Page 6 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

10 Aug 2015, 5:50 pm

adifferentname wrote:
pcuser wrote:

You brought up morality when you called what she did moral.


adifferentname wrote:
the motivation stemmed from a belief that it was the morally correct thing to do.


What part of the above is causing you confusion? Would you like me to break it down for you?

Quote:
And I didn't say it was right for any reason. It's simply wrong, whether she believed it or not. Trying to indoctrinate a child into religion and then punishing him for not accepting it is child abuse, as I said. I never said she did it with malice, although the malice was there when she punished him for believing his or his parent's truth. It has nothing to do with my politics. It is unconstitutional to do what she did, period. Politics have nothing to do with it except that the Constitution is political.


What on earth are you wibbling on about? You're all over the place.

I didn't say it's right but-
It's not right.
It's child abuse but-
It wasn't malicious but-
It is malicious.
It has nothing to do with politics but-
It's based on the constitution.

This is what happens when you try to attack a misrepresentation. You're floundering, blundering around, bumping into the walls of your own little box.

Quote:
What part of this being unconstitutional don't you understand? It's not part of this teachers scope of teaching to do anything at all like this. She thrust her beliefs into her job. She should be fired.


I'm sure these all seemed like reasonable arguments when you vomited them onto the page via your keyboard, but you're addressing a position that has not been stated nor even hinted at by myself.

Quote:
I merely mentioned his playground experience which precipitated this as it shows he wasn't trying to convert anyone. There are religious people who would use his proselytizing as justification for this nonsense. There is no justification for this, thus my condemnation...


You merely made the assumption that someone taking a view that wasn't in complete alignment with your own must be diametrically opposed to you. This kind of ignorant, ideology-centred intellectual laziness has no place in rational discourse. Kindly refrain from it.

Dude, you really need to learn to read and think...



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

10 Aug 2015, 6:43 pm

pcuser wrote:
Dude, you really need to learn to read and think...


This ironic little tidbit will give me cheer for many hours to come.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,334
Location: Reading, England

10 Aug 2015, 6:58 pm

yelekam wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:

We must remember that most people are religious. We are going to face more persecution if people think all autistics are atheists.

Only in America. I think most other countries that WP users post from generally hold favourable views of atheism, even religious people don't persecute atheists. Anyway, within a generation or two even America will probably be majority atheist.

If autistic people are more likely to be atheists, we shouldn't fear the consequences of that. We're persecuted (for want of a better word) due to misconceptions all the time, we need to fight those misconceptions with the truth, not with different misconceptions.

Your point about sampling error is a good one though.


According to the Pew Research Center, only six countries in the world have the religiously unaffiliated (Atheist, Agnostic, and holders of spiritual beliefs not associated with a particular religious denomination); in China, the Czech Republic, Japan, Hong Kong, Estonia, and North Korea.

That's a difference between "atheists are a minority" and "atheists are persecuted".

In much of Northern Europe, as well as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the majority are not religious, but will list a religion when asked.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,020
Location: Australia

10 Aug 2015, 7:59 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

In much of Northern Europe, as well as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the majority are not religious, but will list a religion when asked.


"True dat..."
Well it seems to be the case in Oz at the least...
I haven't researched other areas...


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)