Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 352
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,229
    Actually I think bishops have quite a bit of autonomy but they don't exercise it. With that gay group in the Vatican who knows by 2030. The priests may have a float in the gay Mardi gra one day
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #47
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    Actually I think bishops have quite a bit of autonomy but they don't exercise it. With that gay group in the Vatican who knows by 2030. The priests may have a float in the gay Mardi gra one day
    I predict that by 2030 you will still not have the ordination of women as priests. Although not directly related, same-sex marriage recognition by the church will be some years after female ordination, if ever.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #48
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    What is not clear to me is whether these remarks about lobbying applies to gay lobbying in general or if it is specifically in the context of a gay lobby within the clergy.
    My understanding of the pope's comment from 6 weeks or so ago is that he was specifically talking about corrupt behaviours that exist in the curia romana, which can be thought of as the catholic equivalent to the civil service. Member of the curia are generally members of the clergy as well but he wasn't making a comment on lobbying among the wider clergy, the context was set by allegations of favouritism and the like specifically in the curia.

    There probably are several openly (or semi-openly) pro-gay members of the catholic clergy going around but I don't believe the pope's comments on lobbying concerned these individuals.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I predict that by 2030 you will still not have the ordination of women as priests. Although not directly related, same-sex marriage recognition by the church will be some years after female ordination, if ever.
    as the RCC I believe keeps half an eye open to stay orthodox as to attract ministers and discontents from the Anglican establishments change may not be so forthcoming.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,229
    On 7.30report was story on Exodus groups still operating in Oz damage they are doing.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  6. #51
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,229

    Griffith the""maricon"" dies

    50 years ago some may remember boxer Emile Griffith killing a guy Benny Paret in the ring. Well lo & behold, Paret at the weigh in was casting aspersions on Griffith's manhood, that he sort of had boyfriends, which was a complete no no in those days. But Griffith denies taking it out on him in the ring in spite of delivering 17 punches in 5 secs, the ref faced an inquiry for not stopping the fight.

    Paret called him maricon meaning ""naughty"" in Spanish.

    So lesson is be careful how you talk to professional boxers no matter what is their sexual orientation
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,508
    Och, The GayStapo at work in Scotland

    There if you dare to say children do better with a mother and a father and warn against the homosexual agenda, you will be heavily fined and severely reprimanded by the courts. I kid you not. The story begins like this:

    “The Court of Session in Edinburgh has fined a Scottish man £40,000 ($62,020 U.S.) in damages after he sent a message on Twitter calling a lesbian same-sex ‘marriage’ advocate ‘a danger to children.’ Lesbian Jaye Richards-Hill sued David Shuttleton, an antiques dealer from Barrhead, near Glasgow, for defamation because of his remarks about her homosexual activism.

    “Shuttleton reportedly also sent messages to First Minister Alex Salmond and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon relating his concerns about Richards-Hill, a teacher and adviser to Education Secretary Mike Russell. Calling people who disagree with his anti-gay campaign ‘normalphobes,’ Shuttleton told the Daily Record, ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community. It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws’.”

    Did you get that? A $62,000 fine for simply stating truth: that homosexual marriage is definitely not in the best interests of children. Next thing you know people will be fined for saying that not breathing air or eating food is harmful to your health, or some other truism.

    Today telling the truth is a crime in many parts of the West. For stating truth you can be arrested, fined or even jailed. How have we managed to come to such a place? The complacency and apathy of good people, coupled with the strident militancy of the activists is your answer.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,485
    "a danger to" != "not in the best interests of"
    meep meep

  9. #54
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,731
    Anyone who wants to can go to https://twitter.com/scottishtruths and wait til it loads up enough to scroll down to 18 July 2012 to see what Shuttleton got sued for. (Warning: link contains offensive and stupid material, readers click at own risk. Furthermore anyone quoting from it here for purposes of discussion should do so with extreme care and antichrist is banned from discussing it at all.)

    He was not just saying the women involved held attitudes that were a menace to children. He was saying that they themselves were a menace. He was also engaged in some personal slagging about the couple in question based on the gender of one of them. The received meaning of the rants would probably include that they were paedophiles or engaged in sex acts that would be considered sick or depraved (and not just by homophobes).

    Deserved what he got.

  10. #55
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Anyone who wants to can go to https://twitter.com/scottishtruths ...
    Does twitter open the door to action against themselves by allowing it to still be there?
    meep meep

  11. #56
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,731
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    Does twitter open the door to action against themselves by allowing it to still be there?
    This is currently a grey area. There is a case being brought by Joshua Meggitt, who successfully sued Marieke Hardy after she wrongly outed him as author of a Hardy-slagging blog. He is also suing Twitter for carrying Hardy's message.

    The usual solution in these sorts of things is that the online service needs to have a method by which it can become obliged to remove an offending message on receipt of a valid complaint that the matter is defamatory, or a court order to remove material. It remains to be seen how Twitter will be construed for such cases.

    However if they're not interested in suing Twitter, only the author, then the problem doesn't arise.

    It's interesting that the tweets haven't been deleted.

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Anyone who wants to can go to https://twitter.com/scottishtruths and wait til it loads up enough to scroll down to 18 July 2012 to see what Shuttleton got sued for. (Warning: link contains offensive and stupid material, readers click at own risk. Furthermore anyone quoting from it here for purposes of discussion should do so with extreme care and antichrist is banned from discussing it at all.)
    Like "Over 11,000 young Scots are regarded as homophobes, full of hate, bigoted, old fashioned as they vote against poll on #samesexmarriage #lol" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    He was not just saying the women involved held attitudes that were a menace to children. He was saying that they themselves were a menace. He was also engaged in some personal slagging about the couple in question based on the gender of one of them. The received meaning of the rants would probably include that they were paedophiles or engaged in sex acts that would be considered sick or depraved (and not just by homophobes).
    From the Tweets, the women gave every bit as much as they got. But the Gaystapo have no problem with hate speech and vilification against Christians. The law is an ass when some victims of vilification are more equal than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Deserved what he got.
    What a surprise that you would think that.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #58
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Like "Over 11,000 young Scots are regarded as homophobes, full of hate, bigoted, old fashioned as they vote against poll on #samesexmarriage #lol" ?
    I don't know if they were regarded as such or not. That seems to be from some survey result with a 74% in favour response but I'm not clear on what it was or if it was sound. It is a very large sample size so unlikely to have been a normal opinion poll. Not sure if it's part of the official Scottish social attitudes survey.

    Anyway, I didn't say all his tweets were necessarily stupid and offensive. That one just strikes me as routinely thick. Probably the worst thing about it is the pointless hashtagging of "lol". I mean, there must be so many people out there who just sit there watching "#lol" scroll on their TweetDeck or whatever so they can laugh at everybody else's inane private jokes.

    From the Tweets, the women gave every bit as much as they got.
    That's not a defence in defamation except when exercising qualified privelege. The exchange started when he made homophobic remarks. She jumped in with "you are tweeting to no one. No one is listening to you...are you so stupid that you don't understand that?" - which is not even remotely actionable - and then he starts getting into her personal life, the gender of her partner and the defamation.

    If she defamed him too (which I doubt) he could sue her too.

    What a surprise that you would think that.
    I must have forgotten to remind you that that was not an opinion, but a description of reality.

    After all, I've often argued on here that I don't support some excesses of anti-vilification law, and I opposed proposed extensions to Tasmania's laws even though they would make it easier to stop homophobes. And yesterday when I was defending someone who was the subject of a false political attack, I nonetheless disagreed with their claim that they were being defamed by it. It is not as if I have a general tendency to automatically agree with a legal claim just because a homophobe or some other idiot is its target.

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I don't know if they were regarded as such or not. That seems to be from some survey result with a 74% in favour response but I'm not clear on what it was or if it was sound. It is a very large sample size so unlikely to have been a normal opinion poll. Not sure if it's part of the official Scottish social attitudes survey.
    It would hardly be the first time that the ruling class have different attitudes from the masses; mostly more liberal but sometimes more conservative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Anyway, I didn't say all his tweets were necessarily stupid and offensive. That one just strikes me as routinely thick. Probably the worst thing about it is the pointless hashtagging of "lol". I mean, there must be so many people out there who just sit there watching "#lol" scroll on their TweetDeck or whatever so they can laugh at everybody else's inane private jokes.
    I just ignore that, and it's not much different to here though. If you really want a pointless hashtag, try "Just sayin'", often uselessly appended to posts and cartoons elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That's not a defence in defamation except when exercising qualified privelege. The exchange started when he made homophobic remarks. She jumped in with "you are tweeting to no one. No one is listening to you...are you so stupid that you don't understand that?" - which is not even remotely actionable - and then he starts getting into her personal life, the gender of her partner and the defamation.
    Seemed like normal rough and tumble that often appears on social media and bulletin boards. The inane hashtagging suggests that it's not very serious. The legal processes should not even have been involved. This board is rather sedate by comparison (not a bad thing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    After all, I've often argued on here that I don't support some excesses of anti-vilification law, and I opposed proposed extensions to Tasmania's laws even though they would make it easier to stop homophobes. And yesterday when I was defending someone who was the subject of a false political attack, I nonetheless disagreed with their claim that they were being defamed by it. It is not as if I have a general tendency to automatically agree with a legal claim just because a homophobe or some other idiot is its target.
    That's something anyway.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #60
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It would hardly be the first time that the ruling class have different attitudes from the masses; mostly more liberal but sometimes more conservative.
    Ruling classes? These figures are from some kind of general public opinion survey of young people; whether it's a validly conducted one or not I do not know. It gets much the same sort of result as is found everywhere else - young people overwhelmingly support SSM.

    I just ignore that, and it's not much different to here though.
    It is quite different because the equivalent to here is saying "lol" on Twitter, not "#lol". The purpose of hashtags is to make it easy for people following a given subject to find all tweets with that hashtag. "lol" is not really a subject. Pointless hashtaggery of words no-one has reason to follow is ... well, pointless!

    Seemed like normal rough and tumble that often appears on social media and bulletin boards. The inane hashtagging suggests that it's not very serious. The legal processes should not even have been involved. This board is rather sedate by comparison (not a bad thing).
    I don't think insinuating someone is a paedophile is really "normal rough and tumble"; or to whatever extent it is, it shouldn't be. There is lots of stuff out there on the internet that is defamatory and actionable and is not a justifiable use of free speech. That only a small minority of it triggers lawsuits doesn't mean those sued don't deserve it. A possible reason for the lawsuit in this case is that the woman Shuttleton was trolling is a teacher. Implying that a teacher is a danger to children has obvious potential to affect her professional reputation.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Topicality and Leak thread posts
    By Patrick Byrom in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2017, 10:00 PM
  2. Proposal to close S Kasparov blog posts thread
    By Garvinator in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 05:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •