|
Post by patty on Jun 19, 2018 6:59:58 GMT
Well Nick, once again you generalise about women.....you kinda remind me of my granny glad who used to continually re-introduce a subject in order to get her well voiced opinions...heard again.. Not all women 'sulk'..we are all different and unique . We are lovely, quirky, kind and compassionate....... Foxy.... I admit listening to some married couples..be they same sex or man/woman you sometimes think Why? r u still together..but some folks thrive on spats...some don't... I sometimes see old couples who I really envy, they've weathered the storms of life and what they have is special... For me I wouldn't want another close partnership ..be it man or woman as I will never allow anyone the opportunity to belittle/control me again.
what I do think is we should all learn a little tolerance...I always try to treat others as I would like to be treated but avoid associating with toxic characters..they are disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 7:05:57 GMT
Well Nick, once again you generalise about women.....you kinda remind me of my granny glad who used to continually re-introduce a subject in order to get her well voiced opinions...heard again.. Not all women 'sulk'..we are all different and unique . We are lovely, quirky, kind and compassionate....... Foxy.... I admit listening to some married couples..be they same sex or man/woman you sometimes think Why? r u still together..but some folks thrive on spats...some don't... I sometimes see old couples who I really envy, they've weathered the storms of life and what they have is special... For me I wouldn't want another close partnership ..be it man or woman as I will never allow anyone the opportunity to belittle/control me again. what I do think is we should all learn a little tolerance...I always try to treat others as I would like to be treated but avoid associating with toxic characters..they are disturbing. Yes I know. It was just a joke, I am not actually misogynistic and I do take everyone as I find them. One of the worst sulkers I know is a bloke. Or I used to know him, he is away on another of his 5 year sulks.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 7:06:35 GMT
Your attempts to silence me, and thus my opinion, only further supports the fact you're a bigoted old man. You bandy the word homophobic around like confetti, which only serves to undermine it. As they say, there's no fool like an old fool. You qualify for both đ You can wriggle, squirm and scream like a girl having her pigtails pulled, as much as you like but it doesnât alter the fact that you are a homophobe. Didn't they teach the difference between "a fact" and "an opinion" at proper school?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 7:07:54 GMT
You can wriggle, squirm and scream like a girl having her pigtails pulled, as much as you like but it doesnât alter the fact that you are a homophobe. Didn't they teach the difference between "a fact" and "an opinion" at proper school? Yes they did. And your point is...?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 7:11:13 GMT
Didn't they teach the difference between "a fact" and "an opinion" at proper school? Yes they did. And your point is...? That you have stated that it is a fact that Jenlyn is homophobic whereas it is in fact simply your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 7:22:24 GMT
Yes they did. And your point is...? That you have stated that it is a fact that Jenlyn is homophobic whereas it is in fact simply your opinion. So what is a fact then? It is merely something that is strongly pointed at by all the evidence available. It can never be a certainty since we donât know what we donât know. Centuries ago it was a fact that the world was flat. And that you could precisely know both the position and momentum of something. More recently it was a fact that once matter fell into a black hole it could never escape. These were considered facts because all the evidence pointed to them being true and there was no valid evidence suggesting the fact was not actually a fact. More recently it is a fact that I have a husband called Jeff and he is currently down on the boat whilst Iâm gliding. Or is that âfactâ entirely of my imagination, he doesnât actually exist and itâs all some kind of psychotic invention? Of course you think you met him but it could be you are suffering from some mass hysteria effect augmented by that mushroom juice I slipped into your beer. My point being that âfactsâare not absolute certainties when the big existential picture is looked at. So it is with Jenlynâs homophobia. All the evidence points to it (including some Iâve only recently come to realise), none refutes it. And so it is a fact whilst not, as nothing is, being an absolute certainty. After all, perhaps Jenlynâs very existence is all in my imagination. One can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 7:28:21 GMT
That you have stated that it is a fact that Jenlyn is homophobic whereas it is in fact simply your opinion. So it is with Jenlynâs homophobia. All the evidence points to it (including some Iâve only recently come to realise), none refutes it. Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 7:43:34 GMT
So it is with Jenlynâs homophobia. All the evidence points to it (including some Iâve only recently come to realise), none refutes it. Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia. Forums rely on everyone being open to the views of others, but labelling individuals without sufficient evidence can get us into trouble under the defamation Act. Anyway, as you know, I hate labels and attempts to place people in boxes. We are all a complex mix of thoughts, emotions and personal history. Itâs a shame when people try to shut others up, how else are we all going to learn from each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 7:59:04 GMT
You are a gen, thank you Even though you suggest I get murderified in Blackburn. Rog Safe murderings around Blackburn .. you will be fine.
Less of the "gent" for our learned friend though - I left Analworld because he labelled me an "ignorance fascist"!
Handbags at dawn, boys .....
Keep safe, Rog - you might need to borrow my dog!!!
Don't worry about our friends misogonistic ramblings, they're 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' much the same as my own. Hope progress is being made towards boating again. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 8:02:41 GMT
So it is with Jenlynâs homophobia. All the evidence points to it (including some Iâve only recently come to realise), none refutes it. Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia. I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you donât get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. You could for example vigorously defend and support the right of old men in raincoats to bugger babies until they burst whilst vociferously stating that you werenât a paedophile. But nobody would believe you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 8:04:30 GMT
Are you sure all this happened at Blackburn ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 8:07:24 GMT
Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia. Forums rely on everyone being open to the views of others, but labelling individuals without sufficient evidence can get us into trouble under the defamation Act. Anyway, as you know, I hate labels and attempts to place people in boxes. We are all a complex mix of thoughts, emotions and personal history. Itâs a shame when people try to shut others up, how else are we all going to learn from each other. Jenlyn is welcome to sue me for defamation. It would be a right laugh to countersue - I have so much material! Referring to your last sentence, I have at no point called for Jenlyn to shut up. There would be no point as I have no power to do so. I have merely stated the obvious so that there is no doubt what the consequence of his views are. In the same way that if someone started banging on about how the darkies should all be sent back to where they came from, I would call them out for being racist.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jun 19, 2018 8:12:33 GMT
Are you sure all this happened at Blackburn ? Rog Its another one of these wombling threads....
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 8:15:14 GMT
Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia. I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you donât get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 19, 2018 8:18:19 GMT
Since you have not yet done so, would you care to provide this evidence you mention? Before you begin, I will point out that agreeing with a US Supreme Court ruling is not per se evidence of homophobia. I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you donât get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. You could for example vigorously defend and support the right of old men in raincoats to bugger babies until they burst whilst vociferously stating that you werenât a paedophile. But nobody would believe you. If I remember rightly you are the one who was arguing in support of paedophilier. Yet another accasion when you made your self look silly on the forum so went of in a huff and didn't post for a while.
|
|