News   Nov 22, 2024
 772     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.4K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.4K     8 

Does Faith Goldy et al have a point???

Oh dear. Socially conservative gay guys strike again!

If you have to side with an open neo-Nazi to state a position on an issue, that's pretty horrific. She only started with the brown people because it's a low hanging fruit - please be assured her camp will eventually come for the gays too.

It's not socially conservative to point out the evils of religion. It's a weak argument on your behalf. Well, it's not even an argument. All you've done is falsely attribute a characteristic to @gabe and then spit out a ridiculous logical fallacy in making a statement about the horror of agreeing with a neo-Nazi on a very specific issue that has nothing to do with neo-Nazism. I know you love to find monsters where there are none (ironic, given your defence of religions here), but lay off the bollocks, honestly.

Siding with a neo-Nazi on any single issue is not necessarily a bad thing. The entirety of their existence doesn't revolve around the neo-Nazism and it's a complete crock of shit to bring up some sort of hypothetical aim of hers to "come for the gays". Even if true, it's entirely besides the point here as this is about a specific event that was falsely marketed as being open to all when in fact it wasn't because religionists care about openness only insofar as it allows them to proselytise.
This isn't about your theory on hypothetical motives this mad lady might have.

There, at least we can agree on the fact that she's mad. I fail to see the attraction in following in her footsteps by making ridiculous accusations in defence of a religion that has some seriously nasty adherents and interpreted dogma.
 
Interesting, cheers.

I'll try to find some vids online of the bloke....that Avalon library is offline for October
Yeah, so in 2 weeks it should be readable online. Its easily the best book I've ever read on spirituality and what happens after we die.
You might not believe all of it, but I guarantee you will probably find it an interesting read
 
Generalizing and trying demonize an entire group of people based on your limited knowledge IS socially conservative.

No, it really isn't.

This is no different than "Mexicans are rapists"
Yes it is. Mexicans are not bound by dogma in being Mexicans.

I definitely do not assume you necessarily stand up for women's equality or gender equality, those are just likely convenient throw-ins.

I'm not sure I can take you seriously. What sort of stupid comment is this? Pointing out the absurdity of religious dogma does not preclude @gabe from standing up for women's equality or gender equality.
Of course, you post this absurdity after already making assumptions about gabe anyway. Well done.

Try thinking through what you're posting. I think you might find the absurdity in making illogical statements to be a bit embarrassing. Then again......
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so in 2 weeks it should be readable online. Its easily the best book I've ever read on spirituality and what happens after we die.
You might not believe all of it, but I guarantee you will probably find it an interesting read

For sure. I love reading and learning. Even things I disagree with. That's how one expands their capacity to think critically!

It's people who refuse to hear arguments that counter their self-imposed narratives that stagnate intellectually and cripple their ability to fulfill their potential for wisdom.
 
For sure. I love reading and learning. Even things I disagree with. That's how one expands their capacity to think critically!

It's people who refuse to hear arguments that counter their self-imposed narratives that stagnate intellectually and cripple their ability to fulfill their potential for wisdom
Thats an excellent attitude to have.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open
 
My question was a retort to Gabe's missive on Muslims.
I got that, but it didn't answer the question of officially Muslim states and their treatment of women and gays.

The UK, btw, is officially secular.
I know, that's why I implied it was a stretch to consider it to be officially Christian. That being said, other than the Vatican, there aren't any officially Christian states that I am aware of, so I still don't understand your point in bringing that up.

There are, however, officially Muslim states. Chiefly Saudi Arabia and Iran....and we all know how women and gays are treated there.
 
Last edited:
Thats an excellent attitude to have.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open

Though, it is also often said, that if one opens their mind too much it all falls out. (Though, I do believe this is usually a response to gratuitous use of psychedelics as an aid in self-reflection).

It is an excellent attitude to have. How do you think I know that flat-earthers are definitely not thinking straight other than by allowing them to come at me with explanations for their mathematics-bereft theories, for example.
 
There are, however, officially Muslim states. Chiefly Saudi Arabia and Iran....and we all know how women and gays are treated there
And alcoholics, and thieves, and adulterers, and Christians, and Jews, and infidels, and apostates....etc...etc
 
And alcoholics, and thieves, and adulterers, and Christians, and Jews, and infidels, and apostates....etc...etc

Well, if we're being honest, then just people in general.

It's not just spiritual religions that ruin lives, but secular ones as well. North Korea being a prime example. Or China. Or that catastrophe that is Venezuela.
 
RE: the OP,

Faith Goldy is a joker (like, in a bad way, not like how Jimmy Carr is a joker), but so are these event organisers. Her and her colleague should take a page out of the moral relativists' book and take it to the Human Rights Tribunal.

I don't know why people are so afraid of hearing her speak. Her ideas are easily refutable and she doesn't incite any crimes (in spite of some people's wishes, it's not a crime to offend anyone, thank the universe!).

The best way to fight someone's argument is to hear it first.

I wish that were so. While not technically a 'crime' in the legal sense, one can still get dragged before a Human Rights tribunal and be sanctioned - financially or otherwise - by the State for doing much less. In this regard, and likely only this regard, I tend to agree with the US position on freedom of speech.
 

Back
Top