Fotbawmad Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I'm still waiting to hear of these six civilisations that homosexuality brought down. I would gladly explain and clarify what I said. Given I only provided one jigsaw piece in a very large puzzle. If only I wasn't facing such rudeness and hostility. Also, nice strawman. I said that's just one symptom of societal breakdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Poe was right. Nathan Poe was fucking right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I would gladly explain and clarify what I said. Given I only provided one jigsaw piece in a vary large puzzle. If only I wasn't facing such rudeness and hostility. Also, nice strawman. I said that's just one symptom of societal breakdown. ^^^ word salad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I would gladly explain and clarify what I said. Given I only provided one jigsaw piece in a vary large puzzle. If only I wasn't facing such rudeness and hostility. Also, nice strawman. I said that's just one symptom of societal breakdown. Oh dear. The "Oaksoft" defence. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 How so? If there are Scottish nationalists who want independence at any cost, there are Scottish regionalists who want dependence at any cost. The difference is that we know that the problems people are currently complaining about (poverty, inequality, deprivation) exist under the latter - it is the system which has ruled Scotland for centuries, and, out of Scottish independence versus British sovereignty, it's the only one that anyone has actually experienced. Show me a civilisation that doesn't have inequality and deprivation? Poverty is virtually non-existent in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 C.f. Failed 2015 Labour candidate Jimmy Hood: "Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union." And there are SNP supporters from Aberdeen that wouldn't support breaking away from Scotland if the Aberdonian people were going to be better off economically. Hood just believes ideologically that the UK should be a single united country. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 All that's being asked is for you to explain exactly how these people weren't homophobic if they were opposed to legalisation of civil marriage. Nobody's asked for that. I'm not going to defend the views of people I disagree with to those I do agree with when what you really want is a little scrap about the definition of homophobia and another chance to show everyone your righteous indignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 And there are SNP supporters from Aberdeen that wouldn't support breaking away from Scotland if the Aberdonian people were going to be better off economically. Hood just believes ideologically that the UK should be a single united country. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of opinion. No one said otherwise. In fact, I've repeatedly said I've more respect for those who just admit they oppose the idea of Scottish independence because the UK is the country they identify with rather than Scotland than those who pretend their nation is Scotland, but oppose its sovereignty because they want the UK to remain their nation state. Being a staunch opponent of Scottish statehood even if it benefits the people of Scotland is a common position for British Nationalists - it would be odd if they didn't espouse it. Of course one rarely sees Britons stating that the UK should remain in the EU even if it will make the economy of the UK worse - but then the EU has not had three-hundred years of ideology drummed into its citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Nobody's asked for that. I'm not going to defend the views of people I disagree with to those I do agree with when what you really want is a little scrap about the definition of homophobia and another chance to show everyone your righteous indignation. This isn't a trivial definition challenge. Both ScotSquid and Granny Danger specifically responded to the suggestion that these people were not homophobic bigots for opposing equal marriage and you didn't provide a single reason to support the "certainty" (your word, not mine) that they were something not as bad as a homophobe and a bigot but merely "deeply wrong" in some less disgraceful way. The justification, insofar as you've offered one, for these people's opposition to equal marriage was founded on two things: 1. The belief that marriage is "an exclusively religious ceremony" despite the fact that these people do not seem to have opposed heterosexual civil marriage 2. They think that "redefining" marriage to include same-sex couples "somehow cheapens it" How are either of these justifications ones which don't fall squarely under any average intelligent human being's definition of either "homophobic" or "bigoted"? That their views about what the civic rights of gay people should be stem from ignorance and conservatism and that they are *sincere* doesn't mean they aren't homophobic bigots. This is tone trolling 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Poverty is virtually non-existent in Scotland. Shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Shite. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation definition of poverty includes items like high speed broadband internet connection and a week's self catering holiday in the UK each year. It is utter garbage to suggest people need things like that to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 1. The belief that marriage is "an exclusively religious ceremony" despite the fact that these people do not seem to have opposed heterosexual civil marriage You mentioned this, not me. Believe it or not, I forgot to ask them their opinions on heterosexual civil marriage but I'm quite prepared to believe they'd have been against that if it didn't exist and was being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 You mentioned this, not me. Believe it or not, I forgot to ask them their opinions on heterosexual civil marriage but I'm quite prepared to believe they'd have been against that if it didn't exist and was being proposed. Almost no one is against heterosexual civil marriage. Don't be obtuse. You could not possibly have been "certain" that they were not homophobic if you didn't ask them that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Almost no one is against heterosexual civil marriage. Don't be obtuse. So some people are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The Joseph Rowntree Foundation definition of poverty includes items like high speed broadband internet connection and a week's self catering holiday in the UK each year. It is utter garbage to suggest people need things like that to survive. Poverty is not just about surviving you fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The Joseph Rowntree Foundation definition of poverty includes items like high speed broadband internet connection and a week's self catering holiday in the UK each year. It is utter garbage to suggest people need things like that to survive. Surviving and living are two different things. You can technically survive on very little, live off the land etc, but that's hardly living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 So some people are? Yes, of course there are. But you cannot be "certain" that any of the people who you've spoken to who oppose gay marriage are those people. An absolutely tiny proportion of members of the public, if you asked them, would say that non-religious people should not be allowed to get married. And the cross-section of those who believe this but who don't also believe that same-sex love is not a lesser form of love or that gay people are not lesser people than other people is so vanishingly small that most people will in fact not have met them. The movement against gay marriage in Scotland has not been championed by anarchists and libertarians. And even if you could be, it would still be "homophobic" and "bigoted" to argue against legalisation of same-sex marriage without also actively campaigning to abolish state recognition of heterosexual marriage, because by omission they accept and endorse the privileges the state confers through a regime of marriage defined under law. And even if they didn't have to actively campaign for the abolition of state recognition of heterosexual civil marriage in order not to be homophobic for opposing the state recognition of same-sex marriage, they would *STILL* be homophobic bigots for believing that a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples "somehow cheapens it" even if it wasn't a legal or civic institution, because they'd be advocating that one type of love is less worthy of social or religious recognition than another based on the sexual orientation of the participants. That's homophobic and bigoted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Surviving and living are two different things. You can technically survive on very little, live off the land etc, but that's hardly living. If we're calling poverty a relative term the every country has poverty and inequality, unless somebody wants to claim that Communism is a viable ideology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 If we're calling poverty a relative term the every country has poverty and inequality, unless somebody wants to claim that Communism is a viable ideology? What has any of this got to do with Mr Rational's post? He didn't say that countries didn't have poverty or inequality. ETA: "If we're calling poverty a relative term" despite it actually being the commonly understood term. This is like whatever roaster it was on that thread about Glasgow that said nobody in the city was poor because they all had floors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 If we're calling poverty a relative term the every country has poverty and inequality, unless somebody wants to claim that Communism is a viable ideology? The UK's functional definitions of relative and absolute poverty are, from what I can remember, anyone earning less than 60% of, respectively, the median income and an historical inflation adjusted median income. There are significant criticisms you can make about both of those definitions of poverty, but it's simply ridiculous to say that there is no poverty in the UK. Material deprivation, which looks at the proportion of families with insufficient income to meet a basic basket of goods, is also used and probably is a good indicator of poverty. According to the Scottish Government's own figures between 10 and 15% of kids grow-up in a household which is in material deprivation and low income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.