what 'usurp' means- and by no stretch of the imagination did Elizabeth I 'usurp' the throne of England. I refer you to the Succession Act of 1544, of which you appear to be lamentably ignorant.

On 17 November 1558, Elizabeth was proclaimed queen without opposition- and she did not have to seize the throne from, or contest for it with, anyone else.

usurp somebody/something (formal)
to take somebody's position and/or power without having the right to do this

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/usurp