Jake Daniels Blackpool

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

4 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Please explain what it is you object to with "lgbt ideology"? What is it you see as LGBTQ+ ideology? 

 

I don’t subscribe to the idea that sex is a fundamental right that can be divorced from its procreative purpose. Indeed I think the working out of the sexual revolution in terms of individuality not family life has been hugely damaging to society. I disagree with lgbt ideology when it argues people are born a certain way, there is no evidence of this. I am vehemently against graphic sex education of children and the pushing of sexuality in schools, am also against the clear desire to normalise fetishistic behaviour. I don’t see any attempt to teach virtues like modesty, chastity and purity which concerns me. I am not comfortable with the lunacy of modern gender theory believing we are created male and female - it’s hardware not software. I don’t think being gay merits special fanfare and adulation and think it’s perverse that our school curriculums now champion this loudly but never celebrate traditional family life and marriage. I don’t believe marriage can be conducted by two people of the same sex due to its procreative element though I have no issue with civil partnerships and granted full legal rights where needed. Shall I continue?

i could give the shorthand. I subscribe to Catholic teaching in such matters 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Dean Coneys boots

[YOYO 3]

Is there some sort of moderator on this football discussion board who can cut this thread. 

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

 

Suitable for ages 4-8 apparently 

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichelleDewbs/status/1527209733597323264

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by FenwayFrank

[Naturalcynic 631]

36 minutes ago, YOYO said:

Is there some sort of moderator on this football discussion board who can cut this thread. 

Why?  Most threads go off topic.  What’s your issue with this one?

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

45 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Why?  Most threads go off topic.  What’s your issue with this one?

Also nobody has to read it - it’s an opt in media! 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I don’t subscribe to the idea that sex is a fundamental right that can be divorced from its procreative purpose. Indeed I think the working out of the sexual revolution in terms of individuality not family life has been hugely damaging to society. I disagree with lgbt ideology when it argues people are born a certain way, there is no evidence of this. I am vehemently against graphic sex education of children and the pushing of sexuality in schools, am also against the clear desire to normalise fetishistic behaviour. I don’t see any attempt to teach virtues like modesty, chastity and purity which concerns me. I am not comfortable with the lunacy of modern gender theory believing we are created male and female - it’s hardware not software. I don’t think being gay merits special fanfare and adulation and think it’s perverse that our school curriculums now champion this loudly but never celebrate traditional family life and marriage. I don’t believe marriage can be conducted by two people of the same sex due to its procreative element though I have no issue with civil partnerships and granted full legal rights where needed. Shall I continue?

i could give the shorthand. I subscribe to Catholic teaching in such matters 

Ah! I see! You’re Catholic. That explains why you have animosity towards gay people. God loves everyone. Murderers, Racists, Bigots, you name it, God is all forgiving! Not gays though, dude hates them

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

The funny thing is, a lack of sex education is a weighty reason why there so many teenage pregnancies and abortions (access to contraceptives is also a strong indicator) take place. The Dutch have a generally liberal (varies somewhat amongst counties, I think) approach to sex-ed, and their teenage pregnancy/abortion rates are amongst the lowest in Europe.

What is demonstrably shown to be a failure is abstinence-based sex-ed.

Even more entertaining, the Catholic Church used to be more laissez-faire when it came to abortions, then started agitating more in the 19th century. Pope Pius IX was the main driver.

Study Finds that Comprehensive Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

c01.dvi (wiley.com) (an interesting article on abortion stances. Very intriguing was the note that in the mid 19th century, physicians tended to lead the drive towards criminalisation of abortion, religion was far less prevalent).

Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center (Just so that Catholics don't cop unnecessary flak, even this US survey shows more than half of US Catholics surveyed were actually for abortion being legal).



 

[Naturalcynic 631]

36 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Ah! I see! You’re Catholic. That explains why you have animosity towards gay people. God loves everyone. Murderers, Racists, Bigots, you name it, God is all forgiving! Not gays though, dude hates them

Pathetic response to what was an intelligent and honest presentation of his beliefs.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[Captain Holt 522]

On 17/05/2022 at 15:17, Dean Coneys boots said:

Also I agree with your picture above. I wouldn’t dream of forcing gay people to become Christian. But why doesn’t it work the other way around? Today Christians must endorse homosexuality or be hammered. Tolerance can’t be a one way street.

Thought I'd pop back in to clear up my mess.

Your argument has the structural properties of a wet wotsit.

Anyone who uses religion as an excuse to NOT support gay rights hides a deep-rooted insecurity about gays. Silly life.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

3 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Pathetic response to what was an intelligent and honest presentation of his beliefs.

It is my honest belief that an unseen and unproven god that allows kids to die of cancer is not a system I should trust to provide the foundation of my beliefs. 
Feel free to provide evidence to prove me wrong. Intelligent presentation of beliefs should involve a degree of empirical evidence don’t you think? Otherwise they’re just beliefs minus the intelligence. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 17/05/2022 at 10:27, horsefly said:

Indeed! Even more insidious is the plethora of outright contradictions. Where the Old Testament happily calls for stonings for almost anything, the New Testament has Jesus admonishing anyone who might believe themselves to be free of sin to cast the first stone. The perfect text to allow fundamentalists to pick and choose support for their most deeply held prejudices. 

The Bible is a document of many threads and narratives, part historical, part poetic, part rules and regulations and even an attempt at understanding the true nature of being. It doesn't help being written by a committee over a period of years and often years after the fact. So it's not very surprising to find contradictions, mistranslations and biases throughout the chapters and verses. However there are certain trends and narratives that can make up an unfolding story, and one of these concerns the nature of justice and punishment which makes sense when observing the whole.

So for example, the Bible discusses in various places ancestral sin, where punishment is meted out not just to the perpetrator but also to other family members and future generations of that family to come.

Later, the Bible redefines punishment for sin as being equal in weight to the severity of the sin, or in other words, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What this demonstrates is that the nature of punishment for sin has moved on from ancestral sin to something a little bit fairer. In other words, the religion is moving on and changing over time as the nature of justice is better understood.

The Bible doesn't stop there. It gives us the ten commandments, which is a fair stab at a documented set of rules, literally set in stone. and then the most recent update where Jesus introduces the concept of mercy, which we might describe as mitigating circumstances in modern day parlance.

Where I find atheists are a tad naughty is that they take what appear to be contradictions when viewed as single events but are really an uncovering of the true nature of sin and justice over a period of time. After all, if we rejected science because in the middle ages the biggest science at that time concerned Alchemy, without acknowledging that science managed to move on when it realised it was in a dead-end, then we wouldn't be browsing the Pinkun on our mobile phones.

Of course, the Fundamentalists are a big issue as there are more fundamentalists in religions because religion has not moved forward as fast a pace as science. But even in science today there are flat-earthers and those who think the moon landings were a false flag. So we should try to be tolerant of others and admit we all have a lot still to learn.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

I’m staggered by some of the stuff on this thread. Staggered. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 17/05/2022 at 15:26, TheGunnShow said:

If you can't do an abortion due to your religious beliefs, you're not fit to be a nurse as you are rendered incompetent. You literally cannot do your job. Same applies to any Muslim who complains they can't handle alcohol at a checkout, so they're incompetent in terms of working on tills. 

Speaking of incompetence, here's one in Norwich. He wouldn't (basically, couldn't) drive the bus due to his offence taken by a Pride flag.

Norwich bus driver suspended after he 'refused' to drive Pride bus - BBC News

I wouldn't mind seeing general statistical evidence on this re. the UK alone. I suspect there are some isolated cases but would prefer to see more general trends. We already know that there's an increase in hate crimes against LBGTQ over the past few years.

There was a legal case in Canada a couple of years back where a group of Vietnamese women working in a beauty salon refused to wax the ball sack of a biological male who presented themself as a trans woman.

Would this make them incompetent in their job by your definition of the term, and therefore should be sacked? And would you say the trans woman was the victim of a hate crime?

[horsefly 4,301]

5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Bible is a document of many threads and narratives, part historical, part poetic, part rules and regulations and even an attempt at understanding the true nature of being. It doesn't help being written by a committee over a period of years and often years after the fact. So it's not very surprising to find contradictions, mistranslations and biases throughout the chapters and verses. However there are certain trends and narratives that can make up an unfolding story, and one of these concerns the nature of justice and punishment which makes sense when observing the whole.

So for example, the Bible discusses in various places ancestral sin, where punishment is meted out not just to the perpetrator but also to other family members and future generations of that family to come.

Later, the Bible redefines punishment for sin as being equal in weight to the severity of the sin, or in other words, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What this demonstrates is that the nature of punishment for sin has moved on from ancestral sin to something a little bit fairer. In other words, the religion is moving on and changing over time as the nature of justice is better understood.

The Bible doesn't stop there. It gives us the ten commandments, which is a fair stab at a documented set of rules, literally set in stone. and then the most recent update where Jesus introduces the concept of mercy, which we might describe as mitigating circumstances in modern day parlance.

Where I find atheists are a tad naughty is that they take what appear to be contradictions when viewed as single events but are really an uncovering of the true nature of sin and justice over a period of time. After all, if we rejected science because in the middle ages the biggest science at that time concerned Alchemy, without acknowledging that science managed to move on when it realised it was in a dead-end, then we wouldn't be browsing the Pinkun on our mobile phones.

Of course, the Fundamentalists are a big issue as there are more fundamentalists in religions because religion has not moved forward as fast a pace as science. But even in science today there are flat-earthers and those who think the moon landings were a false flag. So we should try to be tolerant of others and admit we all have a lot still to learn.

 

So, in short you're agreeing that the Bible is a document full of contradictions and flaws, that has no special privilege concerning matters moral.

"But even in science today there are flat-earthers" Could you name one of those scientists please, I would love to read their scientific explanation for the claim that the earth is flat.

[Herman 9,768]

13 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

 

Suitable for ages 4-8 apparently 

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichelleDewbs/status/1527209733597323264

 

 

I grew up with Razzle. Hasn't done me any harm. My cell mate thinks I'm a decent bloke and the warder has given me a glowing report.

[canarybubbles 1,915]

13 hours ago, YOYO said:

Is there some sort of moderator on this football discussion board who can cut this thread. 

Why? It's more interesting than the 20th version of Should Webber be sacked?/Should Delia go?/Is Smith any good?/Is Cantwell a poor lost soul or a little sh*t?, etc etc.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

There was a legal case in Canada a couple of years back where a group of Vietnamese women working in a beauty salon refused to wax the ball sack of a biological male who presented themself as a trans woman.

Would this make them incompetent in their job by your definition of the term, and therefore should be sacked? And would you say the trans woman was the victim of a hate crime?

Technically they were incompetent, as you're talking about the Jessica Yaniv case. The salon said they weren't trained on offering such services on scrotums. In other words, they wouldn't be able to perform the job safely, and that it was not a service they offered. 

That's a rather different kettle of fish - that salon didn't have that skillset in the first place.

[Naturalcynic 631]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Technically they were incompetent, as you're talking about the Jessica Yaniv case. The salon said they weren't trained on offering such services on scrotums. In other words, they wouldn't be able to perform the job safely, and that it was not a service they offered. 

That's a rather different kettle of fish - that salon didn't have that skillset in the first place.

Makes my eyes water just to think about it!

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

21 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Makes my eyes water just to think about it!

We rarely agree on stuff, but yeah, the notion of having anyone who isn't trained on balls let loose on them for anything, let alone a shave down there....sod that. 

Incidentally, I thought the link for a children's story was quite interesting. Looks like they used biologically correct wording and it seemed an amusing way of covering the "birds and the bees" talk without actually showing any intimate body bits in the illustration. In short, I don't remotely see that as sexualising children, I see it as a way of providing information.

If anything, I think it's VERY revealing about Dewberry's stance that she thinks it is. The only objection I have to it is that amongst the list of contraception methods on the right-hand side, condoms aren't mentioned, and the real issue in many cases is a VERY gauche attitude to condom usage.

Edited May 20, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

25 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

In short, I don't remotely see that as sexualising children, I see it as a way of providing information.

Don’t you think 4 years old is a bit early to be getting that information though ? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Don’t you think 4 years old is a bit early to be getting that information though ? 

I don't, no. In the UK we've always had a teenage pregnancy problem relative to the rest of western Europe, and IMO much of it is due to archaic norms on sex education. 

Sex education: Talking to toddlers and preschoolers about sex - Mayo Clinic

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

So, in short you're agreeing that the Bible is a document full of contradictions and flaws, that has no special privilege concerning matters moral.

"But even in science today there are flat-earthers" Could you name one of those scientists please, I would love to read their scientific explanation for the claim that the earth is flat.

Yes, it is full of contradictions, though I never actually mentioned flaws, and gave a reason why there were contradictions. If one were to write a book about the history of science, it too would be full of contradictions, as knowledge changes what we understand about the world.

We wouldn't give up on science because of errors made in the past through lack  of understanding, likewise we shouldn't give up attempting to understand the nature of consciousness or being simply because past attempts were sketchy.

May I also introduce you to the International Flat Earth Research Society, and hope you enjoy the journey.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, it is full of contradictions, though I never actually mentioned flaws, and gave a reason why there were contradictions. If one were to write a book about the history of science, it too would be full of contradictions, as knowledge changes what we understand about the world.

We wouldn't give up on science because of errors made in the past through lack  of understanding, likewise we shouldn't give up attempting to understand the nature of consciousness or being simply because past attempts were sketchy.

May I also introduce you to the International Flat Earth Research Society, and hope you enjoy the journey.

We wouldn't, but that is the whole point of science.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We wouldn't, but that is the whole point of science.

That's very true. And it's probably true that religion is partly an attempt to understand being. We are lucky in that science has a very useful toolset, the precision that numbers give us, that makes it possible to describe scientific ideas very precisely. as a result we have made huge scientific advances in the past two hundred years.

The problem we have the other part of who we are, the non-biological part, is that we don't have the same precision to describe meaning. If I say I am happy, it is a very vague term that can mean different things to different people. So it's quite easy to knock the attempts that religion makes to reveal the meaning of being, easy to spot contradictions, easy to find flaws. Personally, I think we have a tendency to chuck the baby out with the bath water and reject religion when we should work harder at understanding what religions are telling us.

[daly 503]

13 hours ago, Herman said:

I grew up with Razzle. Hasn't done me any harm. My cell mate thinks I'm a decent bloke and the warder has given me a glowing report.

Careful you’ll have the politically correct brigade after you for calling Prison Officers Warders

Edited May 20, 2022 by daly

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, it is full of contradictions, though I never actually mentioned flaws, and gave a reason why there were contradictions. If one were to write a book about the history of science, it too would be full of contradictions, as knowledge changes what we understand about the world.

We wouldn't give up on science because of errors made in the past through lack  of understanding, likewise we shouldn't give up attempting to understand the nature of consciousness or being simply because past attempts were sketchy.

May I also introduce you to the International Flat Earth Research Society, and hope you enjoy the journey.

Naturally you avoid the colossal difference between science and the myths of religion. Science progresses towards a greater and more complete explanation of reality, religion doesn't. Errors in science are corrected as a result rational empirical investigation, the errors of religion remain in place and are cherished by fundamentalists of all hues (Christian Muslim etc).

If you want to understand human consciousness there is plenty of science on the subject that doesn't require resort to some myth about the will of a mysterious divine being.

BTW, which scientists are members of the Flat Earth Society?

Edited May 20, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, daly said:

Careful you’ll politically correct brigade after you for calling Prison Officers Warders

Erm! "Warder" literally means "a guard in a prison", just who are you claiming would object to that term?

[daly 503]

On 14/05/2022 at 18:02, A Load of Squit said:

They think it'd their 'lucky' strip in the FA cup so they've elected to wear yellow.

 

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

Erm! "Warder" literally means "a guard in a prison", just who are you claiming would object to that term?

Politically correct Warders

[horsefly 4,301]

7 minutes ago, daly said:

 

Politically correct Warders

So you're saying that politically correct warders would object to being called warders. Would you like another try?

[canarybubbles 1,915]

On 19/05/2022 at 18:04, Dean Coneys boots said:

I don’t subscribe to the idea that sex is a fundamental right that can be divorced from its procreative purpose. Indeed I think the working out of the sexual revolution in terms of individuality not family life has been hugely damaging to society. I disagree with lgbt ideology when it argues people are born a certain way, there is no evidence of this. I am vehemently against graphic sex education of children and the pushing of sexuality in schools, am also against the clear desire to normalise fetishistic behaviour. I don’t see any attempt to teach virtues like modesty, chastity and purity which concerns me. I am not comfortable with the lunacy of modern gender theory believing we are created male and female - it’s hardware not software. I don’t think being gay merits special fanfare and adulation and think it’s perverse that our school curriculums now champion this loudly but never celebrate traditional family life and marriage. I don’t believe marriage can be conducted by two people of the same sex due to its procreative element though I have no issue with civil partnerships and granted full legal rights where needed. Shall I continue?

i could give the shorthand. I subscribe to Catholic teaching in such matters 

As someone who defines himself as a gay man, I can assure you that being emotionally and physically attracted to other men is not a choice, at least in my own case.

Obviously, I disagree with almost everything in your post, but what worries me about this particular part is that it suggests you would accept conversion therapy, which a) screws up people even more about their sexuality, b) doesn't work.