Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:25 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

And I agree, their views are abohorrent, but to call someone "it" and an "odious wretch of a ""man"" " is unjustified and uncalled for, imo.

I've just explained why it's not 'uncalled for'. It is entirely called for when they express views that (rightly) provoke anger. How would you describe a person who expresses the views they have? Kirkstaller has said we're all going to burn for eternity just because we don't believe in his imaginary friend, that homosexuality is wrong, and that doctors who perform abortions are worse than rapists. Is that better or worse than calling someone an 'odious wretch', would you say?

Hull White Star wrote:

Rise above it because at the moment imo Kirkstaller is provoking the reaction that he is trying to justify why he is going to heaven, and why Jesus chose him, and why people are just sooooo bad and all that other nonsense. Don't give him more ammunition mate, thats all I'm saying.

I care little about whether he has 'ammunition' or not. I have an opinion about him and his God that it is my right to express. If that convinces him (even more) that I'm going to Hell and he's not, so what? It doesn't make it any more true.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:32 am  

Rock God X wrote:

I've just explained why it's not 'uncalled for'. It is entirely called for when they express views that (rightly) provoke anger. How would you describe a person who expresses the views they have? Kirkstaller has said we're all going to burn for eternity just because we don't believe in his imaginary friend, that homosexuality is wrong, and that doctors who perform abortions are worse than rapists. Is that better or worse than calling someone an 'odious wretch', would you say?

I care little about whether he has 'ammunition' or not. I have an opinion about him and his God that it is my right to express. If that convinces him (even more) that I'm going to Hell and he's not, so what? It doesn't make it any more true.

It wasn't Standees phrase "odious wretch" it was his implication of "man" in quote marks. And to say you care little whether he has ammunition or not you certainly have a lot to say. I'm really not having a pop, I just think the name calling is getting tiresome.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:38 am  

Rock God X wrote:

I don't think that's the case with Dally. His views on homosexuality, for example, are consistently disgusting. I think to suggest that he's merely trying to be controversial is to give him credit he does not deserve.

In what way are my views on homosexuality disgusting? You love to be controversial by imputing meaning beyond what I type.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:56 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

It wasn't Standees phrase "odious wretch" it was his implication of "man" in quote marks.

Well, if he doesn't think Dally is much of a man, he's entitled to that opinion. I've seen little from Dally to suggest that Standee is being unfair.

Hull White Star wrote:

And to say you care little whether he has ammunition or not you certainly have a lot to say.

I have a lot to say because I don't care whether he has 'ammunition' or not. Or rather, because I don't see my insulting him as strengthening his case one bit. Whether you think my name-calling is unjust or not, it doesn't make his views any more palatable.

Hull White Star wrote:

I'm really not having a pop, I just think the name calling is getting tiresome.

Don't read it then.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:57 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

It wasn't Standees phrase "odious wretch" it was his implication of "man" in quote marks. And to say you care little whether he has ammunition or not you certainly have a lot to say. I'm really not having a pop, I just think the name calling is getting tiresome.

Dally is tiresome, and he's no "man"

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:03 pm  

Dally wrote:

In what way are my views on homosexuality disgusting?

You've defended Kirkstaller's view that homosexuality was wrong by saying his views were 'valid'. In the past (maybe even in this thread, I can't be bothered to look through all 90-odd pages), you've described homosexuality as 'unnatural'. You even tried to put together some ill-considered biological justification for your horseshit argument. In that way.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:06 pm  

Standee wrote:

Dally is tiresome, and he's no "man"

Oooo, are you giving away Dallys secrets here, dare I ask, is Dally a woman :?:

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:10 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Oooo, are you giving away Dallys secrets here, dare I ask, is Dally a woman :?:

I'm saying it's worthless as an individual, certainly if the tripe posted is what it really thinks. I actually believe it's more than one idiot that uses a name to just post garbage and antagonise people.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:13 pm  

Standee wrote:

I'm saying it's worthless as an individual, certainly if the tripe posted is what it really thinks. I actually believe it's more than one idiot that uses a name to just post garbage and antagonise people.

Thats been tried before. Talking of Rommel, not seen him/her/them around here for a while

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:15 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Thats been tried before. Talking of Rommel, not seen him/her/them around here for a while

nor on the FC site, funny eh?

anyway, back on topic, is kirkstaller still promoting his bigotted views......