Turn on thread page Beta

Christians on TSR: Advice please? watch

    Offline

    18
    You've done a wonderful job chopping up whole sentences in half to deprive them of all intended meaning.

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I didn't say that, put the past behind you and focus on the future I say.
    No, you didn't. I merely put it to you straight instead of skirting around the issue. The whole equal marriage debate has highlighted a worrying disposition in many Christians to feel persecuted when deprived of preferential treatment. That is what I meant when I said they exist in a two-speed system in which they're either persecutor or persecuted.

    Oh so you now claim that you are on a philosophical crusade when launching insults at people who stand up for their beliefs. Did you just mention about a persecutor...
    LOL, what? What philosophical crusade have I claimed? I'm merely exposing your euphemisms for the bull**** that they are. Having their ideas challenged =/= 'being abused for their religion.' If you don't understand that, don't bother replying.

    As for my so-called 'insults at people who stand up for their beliefs:' find one. The reason that perfectly reasonable arguments sound like insults to you is, again, that you want preferential treatment. If your views aren't being glorified, then they're automatically being vilified. That's what a two-speed system is. No intermediates.

    I didn't say that. I don't represent Christianity as a whole never mind the hundreds and thousands of different factions.
    You defended the misuse of the anonymous function by the person who told me that I shouldn't 'let sex control' me and that having premarital sex constitutes behaving like a wild animal. You defended that by saying that the person was a poor, persecuted Christian who's afraid of being abused - and yet he clearly misused that function. Go and read the actual post by that person before having a go at me for pointing out his cowardice.

    I wasn't being anonymous. Don't categorize all Christians by the actions of a few.
    I didn't say you were... You defended somebody who was being anonymous and not for the reasons for which the anonymous function exists. But well done on chopping that sentence in half to get the meaning you wanted out of it. Just keep going round and round in that circular logic of yours.

    Be more polite you hooligan!
    Oh, look, an insult. There goes your right to lecture anybody on not using 'insults' ever again...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You've done a wonderful job chopping up whole sentences in half to deprive them of all intended meaning.
    Thank you
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, you didn't. I merely put it to you straight instead of skirting around the issue.
    How very noble of you,
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The whole equal marriage debate has highlighted a worrying disposition in many Christians to feel persecuted when deprived of preferential treatment.
    Rubbish, we don't (or shouldn't) feel persecuted when deprived of preferential treatment like we had in the old days (which we don't have now).
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That is what I meant when I said they exist in a two-speed system in which they're either persecutor or persecuted.
    Why can't we be neither?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    LOL, what? What philosophical crusade have I claimed?
    You claim that by discriminating those with religious beliefs you are in fact just having a little debate instead of mockery.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm merely exposing your euphemisms for the bull**** that they are.
    I'm not using any euphemisms.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    As for my so-called 'insults at people who stand up for their beliefs:' find one.
    Not you in particular but it very often that we are mock for our faith. Maybe we should start bombing places then we might get some respect (mixed with fear) that Muslims are getting in this country.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The reason that perfectly reasonable arguments sound like insults to you is, again, that you want preferential treatment.
    Religion is a deeply personal feeling, not politics or social issues for open debate. Many Christians would prefer not to suffer a scrutiny of our own beliefs and just be allowed to get on with our lives.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You defended the misuse of the anonymous function by the person who told me that I shouldn't 'let sex control' me and that having premarital sex constitutes behaving like a wild animal.
    They have a right to express their opinion using the anonymous function.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You defended that by saying that the person was a poor, persecuted Christian who's afraid of being abused - and yet he clearly misused that function.
    Were you offended by the remarks and if so did you report the post? If not then why are you complaining about people expressing an opinion about your views like your expressing about theirs?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Go and read the actual post by that person before having a go at me for pointing out his cowardice.
    Where is it?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I didn't say you were... You defended somebody who was being anonymous and not for the reasons for which the anonymous function exists.
    They still have that right.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    But well done on chopping that sentence in half to get the meaning you wanted out of it.
    Thank you
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Just keep going round and round in that circular logic of yours.
    OK
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Oh, look, an insult. There goes your right to lecture anybody on not using 'insults' ever again...
    Were you genuinely offended by me calling you a hooligan? Really?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Rubbish, we don't (or shouldn't) feel persecuted when deprived of preferential treatment like we had in the old days (which we don't have now).
    Why can't we be neither?

    You claim that by discriminating those with religious beliefs you are in fact just having a little debate instead of mockery.
    Oh, is that so? Were you asleep this summer when just about every Christian in the world groaned with exasperation when the Supreme Court of the United States declared state-level bans on same sex marriages unconstitutional?

    You can be neither, if you so choose. But like I said before, most Christians you're likely to meet exist in a two-speed system where they are either persecutor or persecuted -- as you've shown in your post with your constant allegations of 'discrimination' and 'mockery' simply for having your views challenged on an important issue.

    I have not 'discriminated' against those with religious beliefs in any way that matters. It's more likely that you refer to it as such to stigmatise criticism of your religion - in much the same way that Muslim leaders invented the word 'Islamophobia' to stigmatise criticism of their religion.

    Not you in particular but it very often that we are mock for our faith. Maybe we should start bombing places then we might get some respect (mixed with fear) that Muslims are getting in this country.
    Well, it's good to hear that you've backtracked from the accusation in your second-last post that I, in particular, had abused the person who was apparently too scared not to go anonymous for his religion. Thanks for conceding the point.

    You (and Christians in general, it seems) are easily offended. Anybody who challenges what you say is accused of 'mockery' which is supposedly a bad thing. No ideology deserves any respect by default; the word you're looking for is 'tolerance' -- that you get plenty of in this country. If you want respect, then give up your less than respectable views on things like abortion and sexuality and stop demanding automatic respect. Tolerance is a right; respect is a privilege. Know the difference.

    Religion is a deeply personal feeling, not politics or social issues for open debate. Many Christians would prefer not to suffer a scrutiny of our own beliefs and just be allowed to get on with our lives.
    And when was the last time Christians like that were prevented from getting on with their lives? Well? Can you think of one instance when the state prevented Christians from living by their conscience without fear of reprisal? It's also interesting that you think scrutiny amounts to suffering. I disagree -- if we're going to live in a country with an established church subsidised by the taxes of everybody, not just Christians, then your religion (i.e. your religion, not you) is liable to be scrutinised.

    They have a right to express their opinion using the anonymous function.
    Were you offended by the remarks and if so did you report the post? If not then why are you complaining about people expressing an opinion about your views like your expressing about theirs?
    They still have that right.
    Actually, no, they don't. The anonymous function, the TSR rules explicitly point out, is to be used only in a limited range of circumstances where the poster needs confidential advice. These circumstances do not include wanting to take cheap shots at people without being identified on this website. TSR is a private website and, as such, can enforce its own rules on what is permitted and what isn't.

    And if they did have this right, the following would also be true: all the people allegedly mocking and discriminating against you also have the right to do so. Bet you didn't think of that, huh?

    No, I didn't get majorly offended, but that's still a violation of the rules and a pretty cowardly one at that. I'm not complaining about people expressing an opinion about my views (which it wasn't, it was just a derisory, condescending comment about non-Christians); I'm complaining about their misuse of the anonymous function to do so. I didn't want to be all Christian about it and go running to mummy but, alright, I'll report it if you say so.

    Where is it?
    Ah, so you haven't actually read it? Nice -- defending comments you haven't read. I wouldn't expect much better from a creationist on the Internet.

    Were you genuinely offended by me calling you a hooligan? Really?
    Again, not really. But it's an insult nonetheless and you lose any moral high ground you claim to hold when you insult somebody after giving them a lecture on how insults are so reprehensible.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Oh, is that so? Were you asleep this summer when just about every Christian in the world groaned with exasperation when the Supreme Court of the United States declared state-level bans on same sex marriages unconstitutional?
    More than Christianity opposes that (and only some branches of Christianity) don't group us all together!
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You can be neither, if you so choose.
    Thank you.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    But like I said before, most Christians you're likely to meet exist in a two-speed system where they are either persecutor or persecuted -- as you've shown in your post with your constant allegations of 'discrimination' and 'mockery' simply for having your views challenged on an important issue.
    Challenged or laughed at? And what makes it an important issue?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I have not 'discriminated' against those with religious beliefs in any way that matters.
    Not you specifically
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's more likely that you refer to it as such to stigmatise criticism of your religion
    But Christians are the ones often being stigmatised. What we're trying to say is leave us alone, eye for an eye.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You (and Christians in general, it seems) are easily offended.
    And? What if we are? Is that a crime? Is it wrong to be offended?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Anybody who challenges what you say is accused of 'mockery' which is supposedly a bad thing.
    There is a difference between disagreement and judgement.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No ideology deserves any respect by default;
    Here's weher we disagree.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    the word you're looking for is 'tolerance' -- that you get plenty of in this country.
    But not enough in the modern generation.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    If you want respect, then give up your less than respectable views on things like abortion and sexuality and stop demanding automatic respect.
    I believe that respect shoukld be automatic. Do you have respect for Islamic State? I do.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Tolerance is a right; respect is a privilege.
    Again here's where we must agree to disagree.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Know the difference. And when was the last time Christians like that were prevented from getting on with their lives? Well? Can you think of one instance when the state prevented Christians from living by their conscience without fear of reprisal?
    I never said the state, just society in general. The state has a lot of Christians within.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's also interesting that you think scrutiny amounts to suffering.
    Often does though. Look at the families of politicians
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I disagree -- if we're going to live in a country with an established church subsidised by the taxes of everybody, not just Christians, then your religion (i.e. your religion, not you) is liable to be scrutinised.
    Oh the church is, not disputing that, but forget a bout the congregation please.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Actually, no, they don't. The anonymous function, the TSR rules explicitly point out, is to be used only in a limited range of circumstances where the poster needs confidential advice. These circumstances do not include wanting to take cheap shots at people without being identified on this website.
    That person didn't wish to be criticised for their beliefs, which I know doubt he/she would have.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    TSR is a private website and, as such, can enforce its own rules on what is permitted and what isn't. And if they did have this right, the following would also be true: all the people allegedly mocking and discriminating against you also have the right to do so. Bet you didn't think of that, huh?
    Yes I did, I've nothing against people who use the anonymous setting considering it's difficult to identify people just from a weird name and a funny picture anyway. I'm more against the text in the post than whom it's from.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, I didn't get majorly offended,
    Then it's not an insult or offensive becuase you weren't insulted. Simple as...
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    but that's still a violation of the rules and a pretty cowardly one at that.
    So what have you done about it if you're so adamant about the rules.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not complaining about people expressing an opinion about my views (which it wasn't, it was just a derisory, condescending comment about non-Christians); I'm complaining about their misuse of the anonymous function to do so. I didn't want to be all Christian about it and go running to mummy but, alright, I'll report it if you say so.
    I haven't passed any opinion on that post as I haven't read it.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Ah, so you haven't actually read it? Nice -- defending comments you haven't read.
    I'm not trawling through seven pages to find it. I asked for a link and you've already given me the information I need to respond.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I wouldn't expect much better from a creationist on the Internet.
    Thank you.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Again, not really. But it's an insult nonetheless
    No it's not because you did not take offence, it's merely a harmless allegation.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    and you lose any moral high ground you claim to hold when you insult somebody after giving them a lecture on how insults are so reprehensible.
    When have I claimed to hold the moral high ground?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Hydeman;59402929]

    At the same time, realise that it's not anybody's job to accept your beliefs. You don't have to discuss your views on premarital sex with other people if you think it will encourage them to mock you. I do get quite annoyed when religious people expect that their views should be respected just because it's part of their religion. I'm happy to tolerate, but I won't respect every (or even most) aspect(s) of your religion, sorry.
    QUOTE]

    Not so sure about that.

    Surely it is the boy's job to accept her beliefs if he wants to have a relationship with her? He needs to know from the start and then decide if he wants to accept that relationship or not. If he accepts the relationship then he accepts her beliefs. If he doesn't accept her beliefs then he doesn't enter the relationship.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    At the same time, realise that it's not anybody's job to accept your beliefs. You don't have to discuss your views on premarital sex with other people if you think it will encourage them to mock you. I do get quite annoyed when religious people expect that their views should be respected just because it's part of their religion. I'm happy to tolerate, but I won't respect every (or even most) aspect(s) of your religion, sorry.
    Not so sure about that.

    Surely it is the boy's job to accept her beliefs if he wants to have a relationship with her? He needs to know from the start and then decide if he wants to accept that relationship or not. If he accepts the relationship then he accepts her beliefs. If he doesn't accept her beliefs then he doesn't enter the relationship.
    __
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    More than Christianity opposes that (and only some branches of Christianity) don't group us all together!
    And? I oppose all the others who did so too. But you were specifically talking about Christianity -- I am opposed to any religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Yazidism, Buddhism, Shintoism or anything else that tries to dictate morality to those of us who'd rather live freely and secularly.

    Challenged or laughed at? And what makes it an important issue?
    Challenged.

    I'm slightly confused about which issue you mean here but I think there are two possible answers. If you mean the issue of equal marriage rights: married couples get tax breaks. While the idea of encouraging any kind of relationship is in itself unfair, as long as we have this unfairness, every couple must have access to these tax breaks if they so wish. To deny them that amounts to state-sanctioned persecution.

    If you mean the issue of having sex before marriage: because modern society is riddled with the horrific crimes of those who sexually repress themselves or are sexually repressed by others. Think Rotherham and the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. What did they all have in common? Parents who repressed their sexualities or, in the case of the Catholic Church, parents who told them becoming celibate for god is a virtue. You may think that your delicate feelings are worth more than the innocence and well-being of children (many of whom will likely go on to develop trust issues and volatile relationships) but I am in no way obligated to do so.

    But Christians are the ones often being stigmatised.
    No, it is the views commonly held by Christians that are stigmatised in an enlightened society. Like it or not, I am not obligated to respect anyone who holds the views preached by most denominations of Christianity regarding sex, the rights of the individual over his or her own body, and the best method for determining truth. The fact that you think you're being stigmatised does nothing to support your point that many Christians are simply happy to get on with their lives and don't exist in a two-speed system where there is no intermediate between being persecutors or being persecuted. That's called a victim complex.

    What we're trying to say is leave us alone, eye for an eye.
    Eye for an eye? LOL. That's one teaching most Christians try to downplay because it is inherently violent and destroys everything that Christians have been saying about their religion being about loving God through loving your fellow creature. That would make a fairly ironic ad: 'Christianity: A loving God since 1964.' (1964 being the year in which the Catholic Church finally acquitted the Jewish people of collective responsibility for the murder of Jesus of Nazareth, if you're interested.)

    And? What if we are? Is that a crime? Is it wrong to be offended?
    Of course not. It's merely an observation. You have every right to take offence; you don't, however, have the right to use offence-taking as an excuse to try and shut people up. I can only hope your suggestion that you should start bombing buildings to get respect was a joke.

    There is a difference between disagreement and judgement.Here's weher we disagree.But not enough in the modern generation.
    I believe that respect shoukld be automatic. Do you have respect for Islamic State? I do.
    Again here's where we must agree to disagree.
    No, sorry, I don't respect the Islamic State and this conversation should be coming to an end if you do. I make it a rule in life not to waste too much time trying to talk sense into people who respect a death cult masquerading as a country that kills, rapes, and loots as it pleases without consequence. Incidentally, did you hear about the 21 Egyptian Christians who were beheaded on a beach in Libya last year? I bet you really respect the organisation that did that.

    I never said the state, just society in general. The state has a lot of Christians within.
    Unfortunately, the state is the only entity from whom you have the right to demand equal treatment. If society in general doesn't like your views, they are perfectly within their rights to say so. Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings.

    Often does though. Look at the families of politicians
    That's a very false dichotomy. Studying the Bible, pointing out the horrors within it and deciding that it's no way for a civilised country to live is not the same as having your girlfriend harassed by journalists looking for dirt to print.

    Oh the church is, not disputing that, but forget a bout the congregation please.
    Consider it forgotten. What you will find is that it is the congregation who can't stand the church being criticised. In fact, you've done it yourself -- you've come out and said it yourself that you consider scrutiny of your religion to be akin to making you suffer.

    That person didn't wish to be criticised for their beliefs, which I know doubt he/she would have.
    Yes I did, I've nothing against people who use the anonymous setting considering it's difficult to identify people just from a weird name and a funny picture anyway. I'm more against the text in the post than whom it's from.
    How do you know that person's intentions/desires when you haven't even bothered to read the bloody post?

    I'll say this one last time: the anonymous setting is for those who need genuine confidential advice, not for those seeking to take shots at someone without having their account associated with it. I like to think I'm a fairly regular person on here so, to me, it does matter that I'm accountable for what I say. If I say something remotely offensive, I get a blue card; if I get lots of blue and yellow cards, I get banned from the site. That is the kind of accountability that that person is dodging.

    Admit it: you defended a person just because he was Christian and not because you knew what he's actually said. Don't try to come off as more noble than you are.

    Then it's not an insult or offensive becuase you weren't insulted. Simple as...
    I'm sorry, but that's bull****. Derogatory words remain derogatory regardless of whether the recipient goes running to Mummy crying about how unfair the world is. Your model of offence would suggest that words can become insults just by the recipient claiming to take offence. I can see why you would want that to be true, given your tendency to term genuine debate a 'mockery' of and 'discrimination' against you and your fellow Christians.

    Here's an example: Bob walks into his office and tells his colleague, Dave, that he's a good friend. Dave says 'I'm offended!' Therefore, telling your colleagues that you consider them to be good friends is an insult.

    This is your logic. I hope you can see why that's bull****.

    So what have you done about it if you're so adamant about the rules.I haven't passed any opinion on that post as I haven't read it.
    Don't lie. You have repeatedly defended that person and are now backtracking. You did share the opinion that I was in the wrong for objecting to be called an animal because I'm not sexually dysfunctional like the brave guy using anon.

    I'm not trawling through seven pages to find it.
    Well, then stay the f*ck out of disputes you can't be bothered to follow. Idiot.

    No it's not because you did not take offence, it's merely a harmless allegation.
    So whether an allegation is harmful is determined by whether the recipient takes offence? Absolute bull****. See Bob-and-Dave analogy above.

    When have I claimed to hold the moral high ground?
    Here:

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Be more polite you hooligan!
    Please don't bother replying. I'm not in the mood to keep going around in circles with an Islamic State sympathiser.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    Not so sure about that.

    Surely it is the boy's job to accept her beliefs if he wants to have a relationship with her? He needs to know from the start and then decide if he wants to accept that relationship or not. If he accepts the relationship then he accepts her beliefs. If he doesn't accept her beliefs then he doesn't enter the relationship.
    Yes. I wasn't talking about the boy in the quoted paragraph. I was talking more generally about whether it's right to expect people to wait 'til marriage to have sex. In the rest of my post, I did say that she needs to find somebody else who will agree with her on this.

    Generally speaking, it's quite reasonable to expect sex after a period of dating -- she needs to make it clear that she doesn't intend to have any until marriage from the very outset instead of expecting the other person to automatically take a vow of celibacy too. If the OP doesn't tell the boy at the start of the relationship, she can hardly blame him for leaving
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    . If the OP doesn't tell the boy at the start of the relationship, she can hardly blame him for leaving
    Agreed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Challenged. I'm slightly confused about which issue you mean here but I think there are two possible answers. If you mean the issue of equal marriage rights: married couples get tax breaks. While the idea of encouraging any kind of relationship is in itself unfair, as long as we have this unfairness, every couple must have access to these tax breaks if they so wish. To deny them that amounts to state-sanctioned persecution. If you mean the issue of having sex before marriage: because modern society is riddled with the horrific crimes of those who sexually repress themselves or are sexually repressed by others. Think Rotherham and the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. What did they all have in common? Parents who repressed their sexualities or, in the case of the Catholic Church, parents who told them becoming celibate for god is a virtue. You may think that your delicate feelings are worth more than the innocence and well-being of children (many of whom will likely go on to develop trust issues and volatile relationships) but I am in no way obligated to do so.
    I meant about religion, not individual issues that you keep bringing up.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, it is the views commonly held by Christians that are stigmatised in an enlightened society. Like it or not, I am not obligated to respect anyone who holds the views preached by most denominations of Christianity regarding sex, the rights of the individual over his or her own body, and the best method for determining truth. The fact that you think you're being stigmatised does nothing to support your point that many Christians are simply happy to get on with their lives and don't exist in a two-speed system where there is no intermediate between being persecutors or being persecuted. That's called a victim complex.
    So you don't respect other people's opinions. Then why are we having this debate when you can just call me names or just hurl abuse at me. But you've done neither, why?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Eye for an eye? LOL. That's one teaching most Christians try to downplay because it is inherently violent and destroys everything that Christians have been saying about their religion being about loving God through loving your fellow creature. That would make a fairly ironic ad: 'Christianity: A loving God since 1964.' (1964 being the year in which the Catholic Church finally acquitted the Jewish people of collective responsibility for the murder of Jesus of Nazareth, if you're interested.)
    I'm not interested because I'm not a catholic and disagree with most of them.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Of course not. It's merely an observation. You have every right to take offence; you don't, however, have the right to use offence-taking as an excuse to try and shut people up. I can only hope your suggestion that you should start bombing buildings to get respect was a joke.
    I don't make puns.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, sorry, I don't respect the Islamic State and this conversation should be coming to an end if you do. I make it a rule in life not to waste too much time trying to talk sense into people who respect a death cult masquerading as a country that kills, rapes, and loots as it pleases and without consequence. Incidentally, did you hear about the 21 Egyptian Christians who were beheaded on a beach in Libya last year? I bet you really respect the organisation that did that.
    I understand what they are fighting for. They have a cause and we've all seen what they'll do for it. So why do we continue to ignore it?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Unfortunately, the state is the only entity from whom you have the right to demand equal treatment. If society in general doesn't like your views, they are perfectly within their rights to say so. Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings.
    I agree, but we can at least campaign for it.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That's a very false dichotomy. Studying the Bible, pointing out the horrors within it and deciding that it's no way for a civilised country to live is not the same as having your girlfriend harassed by journalists looking for dirt to print.
    Analysis is not scrutiny I agree and having a mature debate I am open to. I oppose people being victimised for their religion. Which is a wide-spread problem.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Consider it forgotten.
    Good
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    What you will find is that it is the congregation who can't stand the church being criticised.
    No we're fine with the church being criticised.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In fact, you've done it yourself -- you've come out and said it yourself that you consider scrutiny of your religion to be akin to making you suffer.
    The religion (belief) is different to the establishment that runs it (the church)
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    How do you know that person's intentions/desires when you haven't even bothered to read the bloody post?
    You haven't given me a link but you've pretty much told me the part that you were affected by the most. This is the part I was talking about.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'll say this one last time: the anonymous setting is for those who need genuine confidential advice, not for those seeking to take shots at someone without having their account associated with it. I like to think I'm a fairly regular person on here so, to me, it does matter that I'm accountable for what I say. If I say something remotely offensive, I get a blue card; if I get lots of blue and yellow cards, I get banned from the site. That is the kind of accountability that that person is dodging.
    So what are you going to do about it then? Because complaining to me is certainly not going to solve your problem here.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Admit it: you defended a person just because he was Christian and not because you knew what he's actually said. Don't try to come off as more noble than you are.
    I defended him for standing up to his (or her) beliefs.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm sorry, but that's bull****. Derogatory words remain derogatory regardless of whether the recipient goes running to Mummy crying about how unfair the world is. Your model of offence would suggest that words can become insults just by the recipient claiming to take offence. I can see why you would want that to be true, given your tendency to term genuine debate a 'mockery' of and 'discrimination' against you and your fellow Christians.
    Here's an example: Bob walks into his office and tells his colleague, Dave, that he's a good friend. Dave says 'I'm offended!' Therefore, telling your colleagues that you consider them to be good friends is an insult. This is your logic. I hope you can see why that's bull****.
    Nope. That's how they deal with offensive abuse at football matches. If someone takes offence then it is offensive. If not what impact has it had? In that particular case Bob has used an offensive term, don't see how, but it is. A genuine debate is not a mockery but persecution is! There is a difference and the difference is offence. Derogatory is different. That is lowering other people below you, like: "you peasant!"
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Don't lie. You have repeatedly defended that person and are now backtracking. You did share the opinion that I was in the wrong for objecting to be called an animal because I'm not sexually dysfunctional like the brave guy using anon.
    Right, calm down, give me the link (about the fifth time of asking) and also give me a quote from me whereby I have expressed an opinion over this individual case.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Well, then stay the f*ck out of disputes you can't be bothered to follow. Idiot.
    Then don't bring me into them.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    So whether an allegation is harmful is determined by whether the recipient takes offence? Absolute bull****. See Bob-and-Dave analogy above.
    Here: Please don't bother replying. I'm not in the mood to keep going around in circles with an Islamic State sympathiser.
    That has nothing to do with the moral high ground, it was a joke and you took it as such then. I am not a sympathiser with Islamic State I just understand that they have beliefs and are standing up for them.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    You haven't given me a link but you've pretty much told me the part that you were affected by the most. This is the part I was talking about.
    So what are you going to do about it then? Because complaining to me is certainly not going to solve your problem here.
    I defended him for standing up to his (or her) beliefs.
    Right, calm down, give me the link (about the fifth time of asking) and also give me a quote from me whereby I have expressed an opinion over this individual case.
    Then don't bring me into them.
    I'm getting seriously annoyed with your stupidity now. 'Because complaining to me isn't going to solve your problem here.' You were the one who got involved in it, you dimwit. Here's the chronology of events that you seem too thick to compute:

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    In bold, so we should go and have sex with everyone :rolleyes: Control yourself, you are not an animal that can't control their urge to have sex. Seriously, you should not let sex control you.
    To which I replied:

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Your use of the anonymous function says something about how much water you think your argument really holds.

    I am an animal, in fact. An animal who doesn't have much time for anthropocentrism. 'Sex' is not a sentient entity that has any control over me. Nor did I say that we cannot control our urge to have sex.

    Full marks for comprehension, then.
    To which you replied:

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Not true.

    No, it shows how Christians are afraid of being abused for their religion, like Muslims are doing a the moment.
    So, what were you saying?

    Then don't bring me into them.
    You brought yourself into it by replying to something I was saying to the other person, without having the foresight to look at what I was replying to. What a prick you are for pretending like I'm a crybaby like you who's complaining about something trivial when you're the one who brought it up.

    'It shows how Christians are afraid of being abused for their religion' - How the f*ck do you know what it shows without reading it in the first place? Unf*ckingbelievable.

    Nope. That's how they deal with offensive abuse at football matches. If someone takes offence then it is offensive. If not what impact has it had? In that particular case Bob has used an offensive term, don't see how, but it is. A genuine debate is not a mockery but persecution is! There is a difference and the difference is offence. Derogatory is different. That is lowering other people below you, like: "you peasant!"
    Oh yes, because football matches are the ultimate guide on how we should govern a free society. Are you somewhere on the autism spectrum? It beggars belief that the best argument you can come out with is, 'well, that's how they do it at the footie so it's right.'

    'If someone takes offence then it is offensive.'
    'In that particular case Bob has used an offensive term, don't see how, but it is.'

    The underlined is why you're wrong. The whole point of the analogy was to point out that it breaks down in certain situations, but you just extended your bull**** argument to make the words 'you're a good friend' offensive. Real logic you've got there.

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I meant about religion, not individual issues that you keep bringing up.
    Oh, really? Let's have a look at another chronology to refresh your selective memory.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You can be neither, if you so choose. But like I said before, most Christians you're likely to meet exist in a two-speed system where they are either persecutor or persecuted -- as you've shown in your post with your constant allegations of 'discrimination' and 'mockery' simply for having your views challenged on an important issue.
    To which you responded:

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Challenged or laughed at? And what makes it an important issue?
    To which I responded:

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Challenged.

    I'm slightly confused about which issue you mean here but I think there are two possible answers. If you mean the issue of equal marriage rights: married couples get tax breaks. While the idea of encouraging any kind of relationship is in itself unfair, as long as we have this unfairness, every couple must have access to these tax breaks if they so wish. To deny them that amounts to state-sanctioned persecution.

    If you mean the issue of having sex before marriage: because modern society is riddled with the horrific crimes of those who sexually repress themselves or are sexually repressed by others. Think Rotherham and the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. What did they all have in common? Parents who repressed their sexualities or, in the case of the Catholic Church, parents who told them becoming celibate for god is a virtue. You may think that your delicate feelings are worth more than the innocence and well-being of children (many of whom will likely go on to develop trust issues and volatile relationships) but I am in no way obligated to do so.
    To which you responded:

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I meant about religion, not individual issues that you keep bringing up.
    Here's your original query:

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Challenged or laughed at? And what makes it an important issue?
    And that's where you're moving the goalposts. I'm tired of arguing against a moron who can't win an argument without resorting to cheap tricks like changing his words retrospectively in the hope that the other person won't notice.

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    So you don't respect other people's opinions. Then why are we having this debate when you can just call me names or just hurl abuse at me. But you've done neither, why?
    You seemed to have missed the whole 'tolerance vs respect' thing I mentioned above. I bother with debates because I tolerate other people's opinions and, if I don't feel like it, I don't debate them at all and let them shout and holler their nonsense on the streets until their throat is raw.

    I respect the opinions of some people. Theists, generally, are not among them because most of their opinions are very difficult to respect for any right-thinking, moral person. It also doesn't help when they happen to be people like you who use underhanded tricks like changing their words from previous posts because they can't be bothered conceding the point when they're wrong; that's dishonest debate and I have zero appetite for it.

    I'm not interested because I'm not a catholic and disagree with most of them.
    Ah, the John Lennox fallacy... 'The Christianity my parents taught me... blah blah blah.' You may not be interested with the sexual abuse of thousands of children but I certainly am. The perpetrators of those atrocities in the Church were all Christians and their disturbed state of mind the product of their Christian upbringing. Keep denying that all you like.

    I don't make jokes.I understand what they are fighting for. They have a cause and we've all seen what they'll do for it. So why do we continue to ignore it?
    Oh, so that was a serious threat to bomb buildings? Ah, the religion of loving your fellow man right there...

    Nobody is ignoring their cause -- they certainly don't deserve any respect for it.

    I agree, but we can at least campaign for it.
    Feel free. It's a free country. Don't expect people to even stop and listen to your nonsense, though. They have better things to do.

    I oppose people being victimised for their religion. Which is a wide-spread problem.
    Surely you should oppose Islamic State, then? They're the ones victimising people for their religion. Your victim complex is enormous -- you are not being victimised for your religion in any sense of the word in this country and nor are your brothers and sisters in faith. Go to the Islamic State and you'll see what real victimisation is like.

    No we're fine with the church being criticised.The religion (belief) is different to the establishment that runs it (the church)
    In that case, you must have your religion and your church criticised, since they are both morally wicked and call for immoral things. Freedom of speech is more important than your deliberately offended sentiments.

    I defended him for standing up to his (or her) beliefs.
    Without reading what he/she actually said. Prick.

    That has nothing to do with the moral high ground, it was a joke and you took it as such then.
    No, I didn't, you compulsive liar. I called you out on it immediately. Just because I didn't report you for it doesn't mean I took it as a joke. Also, I'll just leave this here:

    I don't make jokes.
    10/10 for consistency...

    I am not a sympathiser with Islamic State I just understand that they have beliefs and are standing up for them.
    Hmm, I wonder why anyone would think that you were....

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I believe that respect shoukld be automatic. Do you have respect for Islamic State? I do.
    This is the last response from me tonight. You're clearly not worth talking to, the number of times you've tried to change your words or put words in my mouth.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'mgetting seriously annoyed with your stupidity now. 'Because complaining to meisn't going to solve your problem here.'
    OK, my profound apologiesI'd forgotten how you'd managed to get me into this altercation.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    'Itshows how Christians are afraid of being abused for their religion' - How thef*ck do you know what it shows without reading it in the first place?Unf*ckingbelievable.
    I did read it in the firstplace.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Oh yes, because football matches are the ultimateguide on how we should govern a free society.
    I didn't say that, but ona safeguarding the public course that is thedefinition.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Are you somewhere on the autismspectrum?
    And if I was?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It beggars beliefthat the best argument you can come out with is, 'well, that's how they do itat the footie so it's right.'
    Don't put quotation marks around thatbecause it's wrong. I'm not that colloquial.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    'If someonetakes offence then it is offensive.''In that particular case Bob has used anoffensive term, don't seehow, but it is.'The underlined is why you're wrong. The whole point ofthe analogy was to point out that it breaks down in certain situations, but youjust extended your bull**** argument to make the words 'you're a good friend'offensive. Real logic you've got there.
    If I said you smell like cheeseand you are offended then I was offensive to you if you are not then it is aharmless comment. That is the truth of the matter, if you wish to argue overtthat then I suggest you find some proof. Furthermore, can we refrain from thiscontinual use on un-parliamentary language, we're sophisticatedpeople.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And that's where you're moving the goalposts.I'm tired of arguing against a moron who can't win an argument withoutresorting to cheap tricks like changing his words retrospectively in the hopethat the other person won't notice.
    No genuinely, why does someone’sown personal beliefs matter so much?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You seemed to havemissed the whole 'tolerance vs respect' thing I mentioned above. I bother withdebates because I tolerate other people's opinions and, if Idon't feel like it, I don't debate them at all and let them shout and hollertheir nonsense on the streets until their throat is raw.
    This is why Idon’t like you. Respect is something you should give to everything.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Irespect the opinions of some people. Theists, generally, are notamong them because most of their opinions are very difficult to respect for anyright-thinking, moral person. It also doesn't help when they happen to bepeople like you who use underhanded tricks like changing their words fromprevious posts because they can't be bothered conceding the point when they'rewrong; that's dishonest debate and I have zero appetite for it.
    So whyreply then?
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Ah, the John Lennox fallacy... 'TheChristianity my parents taught me... blah blah blah.'
    Is not what Ifollow thank you very much. Don’t assume.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You may not beinterested with the sexual abuse of thousands of children but I certainly am.
    Iam.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The perpetrators of those atrocities in the Churchwere all Christians and their disturbed stateof mind the product of their Christian upbringing.
    You don’t know thatthat’s why they committed their crimes.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Keep denyingthat all you like.
    I deny nothing.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Oh, so thatwas a serious threat to bomb buildings? Ah, the religion of loving your fellowman right there...
    Yes right after I’ve finished my Maths homework Londonwill be dust. No, of course not was indicating that the persecution of religionhas led to terror on a number of occasions in the last few decades alone!
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Feelfree. It's a free country. Don't expect people to even stop and listen to yournonsense, though. They have better things to do.
    So beit.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Surely you should oppose Islamic State, then?
    Wellof course I oppose them, I see their point but I whole-heartedly disagree withthem.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    They're the ones victimising people for theirreligion.
    Whilst standing up for their own.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yourvictim complex is enormous
    Thank you
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    you are not being victimised for your religion inany sense of the word in this country and nor are your brothers and sisters infaith.
    I am not currently being victimised no but I was, as are manyChristians globally currently.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Go to the Islamic Stateand you'll see what real victimisation is like.
    I’ll save the experiencefor another time.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In that case, you must have yourreligion and your church criticised, since they are both morally wicked andcall for immoral things.
    Crticise the chirch all yopu like but respectreligion, I respect your atheist belief as you should respect that I have myown personal Christian belief.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Freedom of speech ismore important than your deliberately offended sentiments.
    In youropinion and mine.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Without reading what he/she actuallysaid. Prick.
    Your opinion on me is both amusing and incorrect as I hadread what the anon. user had said before entering the discussion, you simplychanged the conversation then referenced it later once I’d forgotten about it.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No,I didn't, you compulsive liar. I called you out on it immediately. Just becauseI didn't report you for it doesn't mean I took it as a joke.
    You saidyou were not offended by the remark. How else could you take such a thing.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    10/10for consistency...
    Once again I profusely apologise and have nowcorrected my error.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Hmm, I wonder why anyone would thinkthat you were....
    I’m dumfounded too.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    This isthe last response from me tonight.
    Goodnight.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You're clearly not worth talking to,
    A well-spent evening then!
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    thenumber of times you've tried to change your words or put words in my mouth...
    Iswhat?
    w
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 25, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.