Hoppa's 37 days in the desert

[Ryan]

Don't know how you read that into my response MM. Care to read it again?

I said if you require people to respect religious beliefs then that means respecting the religious beliefs of atheists too. Those who believe in God have no greater right to a voice than those who believe the opposite. Do you disagree?

There is a God. If you saw me without a shirt on, you'd agree as well.

 

[Rex]

You started with "by that standard", which I read to imply that you thought there was something wrong with the standard I had suggested. Apologies if I read too much into that.

Of course atheists have the right to express their beliefs, but there is a difference between expressing your own beliefs and ridiculing the beliefs of others.

Some posts in this thread fall into the latter category.

I actually do respect the beliefs of others. Doesn't matter the flavour - religious, political, even football. I even respect your belief that I am nailed to my high horse when I express beliefs you don't approve of. That is your reality and you are perfectly entitled to believe it.

Respecting others' beliefs doesn't mean that I shy away from challenging them though.

 

[eagleron]

Yeah not even 40 days the pussy!
I wonder if he gets a camel?
Due to my beliefs I'm going to spend 41 days in the dessert. MMMMmmmm, bickies, cake, ice cream.....

I can only say congratulations to the doggies, what a coup it was signing this clown.

 

[MadMarcus]

I actually do respect the beliefs of others. Doesn't matter the flavour - religious, political, even football. I even respect your belief that I am nailed to my high horse when I express beliefs you don't approve of. That is your reality and you are perfectly entitled to believe it.

Respecting others' beliefs doesn't mean that I shy away from challenging them though.

Why do you think I don't approve of your beliefs?

 

[Rex]

Why do you think I don't approve of your beliefs?

Hopping on your soapbox to allege I'm nailed to mine is hardly a sign of approval of my beliefs.

You have a problem with what you consider "Some harsh comments" in this thread and think "the beliefs of others should be respected".

In the Steve Mortimer thread, you took a side - wombatgc's Christian jihad side. And in it, you had no problem with the Christians launching a long series of personal attacks - and in fact joined in - apparently not seeing what you (or they) did as either harsh or disrespectful.

In this thread, you've taken the side of the Christians again, and in my view have attacked the atheists.

In my reality both of these suggest some underlying beliefs, underling disapproval, and underlying intolerance. I respect that in your reality, you may see things differently.

 

[Woodsie]

@Rex when Ralphie expressed an opinion you were outraged an said,

What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?

Now, you have become the champion of free speech,

I actually do respect the beliefs of others. Doesn't matter the flavour - religious, political, even football. I even respect your belief that I am nailed to my high horse when I express beliefs you don't approve of. That is your reality and you are perfectly entitled to believe it..

In Ralphie's case you not only didn't respect his beliefs you had the arrogant gaul to challenge his rights to have an opinion. Then wrote 20,000 words trying to smother and justify your ridiculous assertions.

Either my sometimes painful attempts to educate you has borne success, or you have taken your back flipping to Olympic standard.

Or as I suspect, in your self acclaimed non judgemental superiority you have judged which topics people are allowed to have an opinion on.

Or is it simply that you are quite prepared to pontificate either side of the fence.

 

[Frank]

So Canterbury have signed and presumably paid good money for a fullback that has no intention of playing Sundays. That's insane. What happens during finals? Should the Bulldogs make the finals does it mean they're forced to play their second string fullback for Sunday games. Will he give up a grand final???

 

[MadMarcus]

@Rex you have a very thin skin if you think anything I have said in this thread constitutes an attack on atheists.

I never said you, or anybody else, was nailed to anything or on a soapbox. You were the one who said that about me.

If I offended you in something I wrote in another thread some time ago I apologise.

If you want to put words in my mouth and then argue with them go ahead. It seems my own contribution is redundant, so I'll bow out here and let you take up both sides of the argument.

Good luck. I will pray for you.

 

[Rex]

@Rex when Ralphie expressed an opinion you were outraged an said,



Now, you have become the champion of free speech,



In Ralphie's case you not only didn't respect his beliefs you had the arrogant gaul to challenge his rights to have an opinion. Then wrote 20,000 words trying to smother and justify your ridiculous assertions.

Either my sometimes painful attempts to educate you has borne success, or you have taken your back flipping to Olympic standard.

Or as I suspect, in your self acclaimed non judgemental superiority you have judged which topics people are allowed to have an opinion on.

Or is it simply that you are quite prepared to pontificate either side of the fence.

Wow Woodsie. You are seriously activated. This is VERY important to you.

You've jumped to a bunch of (IMO) weird conclusions. Three steps here:

1. I have no problem at all with Ralphie expressing his views.
2. I expressed my different views related to what Ralphie had said. I see his expressed views as socially divisive and expressed that. Does that mean I have a problem with him expressing his views? No.
3. You got offended because you feel Ralphie should be able to express his views, which you seem to have sympathy for, but for your own reasons don't choose to afford the same respect to me.

 

[Rex]

@Rex you have a very thin skin if you think anything I have said in this thread constitutes an attack on atheists.

lol. Nothing at all to do with me MM. FYI I don't even identify as an atheist.

I never said you, or anybody else, was nailed to anything or on a soapbox. You were the one who said that about me.

lol. That claim is simply untrue MM. See:

http://silvertails.net/threads/the-...-his-sons-gay-union.48675/page-21#post-783877

Posting 411 - Wombatgc:
Rex is probably in bed recovering from falling off his soapbox.
Posting 413 - MadMarcus (reply quoting posting 411):
Can't see that happening. Aren't his feet nailed to it?

If I offended you in something I wrote in another thread some time ago I apologise.

Actually, "some time ago" is this month. Thanks, but no need to apologise MM. I don't take it personally because your beliefs and interpretations really have nothing at all to do with me. The three key criticisms you had of others in this thread were "harsh comments", failure to respect others' beliefs, and ridiculing others. On honest reflection, can you see yourself having done any of these?

If you want to put words in my mouth and then argue with them go ahead. It seems my own contribution is redundant, so I'll bow out here and let you take up both sides of the argument.

Good luck. I will pray for you.

Given the quotes above, I'm not sure what words you are saying I put into your mouth?

 

[Chip and Chase]

What about masochists and soccer fans?

Aren't they one in the same ?

 

[Woodsie]

Wow Woodsie. You are seriously activated. This is VERY important to you.

You've jumped to a bunch of (IMO) weird conclusions. Three steps here:

1. I have no problem at all with Ralphie expressing his views.
2. I expressed my different views related to what Ralphie had said. I see his expressed views as socially divisive and expressed that. Does that mean I have a problem with him expressing his views? No.
3. You got offended because you feel Ralphie should be able to express his views, which you seem to have sympathy for, but for your own reasons don't choose to afford the same respect to me.

Once again reality seems to be avoiding you.

1) You said "What right do you have to approve or disapprove" "do you think you are God" Where was your vaunted respect for the beliefs of others when you penned those words.

Hardly a response from someone who doesn't have a problem with Ralphie expressing his views.

Conclusion. You are a liar, and a bully.

2) Whether you had/have a view, different or otherwise is irrelevant to the argument.

Conclusion. When your intolerance and bullying are pointed out you write ridiculous long winded nonsense to deflect and smother.

3) Yes, I get offended anytime bullies attack people. Your conclusion that this somehow relates to me sharing their view is childish and illogical.

Your assertion that I have not let you express your view is again a blatant lie meant to again deflect attention away from the original argument.

Conclusion. Your pathetic groveling attempt to somehow paint yourself as a victim is intellectually fraudulent.

 

[lsz]

I wonder if you two will start to ignore each other or take these conversations to the general forum?

 

[Woodsie]

Wow Woodsie. You are seriously activated. This is VERY important to you.

.

You are correct, I am activated, I despise all bullies especially those that use a keyboard as their instrument of intellectual oppression.

 

[Rex]

Once again reality seems to be avoiding you.

1) You said "What right do you have to approve or disapprove" "do you think you are God" Where was your vaunted respect for the beliefs of others when you penned those words.

Hardly a response from someone who doesn't have a problem with Ralphie expressing his views.

Conclusion. You are a liar, and a bully.

2) Whether you had/have a view, different or otherwise is irrelevant to the argument.

Conclusion. When your intolerance and bullying are pointed out you write ridiculous long winded nonsense to deflect and smother.

3) Yes, I get offended anytime bullies attack people. Your conclusion that this somehow relates to me sharing their view is childish and illogical.

Your assertion that I have not let you express your view is again a blatant lie meant to again deflect attention away from the original argument.

Conclusion. Your pathetic groveling attempt to somehow paint yourself as a victim is intellectually fraudulent.

Woodsie, seriously ...

Disagreeing very strongly and challenging very strongly is not the same as disrespecting. I heard five or six rants ago that you equate them. Keeping on repeating it doesn't make it true - even when you try to add in personal attacks as ammunition.

Have a look in the mirror - at what you've written - and apply your own standards back at yourself.

 

[Woodsie]

Woodsie, seriously ...

Disagreeing very strongly and challenging very strongly is not the same as disrespecting. I heard five or six rants ago that you equate them. Keeping on repeating it doesn't make it true - even when you try to add in personal attacks as ammunition.

Have a look in the mirror - at what you've written - and apply your own standards back at yourself.

Again you are deflecting. Your comment

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

That statement is not disagreeing or challenging a view point, it is an attack on the persons very right to hold an opinion. It is not engaging them in discourse, it is not attempting to change or moderate their views. It is not attempting to enlighten or educate them. It is simply a bully attacking somebody with a different opinion and by abuse, silence them.

That statement puts the lie to, and makes a mockery of your latest claim of tolerance, for you to assert the following is comical.

"I actually do respect the beliefs of others. Doesn't matter the flavour - religious, political, even football."

If you can't see that, you are not really as bright as you think you are. And yes, I have stated it 5 /6 times, some times it takes up to 10 times before a German Shepherd gets it. I am hoping with you it will take less.

 

[Rex]

I'm hearing you're wanting to get down to the issues of substance now Woodsie. Can we agree on a ground rule of attacking the problem, not the person? Otherwise it's a hopeless task IMO. I'm not entirely sure what your key points are. Can we work through this methodically so the real issues are separated and identified - rather than merged and splattered? And are you happy to take it to a private conversation or to the general forum so as to not pollute another thread?

First: The appropriateness of challenge

Are you saying you don't approve of me challenging Ralphie's perspective on his right to approve of someone else's sexual orientation? And if so, does your disapproval apply irrespective of whether I can see significant harm directly coming from his apparent stance that he regards the LGTB community as immoral in their sexual orientation?

Or is it OK in your world if I strongly challenge Ralphie's perspective on his right to approve of someone else's sexual orientation?

 

[MadMarcus]

I wonder if you two will start to ignore each other or take these conversations to the general forum?

Hopefully it will all end when @Rex finally gets laid. Clearly lots of tension there.

@Rex, to be clear this is a light hearted joke and not intended to be taken seriously, much like my soap box comment (Just for reference when you bring it up in 3 weeks' time when I have long forgotten about it).

Anyone care to talk about the footy?

 

[Woodsie]

I'm hearing you're wanting to get down to the issues of substance now Woodsie. Can we agree on a ground rule of attacking the problem, not the person? Otherwise it's a hopeless task IMO. I'm not entirely sure what your key points are. Can we work through this methodically so the real issues are separated and identified - rather than merged and splattered? And are you happy to take it to a private conversation or to the general forum so as to not pollute another thread?

First: The appropriateness of challenge

Are you saying you don't approve of me challenging Ralphie's perspective on his right to approve of someone else's sexual orientation? And if so, does your disapproval apply irrespective of whether I can see significant harm directly coming from his apparent stance that he regards the LGTB community as immoral in their sexual orientation?

Or is it OK in your world if I strongly challenge Ralphie's perspective on his right to approve of someone else's sexual orientation?

Then your hearing is faulty.

I have no desire or inclination to become a character in your fantasy world of meaningless words. If as you say you are not entirely sure of what my key point is after stating that I have repeated it 6/7 times, then betting has just swung sharply in favour of the German shepherd.

 

[Rex]

Hopefully it will all end when @Rex finally gets laid. Clearly lots of tension there.

@Rex, to be clear this is a light hearted joke and not intended to be taken seriously, much like my soap box comment (Just for reference when you bring it up in 3 weeks' time when I have long forgotten about it).

Anyone care to talk about the footy?

Interesting how these Christians have an ongoing obsession with my sex life. Wonder what that says about theirs?

Same invite to you MM. Happy to talk in personal conversation or in general forum if you want to talk without polluting the thread - as per lsz's request.