Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Food for thought

Page 9 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

I trust everyone reading this will take it as an unbiased reflection of the present situation and possible implications regarding faith.

There is much concern at the present time regarding young girls leaving home and joining the fighting in the belief that their faith demands it.

These are Muslim girls and one wonders why they would leave a so called better society to join in the fighting.


It should not be a secret what the parents of these girls teach their children as right from wrong, based on ther Koran.

These girls see day after day the way in which the vast majority of the youth of today behaves, along with the television and newspapers showing a long list of activities alien to the girls belief.

MP's lying, thieving and charged with the worst possible crimes of child abuse, 480 judges charged with crimes, parents killing their children, wives being beaten up, youths falling about and full of drugs etc;

This surely gives those Muslim's intent on brainwashing these poor girls to go to war, all the ammunition they need.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down


Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:38 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never said that I agree with any Muslim laws, I have never even hinted that I feel yhey are better than ours.

If you actually read what I have said you will find that the Muslim Laws, in my opinion are henious but cannot understand why some young people who have been brought up in our land feel they wouild be better off under those laws.

I think anyone should be able to do as they wish providing they do not break the law of their land.

However, what is acceptable in one land is not so in other lands.

This does not mean that all people in any land are in agreement with all the laws and just as anyone should have the right to act within the law others should have the right to disagree with any law they are not happy with.

polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:42 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I have never said that I agree with any Muslim laws, I have never even hinted that I feel yhey are better than ours.

Er yes you did, here:
Polyglide wrote: by polyglide on Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:06 pm
Dr, Sheldon, The countries you refer to have very few crimes compared to the so called civilised countries.

Polyglide wrote: cannot understand why some young people who have been brought up in our land feel they wouild be better off under those laws.

Clearly anyone who accepts the Koran is the inerrant word of Allah, and reads it, has all the ammunition they will ever need to encourage them to violence against non-Muslims. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." LINK. I don't doubt there are many decent Muslims who either struggle to reconcile their faith with these verses invoking violence, as there are undoubtedly many who believe it to be the unerring word of God, it's the latter who like you are 100% certain that are the problem. People who deal in absolutes are not usually tolerant or liberal in their views, and both tolerance and liberalism tend to make fairer societies.

Polyglide wrote:I think anyone should be able to do as they wish providing they do not break the law of their land.

That's not what you said earlier in this thread, here:
Polyglide wrote:by polyglide on Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:06 pm
Dr, Shedlon, Young girls going half naked, not illegal, drunken bahavior just this side of being illegal, kissing and just short of open immorality, not illegal, taking legal highs, along with other activities although legal are offensive to some etc; etc;
Another odd contradiction??

Polyglide wrote:However, what is acceptable in one land is not so in other lands. This does not mean that all people in any land are in agreement with all the laws and just as anyone should have the right to act within the law others should have the right to disagree with any law they are not happy with.
People have that right in largely free western democracies, they don't in Islamic caliphates and theocracies. Disagreeing with a law, even protesting against it, is very different from breaking that law, one is a right and the other a crime. However some societies invoke laws that protect people's rights and freedoms, and other societies invoke laws that take them away. Women for instance have no rights under Sharia, and gay people are in peril of their lives, as in many instances are atheists, and those deemed apostates are in even greater peril.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:42 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Just where did you actually learn to understand English?.

How on earth can you say that I believe Muslim law is better than any other because their crime rate is lower is beyond belief.

I believe in the Law of the Bible and irrespective of any other consideration if the Ten Commandments were adhered to the world would be in a better place even if you did not believe in God.

I am against any law that allows that which the Bible says is wrong and make no opology for doing so.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:15 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Just where did you actually learn to understand English?. How on earth can you say that I believe Muslim law is better than any other because their crime rate is lower is beyond belief. 

You think a better criminal justice system would result in higher crime? Your grasp of English and logic certainly is very different to mine, no argument there.

Polyglide wrote: I believe in the Law of the Bible and irrespective of any other consideration if the Ten Commandments were adhered to the world would be in a better place even if you did not believe in God.
Bully for you, but your superstition has had 2000 years and the more we have secularised our laws the less barbaric they have become, you don't see people being stoned for adultery, or flogged for being raped under secular democratic laws, though of course totalitarianism is not limited to theistic law.

polyglide wrote:  I am against any law that allows that which the Bible says is wrong and make no opology for doing so.
     

So never, ever, under any circumstances wear blended fabrics then? Nor would you would never allow two different crops to be sown in the same field? The problem with your absurd claim is that your bible claims you mustn't judge others, and we have seen you do this, so it seems to me you're subjectively ripping off the bits that suit your own prejudices.

Do you think women should be allowed to dress as they please, just as men do/ You never did say.

               
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:17 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I think anyone should be able to dress in any way they wish, however, one would expect that all concerned would adhere to a manner befitting any occasion.

I have never judged anyone in fact I have said on several occasions that God will be the judge based on how a person has lived their life.

If the Bible says that two crops should not be in the same field as with any other Biblical suggestion then you can be certain that there will be a reason.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:34 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I think anyone should be able to dress in any way they wish, however, one would expect that all concerned would adhere to a manner befitting any occasion.
So you are happy for women to have complete autonomy in how they dress as men do, yet add the caveat that you would like them to adhere to your own notion of what each occasion demands? You also claimed that how UK women dress motivated religious fascists to become radicalised. These claims seem a little incongruous to me.

Polyglide wrote: I have never judged anyone in fact I have said on several occasions that God will be the judge based on how a person has lived their life.
You judged gay people in some very pejorative terms, unnatural, perverse, deviant, etc..You also judged the gay couple who were shamelessly discriminated against when all they had done was try to rent a room in a B&B, you blamed them and not the couple whose bigotry and prejudice were breaking the law. Calling that gay couple selfish is a judgement, as is calling gay people pejorative names.

Polyglide wrote:If the Bible says that two crops should not be in the same field as with any other Biblical suggestion then you can be certain that there will be a reason.
Of course there's a reason the humans who wrote it were entirely ignorant of the science of agriculture, and botany. Are you saying that it should be against the law? Are you seriously saying that you have never eaten anything that was grown alongside another type of crop? Are you seriously saying you've never worn blended fabrics?

Do behave Poly, the bible contains some ridiculous rules which you clearly have no  interest in adhering to, yet are determined to adhere to the homophobic bigotry in scripture. That's hypocritical and illogical. It's the kind of blind prejudice ISIS promote, like you they insist their beliefs are the only valid ones, they insist that only their beliefs are 100% right, and insist everyone adhere to what they believe or be damned forever, they also advocate prejudice against those they deem not worthy of their deity's blessing.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:01 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never judged anyone I have explained the definition and everything I have said is validated by anyone with common sense, you cannot change the definition to suit circumstances, if a thing is unatural one day it cannot be otherwise the next and it is the majority of the worlds population that decides a definition and if you can show anything I have said that cannot be validated then please do so.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:21 pm

You do and have judged. The dictionary definition doesn't mention homosexuality being unnatural. The Oxford English Dictionary definition was posted by me, boatlady and several others.  All you managed was puerile semantics and repetition of the lie. What's more all the world's major medical and scientific bodies refute your insulting judgment on gay people. Including the world health organisation. Scientific research abounds that shows homosexuality is perfectly natural as it occurrs throughout nature. Why you think your own opinion beats all this I don't know, but your posts suggest you're as egotistical as you are judgmental.

Do you ever wear anything which blends two fabrics? This is also verboten according to Deuteronomy so why is this ok in your opinion when it involves a choice and being gay does not.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:44 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Then on that basis murder, abuse of all kinds, stealing, killing ones young etc; etc; are all normal behaviour in nature, so are you sayiong that they should all be legal?.

Ivan gave his dictionaries definition of homosexuality as abnormal but with the rider that it was being reconsidered.

You cannot start redefining abnoramality by quoting animals in the wild nor by genes or you can then make an excuse for all behaviour of every kind.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:04 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Then on that basis murder, abuse of all kinds, stealing, killing ones young etc; etc; are all normal behaviour in nature, so are you sayiong that they should all be legal?.
Do you think so? Personally I think that's absurdly idiotic, and morally repulsive, but you're entitled to your opinion, even if it is sickening and imbecilic.  

Polyglide wrote:Ivan gave his dictionaries definition of homosexuality as abnormal but with the rider that it was being reconsidered.
No he didn't, that's yet another lie, he pointed out that it was once incorrectly defined that way, but that scientific/medical research had proved this incorrect, and so it no longer does. Only bigoted homophobes define it that way now.
Oxford English Dictionary (LINK)
adjective
1. Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
So again it's not me that's lying about the dictionary definition, it's you, AGAIN. I'll go with the OED though, and not bigoted homophobic lies.

Polyglide wrote: You cannot start redefining abnoramality by quoting animals in the wild nor by genes or you can then make an excuse for all behaviour of every kind.
I haven't, in fact I never defined abnormality at all, that's another lie you've made up. I merely pointed out that the dictionary definition of homosexuality does not support your bigoted lie that they are abnormal, perverted, unnatural, deviants. Which of course it does not, as we can see above because I've posted the OED's definition and linked their on line page. I also cited the evidence of all the research that showed it is not unnatural, ie, it occurs throughout nature. Your moronic attempts to deny this by making absurd claims that this justifies others behaviours is just a mendacious attempt to obfuscate.

Here is your post lying that dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion:
by polyglide on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:12 pm
The dictionary to which I refer is the latest. I can see no reason whatsoever for anyone taking exeption to being called what the dictionary states they are. But a pervert is exactly what the dictionary says and there can be no doubt about it, or you start changing the meaning of every word to suit your own interpretation.

A homosexual may not like being called a pervert and no doubt a theif does not like being called a theif but thats life.as we know it.

Check mate sunshine.....I warned you many times to leave this topic alone, it does not paint you or your beliefs in a very good light. Unless of course you can quote and link a dictionary that defines homosexuality with the word pervert?
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:22 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Homophobic means hatred of homosexuals, dictionary definition and I take great exeption to your constant implying that I am homophobic, if one is accused of being a murderer for explaining what the word implies then we would all be murderers who discuss it etc;

Rogets Thesaurus page 896.

Homosexuality, abnormality.

Homosexual, nonconformist.

abnoramality, deviation from the typical or usual.

If you attempt to justify anything by saying it is part of nature you cannot be selective, either all or none is the criteria by which it can be judged.

Many animals kill and eat their young others kill the weakest in order to keep their genes going other eat others on an on going basis others steal from each other and there are numerous other abnoramlities in nature.

Now if you make it an excuse for one thing to be normal because it happens in nature then the same must apply to everything and you will find that under those circumstances anything goes.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:28 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You brought this subject up not me, I told you I was not interested in it.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:41 pm

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of homophobia.
[MASS NOUN]
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.


I'm not implying anything. You have repeatedly posted bigoted and homophobic rants. Anyone can read these for themselves.


You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuals as perverts. You lied, and using a Thesaurus and semantics won't change this. 


I've not tried to justify anything because it is part of nature. You claimed being gay was unnatural.  I pointed out this was refuted by scientific research showing homosexual behaviour was ubiquitous throughout the natural world in multiple species.  Why are you twisting this into another lie? Or can you not really understand what was said?


Those behaviours don't stop being natural because we find them abhorrent, and the stupidity of comparing them with consenting adults loving each other is only wasted on you it seems. 


I never said homosexuality was normal because it happens in nature.  I said it was natural, do learn to read. It's considered a normal variation of adult human sexual desire by all the world's major health, scientific and psychological associations. 


Above all being gay harms no one. So comparing it directly to behaviours that are obviously harmful, and which involve choice is both bigoted homophobia and rank stupidity. If you don't want people to point out your posts are bigoted and homophobic then as I've told you many times already leave the topic alone.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 You brought this subject up not me, I told you I was not interested in it.
Rubbish. You have made innumerable pejorative and homophobic remarks,  even being banned for them. You want to do this with impunity then claim you have gay friends and don't judge people. You can't make such hypocritical claims and think I'll not expose them.

Have you ever told any of these gay 'friends' you consider them to be abnormal unnatural perverted deviants?  You know you haven't,  so this speaks for itself.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:03 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not agree with drinking or smoking but I have friends who do both, however, I would not call one a drunk or the other a health hazard etc; so I would not even consider calling either Mike or David anything other than Mike and David.

Oxford Dictionary.

[as adjective perverted] sexualy abnormal.

Along with, distort or corrupt the original course.


avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:18 pm

Pretending you're their friends to their face,  whilst using the most bigoted homophobic slurs about them behind their backs maybe your idea of how a friends behaves, it's not mine. 

You claimed that the dictionary defined homosexuals as perverts. The OED definition is in my post and makes no mention of pervert.  You lied......Your pathetic semantics fool no one.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:21 pm

You are judging them here again, behind their backs as well. Whilst pretending you're their friend.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:55 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Your ability to accept the truth is as sound as your lack of understanding the implications of the dictionary definitions, your lack of understanding is obvious to anyone with an open mind and I am sure most will appreciate that regarding homosexuality you have blind spot.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Your ability to accept the truth is as sound as your lack of understanding the implications of the dictionary definitions, your lack of understanding is obvious to anyone with an open mind and I am sure most will appreciate that regarding homosexuality you have blind spot.

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:12 pm
The dictionary to which I refer is the latest. A homosexual may not like being called a pervert and no doubt a theif does not like being called a theif but thats life.as we know it.

So far you have not been able to produce this dictionary, and resorted to using a thesaurus and semantics, but everyone can read your claim above and see that exactly what you claimed, and that you are now lying.

Oxford English Dictionary (LINK)
adjective
1. Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

Unlike you I have linked the dictionary, and that link will take anyone who clicks on it to the Oxford English Dictionary online website, so your lies are utterly transparent Polyglide, and paint you and your beliefs in a very poor light. You don't have an open mind either so your attempt to insult me is laughable, as you have stated plainly that you possess 100% certainty, and that's as closed minded as it's possible to get, though rather sadly you don't even seem to understand this simple premise. You have repeatedly judged gay people on here, labelling them in the worst kind of pejorative terms. I am sure most people reading this have commented on your previous outbursts, and tried to educate you all in vain, and even banned you temporarily when you wouldn't desist. I have repeatedly warned you ton leave this topic alone, and stop claiming to have gay friends, as it is quite simply a lie that you use to their faces, and that's an appalling betrayal.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:34 am

Polyglide wrote: wrote:by polyglide on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:12 pm
The dictionary to which I refer is the latest. A homosexual may not like being called a pervert and no doubt a theif does not like being called a theif but thats life.as we know it.
 1. A thief has a choice whether to steal. 
2. A gay person has no choice about their sexuality.
3. A thief causes harm to others through avaris. 
4. A gay person harms no one by being gay. 
5. A thief is an accurate description of someone who steals as defined in any dictionary. 
6. No dictionary defines a gay person as a pervert. 
7. Calling someone who steals a thief may be intended as a pejorative but it is their choice to steal.
8. Calling a gay person a pervert is deeply offensive and no different to using pejorative adjectives that are racist or sexist or xenophobic, as people don't choose these characteristics for themselves, and don't harm anyone simply because of who they are.

I simply don't believe that you are unaware of your prejudice either. Or that your views are immoral and homophobic, malevolent, and offensive. Otherwise you'd not hide these views from gay people you meet.  Such pejorative terms of course are also a judgment on other people who just happen to be gay, made all the worse IMHO by the hypocrisy of pretending to be their friends to their faces.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:55 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have given you the Oxford dictionaries definition of perversion and you do not accept it.

To say that nature is responsible for homosexuality may be true but on the same basis the same could be said for all the other actions you refer to, the fact that many are also found in nature would indicate on that basis that those responsible for those actions had no choice because it was in their nature.

I do not know what to ton this topic is.

The only thing I am 100% certain of AND THE ONLY THING i HAVE CLAIMED TO BE SO IS MY BELIEF IN GOD.

I have said previously I do not agree with homosexuality as it is stated to be wrong in the Bible as is many other things.

I do not pretend anything regarding friends many who indulge in other matters that the Bible teaches as wrong, homosexuality is just one of them.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:42 pm

You're lying again.  Show where I have not accepted the Oxford English definition of a word. You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion. 

Polyglide wrote: wrote: wrote:by polyglide on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:12 pm
The dictionary to which I refer is the latest. A homosexual may not like being called a pervert and no doubt a theif does not like being called a theif but thats life.as we know it.
It does not. See the quote above and the link. Your quote was allegedly from a Thesaurus and not for the definition of homosexuality but defined the word pervert which you are trying to dishonestly link with it using semantics, you provided no link whatever,  so you may have even made this up yourself given the level of dishonesty and prejudice you have shown on this topic. 

You claimed homosexuality was unnatural yet research shows it is ubiquitous in nature among multiple species. 

As I said it's impossible to be more closed minded than 100%certainty, by definition it negates all possibility of objective thought.  

So you have told the gay people that you claim are friends that you think gay people are abnormal unnatural perverted deviants? 

I think not, and you are judging them and lying to them.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:28 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Based on your own explanations regarding homosexuals having no choice because their genes have somehow gone wrong and it happens in nature etc; then all things in nature that humans do must not be their fault but but nothing they can do because their make up gives them no choice, so it matters not in that case wether their actions are detrimental in any way they should not be punished because it is not their fault it is their genes.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:34 pm

You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion, but then ignore the Oxford English Dictionary definition and use semantics and a Thesaurus to avoid acknowleding you were in error.

You claimed being gay was unnatural,  and several posters linked multiple scientific studies that prove it is not, as it is ubiquitous in nature amongst many species. No one suggested that any behaviour is justified on the sole basis it's natural, that's just a non-sequitur you've leaped to. I am simply showing that your claim it is unnatural is a dishonest and erroneous attempt to discriminate against gay people.

You leap to the non-sequitur that because it is natural that it justifies other acts of barbarity, violence, cruelty,  or criminality.  Clearly this is an absurd non-sequitur else all natural behaviours humans share with other animals would be open to the same accusation. 


I am not aware of any scientific evidence that shows homosexual desire is genetic. I have never claimed it is, nor have I claimed it is not. Why you tout this lie about me I don't know. 


Gay people don't choose to be gay and harm no one by being gay.  So they have every right to be treated equally and without prejudice or discrimination. Unlike criminals who commit crimes like rape,  murder and paedophilia knowing the irreparable harm their crimes cause their victims. Comparing such crimes to sex between consenting adults is a deeply worrying thing to do, if you genuine can't see the difference that's a very grave concern.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:47 am

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, I can understand the points you raise
I've moved this response from the Voltaire thread, as it relates to this thread.

Maybe you can, but until you even attempt to address them we'll never really know, as all you've done here again is ignore them and repeat your original claim. It's a fairly childish way to attempt debate to ignore whatever is said and just post endless repeats of your original claim. It's an opinion you don't offer any real evidence for, or even a rationale argument. I love the way you refer to your claim as fact though, as if that makes it a fact, it doesn't of course. Saying you understand my points, but then completely ignoring them just to endlessly repeat your fist claim is why so many posters have stopped bothering to read your proselytising rants. Address my points or don't waste my time.

1. All the ammunition required to radicalise young Muslims is in the Koran, and I've quoted many of the relevant texts already, more than once. Anyone believing it is the unequivocal word of Allah would need to explain why they don't obey it after all. 
2. If decent UK citizens living their lives in a way that offends Muslim sensibilities is a catalyst fro radicalising by extremists then why is it only a tiny minority that turn to religious fascism like ISIS?
3. Even if these claims were true I fail to see what it is you're asking be done, we're not going to turn ourselves into slaves and give up our rights and freedoms to placate religious fascists like ISIS, and we already criminalise the other behaviours you listed. So again what is the point of this thread beyond you using it as a soapbox to endless repeat your original claim with a list of behaviours you clearly dislike because of your own beliefs?

Polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, You make too many assumptions.
You still haven't answered me and offered a quote for one assumption you claim I've given, odd that. sarcasm
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:31 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon    I have said previously I do not agree with homosexuality as it is stated to be wrong in the Bible 
                         

Not in the new testament, and you have repeatedly claimed in your posts the old testament is irrelevant.  Ooopsy daisy, it appears you are subjectively cherry picking the bits of your deities message you want based on nothing more than your own prejudices.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:37 am

Dr, Sheldon,

Try Timothy 1 : 9-10.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by snowyflake on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:00 pm

Homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. It occurs at a low level in the population, harms no one, is between consenting adults.

It doesn't matter whether or not you 'agree' with it. There's nothing to 'agree' with. Homosexuals exist, they are normal human beings like you or me and religion should butt out of people's sex lives. It's got nothing to do with you.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1186
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:18 pm

snowyflake,
On that basis nothing has anything to do with anyone or only you should have a view point, I would be willing for the whole world population to vote on this matter and make a wager with you for charity.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by snowyflake on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:50 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
               On that basis nothing has anything to do with anyone or only you should have a view point, I would be willing for the whole world population to vote on this matter and make a wager with you for charity.

Don't care. Attitudes change and since we know a lot more about homosexuality (and human sexuality in general) we can afford to be charitable, tolerant and accepting of people who do no harm, are law abiding, tax paying citizens like you and me. In which case, they should have the same rights and civil liberties as you and me. What they do in bed is none of our concern.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1186
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:40 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,

                Try Timothy 1 : 9-10.

1 Timothy 1:9-10English Standard Version (ESV)

9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[b] doctrine,

This doesn't bode well for you then, if your posts on here are any measure.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:47 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
               On that basis nothing has anything to do with anyone or only you should have a view point, I would be willing for the whole world population to vote on this matter and make a wager with you for charity.

The evidence has been studied for decades, and the medical and scientific world is as one voice on this, and they all voice the conclusion Snowyflake posted, namely that being gay is a perfectly normal natural variation of adult sexual desire. You on the other hand have persistently lied about the dictionary definition of the word homosexuality, claiming it contained the word pervert, and have hypocritically tried to claim to have gay friends whilst making the most repulsive and sickening bigoted and homophobic remarks about them here. I'm glad you're not claiming me as a friend I'd need a back to front bullet proof vest.

I'll repost this response to your earlier post, as you've completely ignored it:

You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion, but then ignore the Oxford English Dictionary definition and use semantics and a Thesaurus to avoid acknowledging you were in error.

You claimed being gay was unnatural, and several posters linked multiple scientific studies that prove it is not, as it is ubiquitous in nature amongst many species. No one suggested that any behaviour is justified on the sole basis it's natural, that's just a non-sequitur you've leaped to. I am simply showing that your claim it is unnatural is a dishonest and erroneous attempt to discriminate against gay people.

You leap to the non-sequitur that because it is natural that it justifies other acts of barbarity, violence, cruelty, or criminality. Clearly this is an absurd non-sequitur else all natural behaviours humans share with other animals would be open to the same accusation.

I am not aware of any scientific evidence that shows homosexual desire is genetic. I have never claimed it is, nor have I claimed it is not. Why you tout this lie about me I don't know.

Gay people don't choose to be gay and harm no one by being gay. So they have every right to be treated equally and without prejudice or discrimination. Unlike criminals who commit crimes like rape, murder and paedophilia knowing the irreparable harm their crimes cause their victims. Comparing such crimes to sex between consenting adults is a deeply worrying thing to do, if you genuine can't see the difference that's a very grave concern.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:15 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have said all I am going to do about this matter other than to repeat that a homosexual has every tight to be treated as a homosexual and allowed to behave in a manner applicable to the law of the land without fear or favour and I and anyone else have the right to feel wether they agree or not with homosexuality.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:37 pm

No you haven't said that at all, on the contrary you have made bigoted homophobic remarks continuously.  You also said you'd deny them the same rights to marriage,  or even renting a room in a  b&b. You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion, but then ignore the Oxford English Dictionary definition and use semantics and a Thesaurus to avoid acknowledging you were in error.

You claimed being gay was unnatural, and several posters linked multiple scientific studies that prove it is not, as it is ubiquitous in nature amongst many species. No one suggested that any behaviour is justified on the sole basis it's natural, that's just a non-sequitur you've leaped to. I am simply showing that your claim it is unnatural is a dishonest and erroneous attempt to discriminate against gay people.

You leap to the non-sequitur that because it is natural that it justifies other acts of barbarity, violence, cruelty, or criminality. Clearly this is an absurd non-sequitur else all natural behaviours humans share with other animals would be open to the same accusation.

I am not aware of any scientific evidence that shows homosexual desire is genetic. I have never claimed it is, nor have I claimed it is not. Why you tout this lie about me I don't know.

Gay people don't choose to be gay and harm no one by being gay. So they have every right to be treated equally and without prejudice or discrimination. Unlike criminals who commit crimes like rape, murder and paedophilia knowing the irreparable harm their crimes cause their victims. Comparing such crimes to sex between consenting adults is a deeply worrying thing to do, if you genuine can't see the difference that's a very grave concern.

If you want to leave the topic alone do so, but don't keep making bigoted homophobic remarks and claiming to have gay friends and then expect me not to expose this rank hypocrisy.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:36 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not pretend to have Gay friends, I have several and we get on very well I also have other friends who engage in matters that I do not agree with and I have evry right to my views, or do you think you are the only one to have an opinion?.

Not one of my points regarding homosexuality can be classed as homophobic everything I have said is both correct and justified in any reasonable persons opinion, it is you that cannot accept just what homosexuality is bu definition.

You fall into the same pit as snowyflake who cannot understand that a pervertion can be anything from attempting to pervert the course of justice to the henious such as child abuse etc;
you give the amount of significance to the actual perversion etc;

Take crime for instance.

It can involve a poor old woman stealing to feed her children or a brute killing to obtain cash etc; both are crimes.

I know it will be lost on you but get someone to explain,
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I do not pretend to have Gay friends, I have several and we get on very well
Except they're not really your friends, because you make the most bigoted homophobic and pejorative remarks about them behind their backs, as you have done here repeatedly. Why you think you can claim this when we've all read your deeply insulting remarks on here I don't know, the one gay poster on here who tried to politely talk to you on the subject, you insulted and bullied until he left in disgust.

Polyglide wrote:I also have other friends who engage in matters that I do not agree with

That's not the same as being gay though is it, as being gay is who they are, and something over which they have no choice, just as you and I have no choice about being heterosexual.

Polyglide wrote: and I have evry right to my views, or do you think you are the only one to have an opinion?
A bizarre thing to say, where exactly have I ever said you're not entitled to an opinion? Though opinions and free speech are of course not without consequences, as you found out when your homophobic remarks got multiple warnings which you ignored and then got banned.

Polyglide wrote:Not one of my points regarding homosexuality can be classed as homophobic
Yes they can, that's why you were banned from here and have had to be repeatedly warned.

Polyglide wrote: everything I have said is both correct and justified in any reasonable persons opinion,

No they're not, and quite a few reasonable people have said so, including several moderators who in the end had to ban you for making bigoted homophobic remarks, but if they're perfectly correct and justified why do you make them in secret but hide how you feel from the gay people you claim to be friends with? That's not very rational.

Polyglide wrote:it is you that cannot accept just what homosexuality is bu definition.
You see, how can you lie shamelessly like that, and then bleat when I call you a liar? I have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definition repeatedly, it is you who wan't accept it.
homosexual
adjective: Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex. (LINK TO OED)

Nothing in that definition is remotely agreeing with your gross distortion of the definition of homosexuality, who knows why the Oxford English dictionary isn't good enough for you, but there it is again proving you have lied about me, yet again, and that your made up definition is also a homophobic prejudiced lie, for shame....

Polyglide wrote: You fall into the same pit as snowyflake who cannot understand that a pervertion can be anything from attempting to pervert the course of justice to the henious such as child abuse etc;
Another lie, but not even relevant as you claimed that the dictionary definition of homosexual contained the word pervert, and every sane rational poster on here has taken turns posting that definition to show you are utterly wrong, so you respond with your dishonest semantics using a Thesaurus, now that is not the truth, so what does a person do when they repeatedly and knowingly claim something that is demonstrably untrue? You also claimed being gay was unnatural, and when this was disproved you then dishonestly tried to claim this was somehow a justification for all sorts of behaviours, but never quite get around to saying why.

Polyglide wrote: I know it will be lost on you but get someone to explain,
Nothing is lost on me, you have repeatedly made grossly offensive bigoted homophobic remarks, referring to gay people as unnatural, abnormal, perverted, deviants, and everyone has read these and told you so, including the only gay poster I recall trying to comment who to leave as he was so offended, and then the moderators banned you because astonishingly you seem determined to try and lie to everyone and even yourself that your neither bigoted nor homophobic, but your posts show quite clearly you are. Odd that you claim heatedly to be leaving the topic alone, but always seem to want to post your homophobic lies one last time. I will never let homophobic bigotry go unchallenged, any more than I would racism.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:45 pm

Religion, gay artists and homophobia
Post by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Sorry but fed-up with being called a pervert!

Bye all!

by Adele Carlyon on Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:29 pm
Please don't leave! There is nothing for you to feel ashamed about. I don't know what you said, but I expect that polyglide probably got under your skin, which says more about him than you. Hold your head up and stay! xxx

by Ivan on Tue May 01, 2012 1:39 am
Yes, thank you for saying that, trevor. It certainly is time, and forum staff (along with some other members) are making it quite clear that homophobia will not be tolerated here. A mixed metaphor such as “if you cannot stand the truth then stay out of the kitchen” could be interpreted as gloating that a member may have left us because of what he perceives as homophobic bullying.

Neither is it of much consequence when someone informs us that they “have several homosexual friends”. Many of us have encountered a racist who comes out with the stock lie that “some of my best friends are black”, as if by saying that it somehow justifies their bigotry.

In my opinion, this homophobia was a thinly-veiled attack on one member, and that's against our rules. Either it stops now or I will ask Shirina to discuss with the moderating team whether a ban might be appropriate.

by polyglide on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm
Dr. Sheldon, According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion, just as a farmer is a farmer etc. It is purely a definition and you put what relevance you want to it.

Here's the first time I posted the OED definition of homosexuality:
by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:43 pm
Oxford English dictionary:
Definition of homosexual in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

by polyglide on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:15 pm
DR. Sheldon. The definition of homosexuality in the ORT is, Abnormality.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Yeah, no it isn't
noun
1. sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.LINK HERE

by Ivan on Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:08 pm

The definition of homosexuality in the ORT is Abnormality......even then homosexuality was a problem
polyglide. You're skating on very thin ice, and not for the first time on this forum. Homosexuality is not a problem to anyone. It doesn't make any difference to you or me, nobody is telling us we must become homosexuals.

The sexual preference of other adults is nobody's business unless it involves children. Paedophilia is certainly a perversion, but that can involve heterosexuals (as in gangs grooming young girls), or homosexuals (as in Tory politicians and celebrities taking boys from children's homes and abusing them). So it doesn't make homosexuality per se any more of "a problem" than heterosexuality.

The rules of this forum specifically ban homophobia. Of course you have the right to subscribe to what it says in Leviticus (though I trust you don't approve of Numbers 31:18, or Judges 11, where Jephthah cooks his daughter), but please don't post comments which could land us in hot water with the site owners.

by polyglide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:37 pm
When the definition of homosexuality says it is normal, then, just as long as they say, rape is normal, then I will believe it.

by snowyflake on Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:56 pm
Does the definition of heterosexuality say it's normal?

by polyglide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:04 pm
snowyflake, Come on flower, no word has to be confirmed as normal,

Wow, patronising, condescending, sexist and homophobic in one sentence, well done. I can't be bothered to keep reading your appalling catalogue of homophobic insults and that's just one thread.....

Nothing homophobic to see here, every move on please.....
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:59 pm

Just found this one:

by polyglide on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:29 pm
Consent does not change anything. Of course it does harm. Just consider if everyone was homosexual. If it was normal then everyone could be homosexual and the human race would still survive.,

The homophobia is all too evident. On top of which the entire human race could theoretically be gay and still survive since gay people can still have children. Though just why we'd have to worry about this is beyond me, sounds like a straw man again to me. Interesting you think consent in sex doesn't change anything, I find that as repulsive as the rest of your post, and deeply worrying.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:36 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I am realy getting to be a little sad at your constant wanting to bring homosexuality into everything I have no problem with it at all.

Today I watched a tele programme regarding a Church elder mentioning the Bible and homosexuality, he quoted, as is his right as a Chrisian to do so, the quote stated homosexuality was a sin and he was taken to task for doing so.

It transpired that the person conducting the issue said the Church was wrong in doing so, the Solicitor standing up for the Church said the person had every right to do what he did and that the attempt to stop him was that of a bigot, this was upheld and the other person lost his job and rightly so, just because some think a thing is right does not mean others cannot express otherwise and this does not mean that those who actually do what others think wrong are not good living people otherwise.

It is the right of everyone to have an opinion and be able to express it.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by polyglide on Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:53 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The above proves that everyone has the right to an opinion wether it upsets others or not.

I think homosexuality is wrong not only because the Bible says so but because after consideration of that which is involved I feel it has only one thing in it's favour, self gratification for those involved and is an abnormality that offers nothing to further the benifit of mankind as a whole.

You may attempt to make out a case that it is natural but that is also disputable, homosexuals naturally involve themselves in an abnormal practise.

Having said that it is because that is what homosexuality is, IN MY OPINION, to which I am entitled and based on all the dictionary and accepted by Christians, Cathlics, Muslims etc; by you attempting me to not have an opinion means you are a bigot and should be treated as the person mentioned above.

Irrespective of your insistance that I am homophobic I have homosexual friends who I meet regulary, I just call a spade a spade and obviously you are unable to digest the difference between having a difference of opinion and making a judgement.

I do not judge homosexuals I just do not agree with homosexuality.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:59 pm

No one has the right to make bigoted homophobic remarks, this is the crux of your error. Besides you have not stopped at calling it a sin, to be honest I find the idea of supernatural misdemeanours like sin laughably idiotic anyway. However you have described gay people in the grossest most insulting manner, using terms bordering hate crime. You've lied continually about the dictionary definition of homosexuality, claiming all dictionaries define homosexuals as perverts, despite not producing one dictionary that does this and repeatedly ignoring the Oxford English Dictionary definition. 

Worst of all you gleefully took pleasure in bullying another poster, who happened to be gay and fed up with your many insults, leaving this forum. Despite this and the many bigoted homophobic posts you've written you continue to make the absurd claim you have gay friends. Of course this is nonsense,  as you know full well they'd never speak to you again if you were honest to their faces about your bigoted prejudice against them. 

You're fooling no one polyglide. Nor is your attempt to paint my challenging your homophobia as some sort of obsession fooling anyone either. 

I thought you were leaving this topic alone? I'd advise you to, as I have done before, it certainly doesn't present you or your beliefs in very favourable light.

It is perfectly natural to be gay, this has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, so reproducing that lie is silly. I've no idea what a  Cathlic(sic) is, but having an opinion does not mean there are no consequences to expressing it, hence your repulsive homophobia is best kept to yourself.

Lastly it is absurdly stupid to claim you have gay friends and that you don't judge them. All that means is you judge them behind their backs as we have all seen you do on here repeatedly. That's not just homophobic it's rank hypocrisy.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3125
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Food for thought

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 9 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum