Comments on: equal http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/ Two prophets, living together. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: fenchurch http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-175324 fenchurch Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:37:05 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-175324 I wonder if JJ is in favour of outlawing black folk in predominantly white communities, as their skin colour (which they choose to flaunt, and refuse to get help to change it with lightening procedures) is a deviation from some people's social norms. One could even argue they are HELPING such folk to acquire a better way of life free of disadvantages and all those things attendant with racism. Flarn you and the homophobic horse you rode in on, JJ. Tolerance is the cure for the social ills you describe. I wonder if JJ is in favour of outlawing black folk in predominantly white communities, as their skin colour (which they choose to flaunt, and refuse to get help to change it with lightening procedures) is a deviation from some people’s social norms. One could even argue they are HELPING such folk to acquire a better way of life free of disadvantages and all those things attendant with racism.

Flarn you and the homophobic horse you rode in on, JJ. Tolerance is the cure for the social ills you describe.

]]> By: Martin Stennert http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-167889 Martin Stennert Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:24:40 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-167889 @ Dan, if you are still wondering why this is so funny, just read JJ's comment. @ JJ... "The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some people’s desired social norms"? "Why shoudl you have the right to discriminate against them?" "Because we're special." "Obviously." I mean... SPOING?! @ Dan, if you are still wondering why this is so funny, just read JJ’s comment.
@ JJ… “The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some people’s desired social norms”? “Why shoudl you have the right to discriminate against them?” “Because we’re special.” “Obviously.”
I mean… SPOING?!

]]> By: Toast in the machine http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-137185 Toast in the machine Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:31:19 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-137185 JJ - Are you serious? Assuming you are, I think it's fair to assume that paedophilia is illegal because it involves an adult forcing themselves sexually on a child, who is incapable of giving informed consent. It is a violation of the child's wishes, and in most cases against the child's physical and mental well-being. Homosexuality on the other hand is two (3, 4 etc) adults engaging in consensual sex, that harms no one and has no effect on anyone but the consenting adults involved. Do you see the difference? You say paedophilia fits with evolution and therefore should be legal. By definition, paedophilia is sex with a child. Children cannot become pregnant so this is nonsense. But by the same reasoning, presumably you must think any rape should be legal? JJ – Are you serious?
Assuming you are, I think it’s fair to assume that paedophilia is illegal because it involves an adult forcing themselves sexually on a child, who is incapable of giving informed consent. It is a violation of the child’s wishes, and in most cases against the child’s physical and mental well-being.
Homosexuality on the other hand is two (3, 4 etc) adults engaging in consensual sex, that harms no one and has no effect on anyone but the consenting adults involved.

Do you see the difference?

You say paedophilia fits with evolution and therefore should be legal. By definition, paedophilia is sex with a child. Children cannot become pregnant so this is nonsense. But by the same reasoning, presumably you must think any rape should be legal?

]]> By: jj http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-136730 jj Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:55:01 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-136730 Why is your claim the only truth? You want homosexuality to be acceptable. Then why not pedophilia? At least pedophilia fits in with evolution and propagation of the species whereas pure homosexuality does not. So, why is one criminalized and one supposedly acceptable? The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some people’s desired social norms, you want to be the one practicing those social norms, so you create an entire argument that it is acceptable. Just as pot smokers make claims that pot is not harmful, drug users wish to legalize their favorites, and drunks don’t think DUI is harmful. Why is your claim the only truth? You want homosexuality to be acceptable. Then why not pedophilia? At least pedophilia fits in with evolution and propagation of the species whereas pure homosexuality does not. So, why is one criminalized and one supposedly acceptable?
The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some people’s desired social norms, you want to be the one practicing those social norms, so you create an entire argument that it is acceptable. Just as pot smokers make claims that pot is not harmful, drug users wish to legalize their favorites, and drunks don’t think DUI is harmful.

]]> By: Ms Alignment http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-135845 Ms Alignment Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:04:11 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-135845 Hamidreza, point taken that an individual's beliefs ("personal spirituality") can be accepted by atheists, and that certain institutionalized religions are less virulent than others. Other commentators here definitely understand that. However, it's still true to say that all irrational belief systems deserve equal amounts of scorn and derision, and just as much fun is derived poking fun at Xtian nonsense as at Muslim. I think your point might be that there are many more Xtians who would see the humour in J & M than there are Muslims who would. Perhaps author could take the p*** out of Mormons & Witlesses a bit more ... not to mention Tom Cruise & John Travolta (another duo??) that would balance things out for me Hamidreza, point taken that an individual’s beliefs (“personal spirituality”) can be accepted by atheists, and that certain institutionalized religions are less virulent than others. Other commentators here definitely understand that.

However, it’s still true to say that all irrational belief systems deserve equal amounts of scorn and derision, and just as much fun is derived poking fun at Xtian nonsense as at Muslim. I think your point might be that there are many more Xtians who would see the humour in J & M than there are Muslims who would.

Perhaps author could take the p*** out of Mormons & Witlesses a bit more … not to mention Tom Cruise & John Travolta (another duo??) that would balance things out for me

]]> By: Hamidreza http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-134030 Hamidreza Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:10:48 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-134030 ms morbo - yes you may call it politics, but it is not about power, it is about "public belief" and secularism - The point is not whether an individual believes or unbelieves. The point is if the person imposes his belief on someone else through power and force, such as a minor. I really don't care if the person believes or not, as long as its kept to the person. What I see are many unbelieving atheists who will never criticize religion, god, the prophet or superstition, as long as it is held by disadvantaged groups (hint hint), and never care that such superstition is forced upon others in their group. These so-called atheists actually do not care if the believer imposes his belief on others such as minors and try to indoctrinate them to their faith through power. But if the believer happens to keep his belief private, but does not belong to a victim-group, then the atheist gets himself into a knot as to why the individual is an irrational believer. Its a bit more complex than you think. This type of atheists are the "neo-progressive" kind and are betraying atheism or maybe rather secularism, and the enlightenment of society. A true atheist or shall we say secularist is one that looks at the empirical fact of indoctrination, and not at the rational state of belief. There is no way you can prove a person a believer or unbeliver. So get off the back of the individual and look at the group dynamics. In this sense, secularism is a lot more interesting and meaningful than atheism. So the "neo-progressive" is a non-secular atheist. "divisiveness" -- the most devisive is the "neo-progressive" atheist that actually accepts Islam for others and enables it. ms morbo – yes you may call it politics, but it is not about power, it is about “public belief” and secularism –

The point is not whether an individual believes or unbelieves. The point is if the person imposes his belief on someone else through power and force, such as a minor. I really don’t care if the person believes or not, as long as its kept to the person.

What I see are many unbelieving atheists who will never criticize religion, god, the prophet or superstition, as long as it is held by disadvantaged groups (hint hint), and never care that such superstition is forced upon others in their group. These so-called atheists actually do not care if the believer imposes his belief on others such as minors and try to indoctrinate them to their faith through power.

But if the believer happens to keep his belief private, but does not belong to a victim-group, then the atheist gets himself into a knot as to why the individual is an irrational believer.

Its a bit more complex than you think. This type of atheists are the “neo-progressive” kind and are betraying atheism or maybe rather secularism, and the enlightenment of society.

A true atheist or shall we say secularist is one that looks at the empirical fact of indoctrination, and not at the rational state of belief. There is no way you can prove a person a believer or unbeliver. So get off the back of the individual and look at the group dynamics.

In this sense, secularism is a lot more interesting and meaningful than atheism.

So the “neo-progressive” is a non-secular atheist.

“divisiveness” — the most devisive is the “neo-progressive” atheist that actually accepts Islam for others and enables it.

]]> By: Toast in the machine http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-133701 Toast in the machine Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:51:17 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-133701 Obviously they would have been wearing their uniforms - they were there in an official capacity, that's the point. On what grounds do you feel sorry for them, deciding that gay people don't deserve the same fire-safety information straight people do? As I said before, they were let off the punishment they would otherwise have received specifically because homophobia is accepted by their employer as part of their religious outlook. Are you really saying that's justified? What other belief system would be granted that kind of privilege to discriminate? If you really feel that's justified, then I'm glad to be on a somewhat more advanced planet than you. Obviously they would have been wearing their uniforms – they were there in an official capacity, that’s the point. On what grounds do you feel sorry for them, deciding that gay people don’t deserve the same fire-safety information straight people do? As I said before, they were let off the punishment they would otherwise have received specifically because homophobia is accepted by their employer as part of their religious outlook. Are you really saying that’s justified? What other belief system would be granted that kind of privilege to discriminate? If you really feel that’s justified, then I’m glad to be on a somewhat more advanced planet than you.

]]> By: Neil Hoskins http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-133050 Neil Hoskins Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:02:40 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-133050 @Toast: my understanding is that they refused to give out leaflets *whilst wearing their uniforms*. So you think that (presumably) big, strapping firemen could have attended a Gay Pride march, in uniform, without any kind of unwelcome sexual attention or innuendo? What planet are you on? @Toast: my understanding is that they refused to give out leaflets *whilst wearing their uniforms*. So you think that (presumably) big, strapping firemen could have attended a Gay Pride march, in uniform, without any kind of unwelcome sexual attention or innuendo? What planet are you on?

]]> By: Toast in the machine http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-132188 Toast in the machine Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:12:51 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-132188 '<i>an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods</i>' Absolutely. It's as simple as that. ‘an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods‘

Absolutely. It’s as simple as that.

]]> By: ms morbo http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/#comment-132158 ms morbo Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:22:03 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=481#comment-132158 "You misread. Read again. I said a “true atheist KNOWS the issue with religion …” Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s). That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist." no i read it fine thank you, i'm aware you never said anything about ahtiests beliveing on god(s). but i just find this idea that there are "neo-progressive atheists" and "true atheists" to be a bit pointless and silly. an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods. that is what an atheist is, that is what atheisim means. any wider opinions on the role of faith in the world etc etc, added onto that are just your personal politics, there is no point in classifying them as different types of athiesm other than to be pointlessly devisive. “You misread. Read again. I said a “true atheist KNOWS the issue with religion …”

Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s).

That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist.”

no i read it fine thank you, i’m aware you never said anything about ahtiests beliveing on god(s).
but i just find this idea that there are “neo-progressive atheists” and “true atheists” to be a bit pointless and silly.
an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods. that is what an atheist is, that is what atheisim means.
any wider opinions on the role of faith in the world etc etc, added onto that are just your personal politics, there is no point in classifying them as different types of athiesm other than to be pointlessly devisive.

]]>