I reckon (as well as agreeing that men and women are different) that our culture should just generally worship sports less. 

 

 

What? People aren't opposed to drag or sexual books aimed at kids simply because of "not liking" them

then why was "And Tango Makes Three" banned?

I was simply commenting that people are not necessarily motivated by "dislike", wanting to keep certain content *from children* - in contrast to disliking the politics of country songs - can be motivated by a belief (as much as you might not share that belief) that keeping some *from kids* is better for them. That is, they are often motivated by wanting the best for other people. Since the OP doesn't specify books, my comment doesn't need to refer to *all* disputed content, and it's fallacious to presume that those who oppose any books oppose *all* contested books. I've mostly seen opposition to highly sexual content, and I don't know why anyone thinks that it benefits children to put this in front of them.

But ultimately, the minority who do oppose And Tango Makes Three may be motivated by the belief (as much as you feel differently) that a wise and loving creator has given guidance, out of His love for humanity, regarding relationships (that is NOT opposition to the individuals in certain relationships themselves, anyone who actually holds disdain for the people themselves is wrong to call themselves Christian) and they are concerned by efforts to influence small children in opposition to this guidance. Whilst there are people who, unacceptably, hold hateful, unChristlike sentiments, not all have this motivation.

 

 

As a gay man, Andrew Bunt says that defining a church’s ‘safety’ based on their willingness to affirm a particular sexual ethic is unhelpful and unfair

If a black man were to defend a racists right to “disagree” with him for being black there would be an outcry.

Being Black is not at all equivalent to engaging in certain sexual practices. 

being gay isn’t “engaging in certain sexual practices”

Being gay is being attracted to people of the same sex.

People of all sexualities, skin colours, hair colours, disabilities etc, engage in a variety of sexual practices, and the sexual practices someone engages in aren’t anyone else’s business unless they’re non-consensual.

Of course (being gay is experiencing same sex attraction, not engaging in certain sexual practices) - but it's the engaging in certain sexual practices that the article is about. The writer *is* same sex attracted, he's not opposing those with same sex attraction, yet you're criticising him. The report is about whether Churches affirm homosexual *practice*, and you're likening *that* to being Black.

"aren’t anyone else’s business"? I didn't say they are, but God has given humanity guidance, and it isn't wrong (nor "unsafe" or "damaging") for Churches to hold to that, yet this is what's being complained about (by those to whom Andrew Bunt is responding)

there’s no such thing as “homosexual practice”

What on earth do you think gay people “practice” that straight people don’t?

I agree that God’s guidance isn’t “wrong” or “damaging” so, if the church is giving guidance to people that is causing them harm and damage wouldn’t you agree that such guidance cannot be from God?

No such thing? I don't know why you're claiming that(?) Sexual practice between 2 people of the same sex is prohibited by God's word. For Churches to uphold that is not wrong or damaging.

And as Andrew Bunt, I myself, and others can testify, sex is not necessary for life, as much as our culture tells us it is.

Of course, it is The Gospel which Churches must focus on first and foremost - but it's sad and concerning if anyone thinks that Jesus, who didn't have sexual relationships and who died for us, is insufficient for a fulfilled life.

firstly I didn’t say sex was necessary, but it’s certainly a “good gift” and a good father doesn’t give good gifts to only some of his children arbitrarily.

“Sexual practice” between two people of the same sex isn’t any different that sex between two people of the opposite sex- what do you think the difference would be if you sat on my face than if you sat on some blokes face? Except that I’d be able to locate your clitoris and probably wouldn’t give you as much stubble rash!

It’s silly to argue God bans gay people from expressing their love as intimately as straight people, why would a good God do something so cruel? Churches who teach this firstly are guilty of idolising sex and secondly, cause harm to people

Excuse me? The 2nd paragraph of that comment is, frankly, harassment, and I genuinely feel unsettled (*Not* because of the homosexuality). Do you make a habit of violating people like that?

"“Sexual practice” between two people of the same sex isn’t any different that sex between two people of the opposite sex" but it is according to God's word. It isn't a matter of some being given something and others not, some people with homosexual orientation still choose to have heterosexual sex, it's the action and not the people for which God has given restrictions. But for the record, it plainly is the case that people receive different gifts - God has given different people very different things to enjoy, different opportunities etc (and very much tasked us with acting to help those who don't have what they *need*).

God's guidance is not *cruel* - He has reasoning (potentially beyond our limited comprehension) for His differing plans for our lives, and again sex is not necessary (you are implying that it is by claiming it'd be cruel to restrict it). How you can claim that Churches are "idolising" sex for teaching God's word about restrictions on it is beyond me, rather it's idolising sex to claim that people are suffering "cruelty" without it. God is more than powerful enough to sustain us and give us joy in life without sex.

violated? You are the one who brought up the subject of sexual acts, not me, you’re the one who wants to create rules about who can do what sexual acts and discriminate against people based on those sexual acts, so don’t you DARE act all holier than thou when you’re asked to drop the euphemisms and tell us all exactly what it is you take issue with!! You think you have a right to pass judgement on other people based on the assumptions you make about what they get up to in the bedroom but get all upset at the discussion of such things?!? Typical hypocritical, two faced Pharisaical religious type who thinks they’re “good” because they use eloquent and flowery words to speak death into men’s hearts!

God gave loving relationships to ALL of humanity, and sex as a small part of them. There’s nothing about particular sexual acts in the bible, the bible condemns abusive sexual acts, it doesn’t say anything about how the sex between mutual, loving and consenting adults should look, rather the bible simply tells us how to treat one another: sex that is abusive, cruel, selfish, arrogant etc is “bad” and sex that is patient, kind, generous, honest, trusting, truthful etc is “good”…. Love is our moral compass, not the contents of each others pants!

And actually those people who are homosexual but having heterosexual sex are sinning, because they are not being truthful, they are turning from their natural instincts.

And no, Gods guidance is not cruel, which is how we know that theology that prevents people from enjoying normal human relationships and intimacy is not from God, because that IS cruel. Sex is not necessity, relationship is, and by forcing gay people to repress who they are, churches deny them honest, human relational intimacy. I strongly urge you to read Vicky Beechings book Undivided to help you understand the awful destructive effect this has on the lives of LGBTQ+ Christians.

When churches teach that we must behave in a particular way, sexually, in order to be saved, besides the fact that it’s incredibly controlling, it’s putting sex in the place of Jesus, it’s putting sex before love. Those churches don’t use love to determine “right” from “wrong”, rather they use sex, they use their own understanding of sexual ethics…. That’s all idolatry. Any time anyone chooses anything over love they are guilty of idolatry

yes, violated. There was no reason whatsoever to refer to me personally (nor to refer to particular acts), I don't engage in any sort of sexual activity whatsoever and what you wrote makes me feel grotesque, it is a violation.
"You think you have a right to pass judgement" no, I'm just referring to God's word.
"speak death into men’s hearts" what are you on about?*
"There’s nothing about particular sexual acts in the bible" I didn't say that there is, but the Bible does reference who is participating in the acts.
"the bible condemns abusive sexual acts, it doesn’t say anything about..." It's a popular fallacy that the Bible is only prohibiting abusive gay sexual relationships, a fallacy that's been repeatedly *debunked* including by same sex attracted writers such as Andrew Bunt.
"And actually those people who are homosexual but having heterosexual sex are sinning, because they are not being truthful, they are turning from their natural instincts." this is absurd, and absolutely unChristian. The Bible does not say that we must follow our "natural instincts", our "natural instincts" can include all sorts of stupidity and selfishness, God calls us to follow Him instead. That you accuse people in straight relationships who are same sex attracted of sin is pretty shocking - and sin is to deviate from God's guidance, not to deviate from following one's own urges.
"because that IS cruel" no, it isn't, because sex is not necessary, we're really going round in circles here, and again you're making an idol of sex.
"When churches teach that we must behave in a particular way, sexually, in order to be saved" that's not what this is about. The Churches being criticised are being criticised (by the group in Oxford to whom Bunt is responding) are being criticised for not *affirming gay sexual relationships*. It's only Jesus who saves, *all* of us have sinned but can choose to turn to Jesus and away from things that God has prohibited (we will want to follow His guidance if we're committed to Him, but it's not the following of that guidance that actually *saves* us)
"churches deny them honest, human relational intimacy" no, because relational intimacy does not require sex. You've said "I didn’t say sex was necessary", yet you *are* saying that it is.
"Any time anyone chooses anything over love they are guilty of idolatry" you're literally making an idol out of *your definition* of love. It's God who we worship, and God's love for humanity includes guidance, He doesn't tell us to do whatever our feelings suggest. But He gives us more than enough joy and fulfilment in life
*Rhetorical, I won't read any further comments, I need to do other things.

 

 

A veteran who was medically discharged from the navy says he feels "worthless" after hearing Chancellor Jeremy Hunt comments on the welfare system

I've felt worthless because I couldn't get work that I'd be able to manage (given diagnosed conditions for which I'd previously been hospitalised) - and the DWP was consistently useless when I sought help finding work (though I know that there are some excellent and caring DWP staff). The government needs sort out actually helping people into jobs that they can do, right now it's wasting tax payers' money and jobseekers' time.

 

 

QT Audience Member denies that the average JuniorDoctor makes £55k and the average Consultant £130k

Final audience member just denying outright basic facts about salaries.

imbecile tory enabler back posting bollocks again.

Do tell, how exactly am I enabling Tories, and what about my comment is incorrect?  

supporting a tory spouting NHS privatising groupie makes you by association a tory enabler. Your comment is deflective shit focussing on the amount a consultant earns - as was the premise of the pro-tory discussion on that so-called program - rather than the dire salary increases for all over 13 years as well as conveniently avoiding the inconvenent issue of lack of safety in the NHS and deteriorating services as also being WHY the strikes are taking place. Your entire statement is a feeble not even half but fraction of a truth - a half truth is a full lie. Finally - you have form of coming onto this forum spouting tory supporting rubbish, deflective gaslighting guff and then getting hung up on a tiny minutiae rather than the issue to obfuscate and perpetuate lies. Did I miss anything? No, it's who and what you are....

I'm NOT supporting the Tories nor privatisation. I *only commented on what was said by one member of the audience*, because of his confidence in rejecting reality, which went uncorrected, stood out to me. If you're OK with denying facts, that's up to you.

Your paragraph of non-sensical attempts at insulting me is really very funny.

You shouldn't con yourself into thinking that you're on the side of the poor and of social justice if you think that people on 6 figure salaries should get more money.

PS: did you - whilst you irrationally accuse me of supporting privatisation - know that the BMA staunchly opposed the establishment of the NHS? It exists to make doctors (who pay into it) rich. The doctors I know personally are opposed to the strikes - they got into medicine because they actually want to help people.

 

 

 

Ben Shapiro Defends Russel Brand

You should read/hear his own words from the time. He was utterly gross - and many things that he said, and wrote in his memoirs, both suggest it likely that the women aren't lying, and show that he actively fuelled perverted, predatory attitudes. Why are you rightly critical of others in the public eye who spew filth yet defending Russel Brand?

 

 

Rishi Sunak announces ban on American XL Bully dogs following deadly attacks

These comments "ban the owners!"

How exactly is the government going to ban people? It's like Americans defending guns saying "people are the problem". BOTH a weapon (in this case a dog) and its owner are part of an attack, it's far more possible that the weapons are banned than the humans. Do you guys not care about the victims of these attacks? Do you think dogs matter more than children?

sure because killing thousands of family dogs because of 10 deaths in 4 yrs out of 12 million dogs is ok. whether you like it or not you have NO more right to this planet then any other species. Considering the things we do like this we have less right.

"killing"? He didn't say that. They should be no longer bred, and no longer freely owned. "thousands of family dogs"? They are absolutely not family dogs, families aren't choosing these. They're weapons and status symbols, people spend on them so that they can look tough.

"10 deaths in 4 yrs"? They've caused 70% of human dog attack deaths though they make up just 1% of the dog population - additionally, they've killed many other dogs, you should care about them.

https://inews.co.uk/.../american-bully-studied-years...

"Right to this planet"? That's not what this is about, it's about human beings breeding and owning a breed. But dogs are absolutely are not equal to humans, it's insane and vile that you're equating them with children. Tell me, is an ant equal to a dog? No, a dog is incomparably more important, and a human is more important still. Things that are alive are NOT all equal, and only humans have the capacity to even think about value and about philosophical questions.

 

 

 

[Kamala Harris quote about women "making decisions" about their own bodies" and living "free from hate and violence"] Abortion is not just about our own bodies, an abortion is about someone else's body - and life - that's the issue. And it's absolutely violent, since she mentions it.

the rights of an unborn fetus that can’t function outside a human body does not trump the woman carrying it.

Why? Because you say so? Because the unborn doesn't have the opportunity to object?

It's not a matter of one person's rights vs another's - the woman doesn't stand to be killed (and the unborn didn't bring about the situation, the parents did)

 

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

That's a whole lot of whataboutism.

You incorrectly presume that I'm generally Right leaning and don't care about other groups. That some people and politicians who oppose abortion don't care about the poor doesn't mean that everyone who's not pro-abortion doesn't care about the poor, nor does it *change anything about whether abortion is OK*.

In fact my biggest concern (much more than abortion) is the suffering of the *world's* very poorest people and those in modern slavery, I'd love to know why they're so overlooked (by pages like this one, politicians like KH, etc, who supposedly care about social justice and the disadvantaged)

 

why not push mandatory blood, platelet, bone marrow, and organ donation? That's more beneficial to someone else's body.

That's whataboutism.
And not providing a donation is not the same as actively killing someone (someone who was put in the situation due to the parents', now choosing abortion, decision - in contrast to disease being what leads to the situation of donation being needed).
But frankly yes, people should generally be expected to donate - I'm amazed that, so far as I'm aware(?)payment for donation of blood or plasma is a thing in the US, here in Britain those of us who donate do so because we want to help (I presume that many American blood donors would feel similarly), the only payment is a biscuit ("cookie") 

my body, my choice. It's not a "someone" until it can sustain it's own life independent of a host body.

Why do you assume everyone has the same religion you do?

A baby that's just been born still can't "sustain themselves", sustaining oneself is not the definition of a living human. I wouldn't argue about abortions within the first several months - but by the end of the first trimester, they have all their organs and neural function is developing.

Again, it's not just the woman's body.

I didn't mention religion. I'd have thought that you don't need religion to oppose killing.

 

the rights of an unborn fetus that can’t function outside a human body does not trump the woman carrying it.

Why? Because you say so? Because the unborn doesn't have the opportunity to object?

It's not a matter of one person's rights vs another's - the woman doesn't stand to be killed (and the unborn didn't bring about the situation, the parents did)

a fetus is not alive. If it cannot survive outside the woman it doesn’t have a right. Why does the fetuses rights trump the woman’s? If you can give me an honest answer maybe you will change my mind but until then I’m sorry you are in the wrong.

"a fetus is not alive"? So we're just denying basic biology now? Seriously, how can you say that? NB, only living things grow - and the unborn eventually kicks.

I didn't say that their rights "trump" the woman's, her life is not about to be ended. If the rich wanted to eliminate the homeless because they don't like looking at them, it would be wrong to say that their "right" (to not see what they don't want to) is being unjustly disregarded, the stakes aren't the same for the 2 parties.

a fetus is not alive until it can survive outside the woman. Listen I’m done taking to you. YOU are what is wrong with this world. You want to make life changing decisions for someone else without a care in the world for the person that is affected. I promise if someone told you, you had to tie your tubes till you were ready to have babies you would tell and fight it. But sure make a woman carry a baby to term and put her life at risk ( pregnancy comes with all sorts of complications and problems you can’t say otherwise) but don’t help her yourself. Anyways I’m done. Respond if you want but I won’t read it. I wasted enough time on your stupidness.

I really can't get my head around how you think that the unborn is not alive. No, I wouldn't oppose having my tubes tied, except that the procedure would be a waste of medical resources.

Abortion has risks and complications (for the woman as well as the unborn)

England always has been and always will be a Christian country

Being a Christian is a personal commitment to following Jesus, the word shouldn't be used as a cultural label. The norm in the UK is to presume that He, or His resurrection, are just myth, without awareness for the rational arguments for concluding Christianity to actually be true.

But it's right to criticise the discussed survey results, they're utterly disingenuous. And for the record, migration is keeping Christianity alive in Britain

if it was a personal commitment there wouldn't be a problem. The fact that it is a public commitment causes all the trouble.

What public commitment exactly?

Oh I dunno how about going to church every Sunday. Or marching through the streets of Northern Ireland playing a penny whistle.

3 rules to make the world a better place...

1. Believe in what you like.

2. Don't do it in public.

3. Don't tell me I'm wrong for believing something different.

LOL what? Who's making people go to Church every Sunday?

Why do you think that specific community traditions in Ireland are relevant?

Who said that you can't believe what you like?

Do what in public exactly?

People are all telling others they're wrong all the time (though I've not said/written to a non Christian "you're wrong", nor observed other Christians doing so), about all sorts of things, why is that a problem?

nobody is making people go to church. Going to church neither strengthens or weakens your faith. Going to church is merely an exercise in telling everyone else that you have faith. The tradition I used as an example is nothing more than a public display of...."my way of worshipping God is better than your way". It serves no other purpose. If it did they would not feel the need to do it in Protestant areas. 99% of the population of humanity has died because of either a) Territorial disputes or..

b) My God is better than your God.

If everyone kept their God to themselves no one would die because of it.

So why did you mention going to Church as a "public commitment"?

No, going to Church is not at all "merely an exercise in telling everyone else that you have faith", who is it telling? People go to hear teaching, to worship God and to meet with other like-minded people. I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what you mean by "Protestant areas".

99%? Where are you getting that from exactly? Have not most human beings died from ill health (including that associated with old age)? The numbers of people killed by atheist dictators are far higher than those killed in "religious wars". But you touch on an important point - territorial disputes. Human beings are tribal and power hungry. In various cultures, claiming to be fighting for a deity has been an obvious way for leaders to enthuse their people into obeying command - but it's ultimately a matter of wanting more power and resources. What one should assess for themselves are the actual teachings of Jesus (and other figures, and observe the distinctions).

You really don't get religious hatred do you? Catholics desire the right to march through protestant areas. Why do you think that is?

South America didn't convert to Christianity by choice, nobody cared about their "other figures of worship". Nobody benefits from standing in a cold room on a Sunday listening to a bloke in a dress reading excerpts from a book they already own and have read.

All I'm saying is.....

Keep it to yourself, read the good book at home and the world will be a better place.

"Catholics desire the right to march" it's a matter of tradition and territory, what's your point? It's nothing to do with Christianity.

"South America didn't convert to Christianity by choice"? See earlier comments.

"Nobody benefits from standing in a cold room on a Sunday listening to a bloke in a dress" - again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, you evidently aren't familiar with Churches. People sit during a sermon, and only some are cold or include robe-wearing (not ones I've attended). And yikes, why do you think that no one benefits from going to Church? There are plenty of studies showing that they do. Sermons aren't only hearing the Bible, though that's invaluable (and plenty of people attend events where they listen to things even if they could read a book themselves), they're talks in which the Bible is discussed and explained. Again I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - why are you bothered by people going to Church, whatever the temperature or attire?

What does "keep it to yourself" mean exactly? What's supposedly going to "make the world a better place"?

oh bless you sweetheart. I'll try and make it as simple as I can....

Religious hatred exists, it has been the downfall of man for centuries. If I don't know what your religious beliefs are, I can't hate you for them.

A Catholic desiring the right to march in a Protestant area is fueling religious hatred.

All over a book written 400 years after the death of Jesus by a bunch of goatherders that didn't know where the sun went at night.

You can call your religious hatred "tradition" all you like, it's still hatred.

I'm not sure what you mean by "religious hatred" -Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, so if someone is acting in a hateful way, it's not because of *actual* Christianity (the following of Jesus).

You seem not to be reading what I'm saying - human beings are tribal and territorial, and some simply *claim* "religion" as an excuse for acting out their tribalism. Catholics marching has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

I don't know why you think that the Bible was "written 400 years after the death of Jesus by a bunch of goatherders", that's not the historical reality at all - who told you that? https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...

well we're getting there it seems. My point is if people weren't allowed to hide behind a religion ie. you had to keep your faith to yourself then attrocities committed in the name of God wouldn't happen.

The Catholic church is not Christian, if it was it would not hoard the billions in assets it currently does and would "do as the lord commanded" ie' feed starving kids.

"allowed"? Meaning what exactly? People can always make deceitful claims - there are few things I'd appreciate more than for people to stop wrongly claiming to be Christian whilst they're behaving in opposition to Christ's teachings, but we can't force people to be honest, what are you suggesting should be done? And if people weren't trying to use "religion" to justify themselves, it'd be something else.

"The Catholic church is not Christian" - OK, so if you can recognise that some who claim to be Christian actually aren't, why hate Christianity? Indeed, Christ commanded that we help those who are starving, it doesn't make sense to reject Him on the basis of people/institutions that aren't actually following Him.

Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with the religious authorities of His time, because they weren't following God's commands to care for the vulnerable.

 

Banning Puberty Blockers Won’t Stop Young People Taking Them

Handing them out means *more* take them, only some would seek them out from dangerous sources if they weren't prescribed. And they are HARMFUL, why are you supporting pharmaceutical corporations taking advantage of a hurting young people?

NB I stalled my own puberty, not deliberately, through anorexia - the impact is lasting, including osteoporosis. There are even trans people fervently opposing what you're supporting.

"NB I stalled my own puberty, not deliberately, through anorexia - the impact is lasting, including osteoporosis."

Pro hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You need to provide better data than your own anecdotal evidence.

I don't wish to diminish your experience, and am sorry to hear you have suffered thus.

However, all meds have side effects, and how do I know that a deficiency of minerals and vitamins didn't contribute to the osteoporosis?

Not to forget that some youngers won't get osteoporosis as a result of anything if they end up taking their own lives as a result of depression caused by not being able to express themselves as who they are.

That to me is a far greater risk than should be addressed.

It's not just my experience, it's a reality of human phisiology. And it's ironic that you want more data on that, yet make unfounded claims that a lack of blockers leads to suicide.

I truly believe that it is CRUEL to reinforce a child's discomfort with their own biology, to essentially assert that they're "born in the wrong body", and put them on course to be a lifelong source of profit for corporate interests. Progressives should be telling children that they can be their unique selves, with interests and hobbies that break gender stereotypes (note too the concerns of many gay adults who know they'd have been deemed trans when they were younger because of their gender non conformity), without rejecting their own bodies - and almost all children are OK with their birth sex after puberty if their new identity hasn't been reinforced.

But I really don't have time to argue any further, bye.

'to essentially assert that they're "born in the wrong body" '

Who says that? If you ever listened to trans people you would know it to be a phrase they don't use.

Stop living in the 1970s.

" put them on course to be a lifelong source of profit for corporate interests."

It's not the fault of trans people we live in a corporate capitalist system.

But I take note that you prioritise how the privatised pharmaceutical industry benefits rather than the needs of children who need assistance.

One thing I have gleaned from your comments is just why gender critics ally themselves with fascists.

You would deny the right of people to express themselves as who they are, in order for them to be a carbon copy of (patriarchal) societal norms.

It's disgusting what you are saying.

"I truly believe that it is CRUEL to reinforce a child's discomfort with their own biology,"

I should give a fuck about what you *believe*, why exactly?

And how is their perception of who they are separate from their biology?

Do you think mind body and soul are all discrete aspects of a person?

Good grief.

"Progressives should be telling children that they can be their unique selves, with interests and hobbies that break gender stereotypes"

Who says we don't?

And why are you regressives so aggressive in your determination to deny the science on the issue of gender fluidity?

"and almost all children are OK with their birth sex after puberty if their new identity hasn't been reinforced."

FFS what a specious statement. Given that 99% of the population is cis, OF COURSE THE FUCKING WELL ARE

Jeez.

"But I really don't have time to argue any further, bye."

That's okay. But then you demonstrated in your OP that you are not here to argue in good faith but propagandise on behalf of bigotry and hatred.

“Given that 99% of the population is cis” Obviously I was referring to kids who claim to be the opposite of their biological birth sex, not all young people. Honestly I’m surprised you’ve not heard this before. And I don’t know why you think it doesn’t matter - it means that the vast majority of young people who end up needing a life of treatments - which have serious risks and side effects - would have been happy with their biological/birth sex if they’d not had their discomfort with their biology reinforced.
“Do you think mind body and soul are all discrete aspects of a person?”- that’s exactly what *your* position asserts, that a person’s mind or soul can be contrary to their body.
I didn’t say that it’s their fault capitalism exists, but that’s the reality - and even if our society had less capitalism, there’d still be a cost (to lifelong hormone injections) in addition to health consequences. More to the point, you don’t seem to have considered the possibility that capitalist forces are helping to drive the movement.
That I’m white, like the majority of people in our country, is not relevant, that’s a very basic logical fallacy. I don’t know how exactly you’re defining middle class, why you think that I am (I mean seriously, how have you judged class from what I’ve written?), but again it’s completely irrelevant. Then again, since you’re so keen to bring these other things up, you really should consider that the gender movement is largely driven by white, wealthier people.
I have listened to trans people. I also follow trans folk online who are passionately opposed to giving treatments to young people - you seem to presume that all trans folk agree with you, maybe you should listen more. I didn’t say that they say they’re “born in the wrong body”, though I absolutely have seen trans folk say this, it is the implication of your position - and I don’t think that if a person feels that way that the kind thing is to reinforce it.
I wonder if you think that labelling me, or saying things such as that what I’ve written is “disgusting” will make me feel ashamed or that I should change my opinion(?) It won’t. So many of your comments in this thread (not only to me) are just angry words, not rational points), though we’ve not expressed hatred, we’ve not mocked, nor wished anyone ill. I’ve not “stomped on trans people” or wanted them “erased” - and I specifically stated opposition to stereotypes, you stating that I want everyone to be a “carbon copy of (patriarchal) societal norms” shows that you’re not really reading what I’ve been saying. So there’s no point for either of us going round in circles again (and I need to work) 

 

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/01/mental-health-hormone-treatment-transgender-people.html?fbclid=IwAR0XZOjZg7po0gEN1e8cuuaUc-zxA4gr0Lcmhw5YI71XtkjLJmVLmSZvgwk

Those who begin transition as teens and as adults will have many other influencing factors. Note too, confirmation bias and the placebo effect (teens being led to believe that they need something, and in turn feeling glad upon receiving what they think they need). There's no control group, no peer review, and long term outcomes aren't accounted for. Some other concerns are highlighted here https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to And it's sponsored by drug companies, they profit from people having injections for more years.

The author who refers to himself as a skeptic has no background in clinical research statistics or psychology and is cis. He has a history of misunderstanding statistics. I follow a number of scientific skeptic blogs and none of them have a problem with trans research. It's important that we listen the voices of trans people and the experts who specialise in this area. Just to confirm, according to Plos One the study I linked WAS peer reviewed.

I find this idea that teens are being led to believe that they need something authoritarian, condescending and disrespectful. As if they can't make their own decisions about who they are. And this conspracy theory that it's all being pushed and paid for by profiteering drug companies

That someone identifies as a sceptic doesn't mean that their points are wrong, just as someone identifying as an ally or as trans wouldn't mean that their points are wrong. Do you not think that, particularly given that scepticism is unfashionable, a person being a sceptic might be because they've encountered reasoning and evidence that's led them to that position? The article is surprisingly balanced (note, for instance, opposition to “conversion therapy” and clinic closures) - and makes important points about the Stanford study.

Do you not think that people, particularly teenagers, can have feelings and thoughts within the complex chemical processing of the brain that may not match reality, that may be harmful to the person and that may have been influenced by external influences? When I was a young person I was diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder (relating to my face), then with anorexia (for which I was treated against my will) - my feelings of dislike of my physical self were challenged, not affirmed. If my doctors and parents supported the feelings that had developed in my mind, it would not have been caring. Of course there are differences with gender, but my point is that our feelings, contributed to by complex neurochemistry, can be contrary to our reality or best interests, and can be changing.

I do listen to the voices of trans people. Amongst them are plenty who regret their earlier decisions and/or who strongly believe that people shouldn’t be doing anything to transition before adulthood.

I’m not sure why you don’t think that corporate greed is a thing.

But, seriously, apologies if I seem argumentative, I really appreciate that you aren’t being aggressive like others here.

 

 

Junior doctors deserve better.

I still can't get my head around the absurdity of this. Workers' wages in general have been stagnant over the period, doctors ultimately earn far more than the average worker. Billionaires' accumulating wealth ought to be going to the very, very poorest, it's not an argument for people on course to earn 6 figure salaries to be paid more from the public purse.

These strikes are not progressive, they're selfish and classist.

every worker deserves a pay rise. The problem is that they are separated and fight amongst themselves. The doctors striking isn't 'classist'. They are fighting to secure a pay rise. Every worker should support them and then strike themselves to secure pay rises - and every other worker should support every strike.

Strikes are the only option working people have so, no, they quite obviously are progressive because the only other option is poverty!!

Doctors are not in "poverty". Sick people are suffering because relatively wealthy people demand more public money. And I have encountered multiple (striking JDs) who have referenced or alluded to being middle class as a reason they should be paid more.

what a sweeping generalisation! And stereotyping!

Factually, there are a great many doctors struggling. Doctors, nurses, and workers of every description and work type are struggling.

And your claim that some people regard their perceived caste as a justification for remuneration is - a claim: no substance, no evidence; just the meanderings of a prejudiced mindset.

And, despite your other (also erroneous) claim, there were sick and vulnerable people suffering from being denied medical treatment WELL before the strikes began. The waiting lists began climbing shortly after the tories came to power. That's a matter of record verified by the ONS.

The medical professionals striking are also striking to save the NHS. The tories, transparently and manifestly, are destroying the NHS.

Doctors, nurses, every worker undertaking strike actions are doing the right thing and signalling to the tories that they cannot get away with treating people with contempt.

That there were already waiting lists (when did I suggest otherwise?) doesn't mean that the strikes aren't making that situation *worse*. And why do you think that doctors are struggling? They earn enough to live, and ultimately *far more than the average worker*. For them to be paid more still would make society *more unequal*.

That the Tories are evil and a threat to the NHS doesn't make the strikes right. They're demanding more money *for themselves*, rather than to oppose the Tories' gradual privatisation or the anti-"nanny state" ideology that's enabling corporate greed to make people sick.

You can tell me there's no evidence of the classism all you like, I've seen it myself. And seeking one's own interests, rather than standing with those who are more disadvantaged, is more Right wing than Left.

The striking doctors are not signalling to the Tories by demanding more money *for themselves*, they are themselves treating the public with contempt.
on how many points can you be wrong? Are you attempting a Guinness mention?
The strikes are not making the situation worse. The 'situation' should have been assessed and evaluated BEFORE any strikes. And that is the responsibility of the government. They were fully aware of the variables in this equation and decided to bet on the public supporting them rather than the NHS. Then went ahead with a situation that was antagonistic with no agenda other than to disrupt the lives of patients, medical staff, and the general population of the country. Why would they deliberately do that?
Your second 'point' is another sweeping generalisation - you make the assumption that ALL medical staff above a certain grade are 'rich' and therefore do not need to strike. You make an error here by generalising. Factually, not all medical staff above a certain grade are rich. But, and this is important (pay attention), the consensus was reached that ALL should support each other.
Whether they earn 'above the average worker' is irrelevant in this case: they are striking for their particular fields of expertise - NOT for the 'average worker'. You make the error of juxtaposing two separate entities to produce a flawed premise.
Society is already unequal, so you project your original flawed premise even further!
And you're incorrect, yet again (do you not tire of making straw man arguments?), when you claim that the strikers are solely centred around financial rewards. If you'd paid attention, you would have noted that the strikers have made it clear that the future of the NHS, and the working conditions of those in the NHS, is paramount.
Your further point about 'classism' is amusing to anyone with knowledge of language and/or politics. Class is not a protected characteristic so cannot be viewed, or classed, as discrimination. Further, any class can carry out strike action so, again, it's not possible for strikes to be termed 'classist'!!
And, seeing a minute example isn't evidence of the macrocosm. (Correlation isn't causation!)
It's your (flawed) interpretation that the NHS strikes aren't altruistic. Your incredulity doesn't alter reality.
Your last point, yet again, defies logic. If medical staff were fundamentally narcissistic (as you state), would they have entered a field that displays the exact opposite?
That's a rhetorical question that dismantles your opinion without any doubt.
None of your points are valid or, when examined, hold up to scrutiny. You have an opinion but should be realistic and acknowledge that your opinion is flawed and has been disproved.
Not only by me but many others on this thread and, more importantly, by the actions of those incredible people that put their lives at risk during the pandemic. They were dealing with an unknown disease that could have killed them - and that they knew they could have taken home to their families. And yet they continued helping the public, the ill, the vulnerable.
Hardly the actions of people showing 'contempt' to the public!
And yet you, ironically, are categorically stating that they are 'contemptible'.
Shame on you.

That the government didn't decide to offer more doesn't in any way change the fact that the strikes are making waiting times even longer than they were (meaning more pain, and more advancing of various conditions)

Doctors *are* relatively wealthy. Not immediately in their first few years (as is true in all professions), but their salaries rapidly increase and end up several times the salaries of average workers. You assert that comparison to the average are irrelevant, but of course it's relevant, for frick's sake, it means that they can buy what they need, and do you not believe in society being fairer? That "society if already unequal" doesn't mean that we should make it more so.

"the consensus was reached that ALL should support each other"? Very funny. Striking is plainly not supporting others. "Paid attention"? I'm well aware that some of the placards claim that they're trying to save the NHS, it's just words (to try to win support), what they're demanding is more money for themselves. Again, if they actually wanted to save the NHS, they'd demand things like a clamp down on profiteering by pharmaceutical companies, a reversal of the creeping privatisation within the NHS, and policies to reduce ill health.

That class isn't a protected characteristic doesn't change the fact that I've seen many comments from JD strikers implying that they think they should earn more because they're middle class - nor does it change the reality that right now, the wealthy can buy private health care whilst the working class suffer on the strike-lengthened waiting lists.

That you think demanding more money for oneself is "altruistic" is hilarious.

It's interesting how the strikers go on about the pandemic, and also about earning £14/ph- only first years are earning that amount (in fact many earn more), they weren't yet doctors during the pandemic. And that it was brave to work through the pandemic doesn't change anything about the nature of striking now - rather, the BMA has seized upon that tragedy as a way to rake in cash.

NB, the weirdly arrogant, empty statements and attempted insults throughout your essay are not arguments, they're just funny.

I'm done, I have other things to do now, I won't be reading any more in this thread. Bye.

 

So what do we suggest we do when doctors choose to leave the profession for less stress and higher pay elsewhere?

Not really thought this one through, have you, and I'd also need interested why you're scandalised at the thought of a doctor, who's studied for many years and saves lives, earning at the most £150k, but unbothered by business executives receiving millions for doing nothing useful.

When did I say that I'm unbothered by business executives' pay?

I'm well aware that strikers are claiming they'll go abroad (sad that their families and friends mean less than money), how many actually would is less clear - but there aren't unlimited doctor vacancies in Australia. Maybe, in time, we'll have more doctors eager to help others (I'm well aware, of course, that plenty already are) and fewer who are in the role for money, that might not be a bad thing.

 

ssshhh you silly Tory apologist

I'm not supporting the Tories, it's those supporting the strike who are supporting upper middle class greed

its not greedy to want to be earning the same ammount you were earning 13 years ago. Get back to reading your Daily Mail. 

They weren't earning the amount they're demanding 13 years ago, they were in school. And again, the average salary for everyone has been stagnant. Yes it is greedy to be on course to earn 3 times the average salary and to demand more.

And to presume that someone would read the Daily Fail on the basis that they don't agree with you is hilariously irrational.

 

 

Pursuit of happiness do you seriously think the LGBT community is by any means happy with the hundreds of laws these asshole Republicans are putting in place to block and ban their way of life? Oh and here ya go one from the bible. Even Jesus said back off. 

Feeling unhappy with someone else not agreeing does not mean that one is prevented from pursuing happiness. Conservatives could say "do you think we are by any means happy with the hundreds of LGBT flags and drag queens in public broadcasting/spaces?". The bills, so far as I've seen, are about practices (such as drag) and content/material, not about groups themselves. Being gay, for instance, does not mean that one needs to dress in drag and perform publicly, it seems insulting to gay people to suggest that it does.

Jesus saying that we should not judge doesn't mean that people shouldn't have views about behaviours or laws to protect the public. It means that we shouldn't harbour hate in our minds for *people* themselves, and we should be humblled by awareness of our sin. I'm well aware that there plenty of conservatives who, in contradiction of Jesus' teachings, are clinging to judgemental feelings about some people. That's not the same thing as having concerns about certain material in schools etc, though obviously there's an overlap in the minds of some of the individuals.

It's plainly also the case that some people are harbouring judgemental hatred against people with traditional views (and they have the right to do so, though it's contrary to the verses you've shared).

As a Christian, I personally desperately wish that people would concentrate more on Jesus - who offers salvation to those who choose to turn to Him and who we each need as we have *all* sinned.

 

 

‘We’ll send our daughter to private school in Spain if Labour drive up fees’ 

And? Are we supposed to feel sympathetic for your snobbery?

It's worse for public schools if you think about it, private users still pay into the system that funds public schools without using any of the resources.

If you had the option to privately fund your child's education are you saying you wouldn't?

No, I wouldn't. It's not a remotely good use of funds. One could pay to sponsor so, so many children (who can't access education) with that money - and I'd want my kid to experience mixing with kids from a with a wide range of backgrounds (I'm so glad that I did). If necessary, one could still fund some private tutoring or music lessons etc to give one's child an advantage, it'd be a fraction of the cost.

a wide range of backgrounds.

So you would donate the money to a charity? One whose CEO can afford to put their own kid in private education...

And you would want them to mix with "people from a wide range of backgrounds" unfortunately that doesn't really happen, because if you have some money then odds are you can get into a Grammar school, failing that you are restricted to catchment areas so the majority are from your own background, added to that you have increased influence (depending where you live) for drugs etc, but that's OK, because I assume you would also live in a back2back terrace and provide other people with rent because you are such a charitable person.... unfortunately you will struggle to find a partner that shares your extremely high virtues.

What do charity CEOs have to do with this? When I sponsor a child, they receive an education, just pennies from my donation go to the CEO (as much as I obviously wish that the salaries of those at top - in *all* industries - weren't so inflated). Are you saying that you don't donate to charity?
"Doesn't happen"? Why?
Grammar schools will have more variety than private schools, but they still have issues and I wasn't advocating for them, so they're a non sequitur.
No, going to schools in one's catchment area doesn't mean that one attends school only with people who are similar. Up the road from me there are homes which cost around £2million followed by a council estate - that's just one road a catchment area can have plenty of diversity.
My Grandparents offered to contribute so that my parents might (at a huge stretch) afford to send me to a private school, I didn't think that'd be a use of their money and went to a comprehensive - I was surrounded by people from a far wider variety of backgrounds than I would have been at a private school, or than I'd previously experienced, and I'm really glad that I had that experience.
You're insinuating that people who don't go to private schools end up affected by drugs, which really supports my point that people should mix extensively with those from other backgrounds (given your hilariously uninformed stereotyping). As it happens the 2 people I know of personally who've had their lives horribly affected by drug addiction both went to private schools (which was where the problems started).
I'm really not sure what you mean about paying other people's rent, why would I? I give towards organisations helping the world's very poorest people, for whom any given amount makes the biggest impact.
And I'm not looking for a partner, but if I were I wouldn't ask your advice, thankyou.

 

 

Warren Hern, 84, is one of America’s few doctors who will perform late abortions, regardless of the reason

Utterly evil

Yes, Republican attacks on women's human rights are utterly evil, same as the German yatzees in the 1930s

Seriously? You're comparing *opposition* to killing to pre Nazism? I don't dispute that there are many evil things about Republicans, but opposing any stage abortion is not one of them. This abortionist^, who's described how he tears up bodies, is utterly evil, and there is nothing caring about defending him.

Your comment is a disturbing example of moral bankruptcy and science illiteracy. Your desire to subjugate women is truly vile. After Sandy Hook the whole world saw Republican Americans don't care about America's children. Hiding behind bully boys and thugs never ends well Grace. I hope you find the courage to look up from your circle jerk of fascist propaganda.

Moral bankruptcy? To not want small humans (note that we're discussing any stage abortion, not only early stage abortion) dismembered (as this man^ has described doing)?

Why are you talking about Republicans and Sandy Hook? I already expressed my disdain for the Republicans, so your comment is a complete non sequitur. And if it were up to me guns would be banned. That doesn't change anything about abortion, in fact it's odd that you're claiming to care about some children but to support the killing of others.

Who am I hiding behind? What exactly is fascist? You're irrationally trying to conflate all of the things that you don't like, presuming that everyone you disagree with is the same as a way to avoid the actual topic.

I see you live in the UK. I lived in England for a few years and I know you do not represent the British people.I know you, you are the British equivalent of Republican American yatzees.

The majority of British people do believe that our abortion cut off time, 24 weeks, should be lowered, so no British people in general aren't unlike me in opposing the any stage abortion advocated above.

You've not addressed anything that I've written, and you're just admitting to illogically making unfounded presumptions. For the record, I always vote Left, was recently referred to as "far Left", and care most of all about Global poverty. But you just want to presume that everyone who doesn't agree with you about abortion is the same so that you can avoid actually addressing the topic itself.

[Deleted]

Really? You're just going to keep on going around in circles demonstrating that you can't address the issue?

"Science illiteracy" is very funny. It's plainly unscientific to pretend that a preborn human in the latter stages of pregnancy is nothing other than a part of a woman's body. And I'm in the last year of a biology degree, I care about science. Honestly it's quite amusing observing the desperate attempts to insult me without making any rational points or addressing what I've actually written.

 

 

Consultants earn enormous salaries. This^ is wrong, and not Left wing. 

They’re fighting to save the NHS. 

They aren't asking for pay rises? Really?

I don't dispute that the Tories are terrible, or that there should be more training places, but those things don't make these strikes good.

They can earn double instantly by going to Australia, or 50% more by going to Canada.

Their pay has been massively eroded since 2010. Judge the Tory liars by their actions.

Everyone's pay (the average salary) has been eroded. That people could get more elsewhere doesn't mean that they need more. These strikes are unfair on workers earning a fraction of the salaries of consultants, and again are not Left wing - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Do you think £30k is a good reward for 7 years of university education, with lots of debt accrued? 

Consultants earn an average of £128k, the "£30k" you mention has nothing to do with this, other than that it's what the average worker gets by on.

On the left, ALL workers fight to help each other.

Refusing to treat sick people, because of wanting yet more money when already paid many times the average salary, is the opposite of "helping each other"

 

We don't need to know anything. It's utterly tragic for the families, but the media is just using the situation as a drama to score clicks. And why do you not talk more about situations in our world that we actually should hear about, in which far larger numbers of people are endangered? Do you think that the world's poorest people are unimportant, and billionaires matter incomparably more?

 

 

The media focus on the deaths of Americans and Europeans at the expense of other nations fuels resentment, and lays bare the dysfunctional economics of modern journalism

This is absolutely true, but it goes further than this - media, including on the Left, pays incomparably more attention to people using food banks than to those people in our world who are literally starving to death and would love food banks

(I am, of course, not denying that it's awful that some people need food banks - but the extent to which those in our world in far worse poverty still are ignored bothers me)

Side note: Caring about people should not be labeled stupidly as left wing. If that's the case, the whole lot of Jesus, his disciples and all the saints that right wing conservative Christians adore so much would be left wing. Caring for others is just simply human.

Jesus is Left wing, but would be considered Right wing on certain issues. Ultimately Left and Right often don't work well as labels.

state "certain issues". And in the end it points to human, not stupidly divisive tribalism labels

Sex, gender and abortion. Which I would argue shouldn't be described as Left/Right anyway, as they're totally removed from the original meanings of Left/Right, and there's no requirement for correlation (being pro fairer wealth distribution doesn't necessitate support for abortion, for example).

I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of your comment (?)

do you know that certain cultures have recognized LGBTQIA+ long before the Christian churches condemned it? One religion from one singular teacher doesn't define the entire universe. There is a reason why God has more than one religion, more than one prophet. Jesus also preached that we are are all children of God as was he, but the church basically put him on a pedestal as a control strategy to deem all followers unworthy and therefore to be controlled rightfully and accordingly.

I'm well aware that other cultures have different views, what's your point exactly?

Note too that in fact, many cultures do have the same views RE gender and sexuality as Christianity does.

What exactly do you mean by "Jesus preached that we are all children of God as was he"? Can you cite verses? It seems as though you're trying to explain Christianity to a Christian, and I'm not sure why you think that you're more informed about it(?)

Jesus most definitely did not teach that He is the same as other human beings. He taught that He is of/from God and that He makes a way possible for people, *if* they choose to genuinely turn to Him, to be reconciled with God and have eternal life - He demonstrated that He was telling the truth by defeating death and rising again.

 

I hate to break it to anyone but Jesus isn’t real.

yuh, that's a conspiracy theory, historians don't take it seriously.

yeah him and his dad who is actually him who made his mum pregnant with him…wow what’s not to believe. 

That's theology, the historical reality is that Jesus existed. What you think *about* Him is up to you, but it's not historically credible to presume that He didn't exist

a man named Jesus exists in Brazil but…

And why do you think he's called that?

 

Elton John says Phillip Schofield affair furore has been ‘totally homophobic’

So Elton thinks that grooming is fine?

This reminds me of Mizzy claiming that people were only angry with him because he's Black. (I don't doubt that racism contributes to some of the reaction to Mizzy, but plainly his behaviour itself is an issue - as is Schofield's)

Elton is wrongly implying that grooming teenagers is a normal part of being gay - THAT is what's homophobic. And yes, of course there'd still be outrage if the young person were female, did Elton just ignore MeToo?

That is libellous. No complaint of grooming has been made. To date your comment is baseless. We know that both parties in the affair have denied it, so other than your bigotry, what is your evidence?

I consider a relationship with someone less than half of a person's age, by a powerful person who knew the younger person from childhood, to be grooming. Call it libellous if you like, but it's just a Facebook comment that countless others have made.

What exactly is the "bigotry"?

NB that a person has not complained of grooming does not mean that grooming has not occurred, the very nature of grooming is that the victim has been misled to believe that the situation is fine or to feel afraid of speaking out

The UN has called for a ban on faith based admissions to schools in England. What do you think?

So weird. I was at a CofE school, almost all of the kids weren't Christian and we weren't made to do or think anything. And faith schools get good results, so the UN is seeking to reduce education standards.

 

"I will finally be the president to bring the issue of our open southern border to a conclusion," DeSantis said to a crowd of Evangelical Christians

Please stop misusing the words "evangelical" and "Christian"

I'm well aware that some people in your country have wrongly used the labels for decades, but like Trump calling himself a genius, you don't need to affirm them.

Evangelical comes from "Evangel", meaning good news - that good news being that Christ offers eternal life (heaven) to anyone who chooses to truly accept Him (and demonstrated the authenticity of His power over death by rising), Ie. Evangelical means wanting desperately to share that message

So, so often, people call themselves Christians and/or Evangelicals, whilst their actions demonstrate that they're in fact not actually interested in following Jesus (who told us to love those from elsewhere_.

it’s how they self-identify and the event was hosted by them. Perfectly appropriate

How people self-identify is irrelevant, what matters is reality. As I wrote, Trump identified as a genius, and North Korea identifies as Democratic, that doesn't mean that they are.

your beef is with them — nobody else has declared them those identifiers you call misused. Just like current Republicans aren’t true to the original meaning of their party, it’s up to the members of that party to reset that direction or form a new group now that their former was corrupted

nobody else? "DeSantis said to a crowd of Evangelical Christians" is the OP statement I was commenting on in the first place.

As is the case in many other areas, we should use language that's accurate so that we can clearly highlight problems.

again, that’s a judgement call that isn’t theirs to make. We are not just talking random adjectives — these people belong to this organization, attended an event held by this organization — they are members of this organization and it is correct for a news outlet to call them that. If you don’t think they act appropriately enjoy to use the label, talk to the organization that bestows the label on them

But the article *is* using the words as adjectives, there's no mention of an organisation. What organisation are you referring to? And even if there is an organisation, it doesn't mean that news media should affirm their self identification. It would not be right, for instance, for the media to refer to the Nazis as Socialists just because their name includes that word.

oh jhfc, they are not adjectives the media has randomly chosen — those people self-identify and are members of that group. The people who attended that conference are members of that group — it is not on the news media to judge the behavior of those members or how much they conform to your judgement of them

it’s “wrong” to you

Stop trying to make the news outlet responsible for your opinion and we won’t go around again

Why are we going round in circles like this? I've already explained why the word usage is wrong

it's not just "wrong to me", it's factually incorrect, and genuinely unhelpful.

do you know everyone at the event? Maybe next time you should attend and hand out “good evangelical” and “bad evangelical” ribbons

theoretically there could be some individuals of any description at any event, but the use of a word in describing a group, as above by the OP, implied that the label is an accurate descriptor of the majority of the group

 

 

Wes Streeting has spoken about how he “agonised” after feeling “forced to choose” between faith and sexuality

God loves humanity and has given guidance RE relationships, including that sex should be restricted to heterosexual marriage. That doesn't change the fact that He loves *people* themselves.

(NB, having an orientation does not obligate one to act upon it, and it's action rather than orientation that is prohibited - there are plenty of gay Christians, and some of us straight Christians, who are celibate)

*All* of us (human beings, of all orientations) have done some things that we shouldn't have (not necessarily RE sex, but so many other things), separating ourselves from God because He is Holy, yet Jesus makes it possible for anyone who genuinely chooses to turn to Him to be reconciled with God.

 

 

Family of Churchill hit out at St Paul's over 'white supremacist' comments

He *was* a white supremacist, have people not read what he said about people from elsewhere? Why whitewash history?

Our country is desperate to worship him, and we shouldn't - especially at St Paul's or any other Church.

History should be explored with accuracy. All historical figures are flawed - to entirely differing extents ("flawed" sounds insufficient to describe Churchill's attitudes) - and we shouldn't cover those things up in an attempt to deify them, we don't need false gods.

Obviously, it's beyond awesome that Churchill was part of defeating Hitler (note that soldiers, scientists and others were crucial), but that doesn't mean that other historical truths should be hidden. History is about things that actually happened, not sentimental attachments.

Hello Grace. I knew you could not resist the temptation to try to rewrite history! The fact that the woke idiot who posted the original comments about Churchill says everything about how incorrect was the statement about white supremacists. Otherwise, why take it down? The only query is why did it take the blinkered twit so long to admit he was wrong. It was taken down because it was offensive, incorrect and blatantly biased. Put concisely, Churchill, supported by Clement Attlee and the Labour party, won the war. They gave you your freedom to enable now try to transfer the perspectives of 1939-45 into today's woke CofE speak. I can recommend a very good book called 'Attlee and Churchill' by Leo McKinstry. You will like it because Leo used to be a Labour Councillor. On the other hand, you might not like it because it does not conform to the dubious, woke views of St Paul's

What? "The fact that the woke idiot who posted the original comments about Churchill says everything about how incorrect was the statement about white supremacists." makes no sense. And it was taken down, obviously, because people who idolise Churchill moaned.

"put concisely"? I didn't dispute that the war was won - though it's wrong to say that politicians "won the war", the war was won by the *collective* efforts of politicians *and* others, including intellectuals like Turing and soldiers who gave their lives. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Churchill was a white supremacist.

What "rewriting" exactly have I done?

NB, stop using woke as a pejorative, it makes you look very uninformed.

Cathedral and John King.

 

 

The Woman Who Bought a Mountain for God

God already owns all the mountains.

Jesus didn't call us to buy land in which to isolate ourselves from the world. We should be seeking to do good in the world, and to tell the world about Him.

This movement^ sounds like it's trying to recreate territorialism of some Old Testament characters, we ought instead to be seeking to emulate Christ.

 

 

"Christian Nationalism" is an oxymoron, there is no such thing

It’s basically just another term for “conservative values” using religious ignorance as a smokescreen.

It isn't though. "Christian", by definition, means to follow Christ, and the long misuse of it is problematic, not least because it enables some people to pretend that they're Godly as a cover for selfishness. We should use words accurately so that we can convey concerns clearly.

If someone is committed to following Christ, who said that His kingdom is not of this world and who counter-culturally told people to love those from elsewhere, they won't be a nationalist.

It’s more the fact bigoted hateful racists seem to whine about it being a “Christian Country” and the kind of people who dip their oar into reproductive rights seem to use Christianity as a smoke screen for their ignorance by claiming god said so or words to that effect. I dismiss religion as a concept outright not one excluded because it’s dangerously divisive past it’s sell by date nonsense.

"reproductive rights" is an unclear phrase, and people have very differing views and motivations on this issue.

How are you defining "religion"?

People who moan about this being a Christian country are most often not really trying to follow Jesus (though it may depend on the context in which it's said). And no country can really be Christian, in that to be genuinely Christian is to personally choose to follow Jesus, that's a decision that each person makes for themselves (though much about our shared values and culture relate to the Christians in our history influencing things - such as Wilberforce and other Christians recognising that slavery is evil, despite it having existed in many cultures; many schools, charities and hospitals were founded by Christians; various famous scientists were Christians driven by a desire to understand God's creation; etc). Anyone who is actually a Christian should be trying to emulate and talk about Jesus, not go on and on about being a "Christian country".

Religion should be as past it’s sell by date as any other mythology by now. Not one moron-manual or whining blasphemy rebranded “thought crime” respected or excluded. It’s dangerously divisive nonsense.

"reproductive rights" is an unclear phrase, and people have very differing views and motivations on this issue.

How are you defining "religion"?

People who moan about this being a Christian country are most often not really trying to follow Jesus (though it may depend on the context in which it's said). And no country can really be Christian, in that to be genuinely Christian is to personally choose to follow Jesus, that's a decision that each person makes for themselves (though much about our shared values and culture relate to the Christians in our history influencing things - such as Wilberforce and other Christians recognising that slavery is evil, despite it having existed in many cultures; many schools, charities and hospitals were founded by Christians; various famous scientists were Christians driven by a desire to understand God's creation; etc). Anyone who is actually a Christian should be trying to emulate and talk about Jesus, not go on and on about being a "Christian country".

 

 

In its decision permitting an evangelical Christian web designer to refuse service for same-sex weddings

She feels that she couldn't actively contribute to a same sex wedding, that's because of the concept, not the individuals themselves. She is, rightly, happy to work with gay people on other things.

Christianity teaches that God, who loves humanity and has ultimate wisdom, gave guidance that sexual relationships should be restricted to heterosexual marriage - so many Christians feel that participation in an event celebrating the contrary would be like holding a middle finger up to God. And because God loves those gay people too (every bit as much as straight people), to contribute to something one believes a loving, wise God has guided against might not feel like actually caring for those potential customers. If my Dad warned against something, me helping my sister to do that thing wouldn't necessarily be loving to her - and not joining in with it wouldn't mean that I don't care about her or that I oppose her herself as a person. Again, it's about the action NOT the person.

Of course, there are people who are genuinely hateful towards LGBT folk, and that's utterly unacceptable and unChristian. It's also incredibly important that, as Christians, we constantly reflect on the fact that we ourselves are not better than anyone else and have failed to follow God's guidance, we need the forgiveness that is offered through Jesus to everyone. Some of the words and actions of some Christians (or people who call themselves Christians but might not actually be following Christ at all) suggest a failure to keep these things in mind.

your religion has no place in our government.

I didn't say that it has. What you're (by implication) suggesting is that government should force people to express things that they don't believe in. It would be like an atheist or Muslim web designer being told that, if they were ever asked to create an evangelistic website, they'd *have* to do it. If the woman was forced to create the hypothetical website in this case, *that* would be beliefs "in your government"

But did you actually read my comment?

We read it, Grace. You didn’t address the key question: what about the Americans who don’t believe in your White Sky Daddy?

What about them?

'Judge not, lest you be judged', 'Vengeance is mine', 'turn other cheek', these would seem to suggest that God gets to judge, not his adherents. But you go on pretending to 'preach love', enjoy. Bear in mind that the Pope thought Trump wasn't Christian... like he'd know, right?

How are you defining "judging" exactly? The Bible also says that we should "judge all things", and everyone makes decisions or forms views on different things. Clearly plenty of people judge this woman. What she shouldn't be doing is holding feelings of judgementalism or disdain for LGBT folk, not making a website for a specific event doesn't mean that she is. Did you read what I wrote in the first place?

Trump is indeed not a Christian. It's deeply disturbing that do many people are so very, very supportive of him - not because of his not being a Christian, we shouldn't expect our leaders to share our beliefs, but because many of his policies and views are so diametrically opposed to what anyone following Jesus would want to see (such as halting the climate change that's hurting the poorest people)

By judging I mean condemning, and that's everywhere from the so-called Christians.

As I wrote, some people who call themselves Christians wrongly talk in a way that appears to disregard the fact that we ourselves also need the forgiveness that Jesus makes possible. But I'm not sure how you're defining "condemning", or what it has to do with not making a website

Condemning isn't a difficult word.

I didn't say that it's "difficult", I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by it given that condemnation is not something I observe "everywhere".

Go on then, tell me how not creating a specific celebration website is "condemning"

 

 

Ron DeSantis Says He's a Christian. He Should Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan

YES. Many people on the Left support ideas that are contrary to God's guidance RE relationships, gender and abortion - but Jesus *is* Left wing on various issues, He absolutely does command us to sacrificially love our neighbour *from elsewhere*

 

 

France riots: hundreds arrested in fourth night of unrest as 45,000 police deployed

Gross to loot and to damage other people's property or public buildings etc like this. It doesn't change the tragedy of the killing (of the teen by an officer) whatsoever, it's just hooliganism and greed.

 

 

Federal judge blocks Kentucky's ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors

It's not care

are you a doctor or a transgender? If not, your opinion doesn't matter in the least.

Since it's you seemingly advocating children being drugged to interfere with their growth, and worse, what are *your* medical qualifications?

I'm finishing a Biomedical science degree, I work with (medical) doctors. But either way, you just committed the Ad Hominem fallacy.

I think it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what is right for other people. It should be up to parents and doctors to decide the best course of action. I'm advocating for freedom from government interference is people's doctors appointments. Why are Republicans so hell bent on restricting other humans rights to body autonomy?

"why are Republicans so hell bent"? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not a Republican. But as I presume you'd agree, government *should* restrict things that harm vulnerable people. If a child feels that they're in the wrong body, it is not caring to reinforce that idea and to give them drugs that interfere with their growth, leaving them with long term health risks including weakened bones. They're being put onto a pathway that makes them lifelong patients, constantly dependent on more injections - and there isn't medical evidence showing that this is right thing to do, meanwhile there is evidence showing that almost all young people who are uncomfortable with their biological sex/gender feel fine with it after puberty *if* their new identity is not reinforced.

As is evident from other situations, being a parent doesn't *always* mean only wanting the best for one's child. There are a small minority of parents who have wrong motives, in this case there have been accounts of some parents wishing to have a daughter instead of a son for instance. But most parents are simply desperate - and they're often being led to believe that their child could kill themselves if not affirmed (contrary to the evidence, as above). Meanwhile the doctors and organisations involved in this stand to profit phenomenally (it's capitalism taking advantage of vulnerable people, not progressive)

*Care* would be, as is the practice for young people who have body dysmorphia or anorexia (both of which I was diagnosed with in my teens), to help a young person to feel OK in their own skin, and to know that they can be unique and break gender stereotypes.

 

 

After right-wing protesters started disrupting drag queen story hours in Sweden's libraries, Stockholm deputy mayor Jan Jönsson decided to [do drag story time]

How does this help the children?

NB It's not just "right wingers" who are concerned

it’s just fascists who are suddenly “concerned” as a smokescreen for scapegoating queer folks as their ‘other’ to hate and push their fascist ideology.

What exactly is fascist about not wanting this in front of children? I get that there are fascists amongst those protesting it, but that doesn't mean that everyone opposed is fascist. How are you defining "fascist"? I for one am generally left wing, and my biggest political concern is the exploitation and suffering of people in the very poorest parts of the world. Are the Muslim parents who've been protesting Pride parades in schools "fascist"

What's "sudden" is the movement to hold "drag queen story time" etc.

What's the "ideology"?

Why do you need to ask the question? Do you not understand what is actually going on? Are you pretending to not know what fascism is or are you simply deflecting because you are in fact a fascist supporting the recent attacks on queer people? Are you unaware that drag has existed in children’s entertainment for over a century or are you again deflecting because you’re engaging in ‘othering’ people because you are a fascist?

Why are you deflecting to the Middle East and directing the discussion to irrelevant subjects?

I'm genuinely asking, seriously. Why not answer? How can people understand if you throw around words like fascist but won't explain?

Deflecting to the Middle East? I'm not, I've seen Muslim parents protesting here in Britain and in Canada. I'm constantly trying to look at issues fom all sides, including those I disagree with, to get a fuller understanding, I get the impression that you've been in an echo chamber.

I’m genuinely asking you? Why not answer yourself? Why pose ideologically based questions that you use to deflect from answering? Why are you deflecting? Why are you trying to shift topics? Why are you using rhetoric and anecdotal generalizations?

"why not answer yourself"? It was you who replied to my comment using specific terms and I asked you to clarify, I don't know why you won't.

How am I deflecting or shifting topics? What "rhetoric" and generalisations? You calling people who disagree with you fascists is pretty much rhetoric and generalisation. And you're totally entitled to make the comment, but I don't see what it acheives nor how it's a logical point, particularly when you won't explain.

Again, why are you answering questions with questions? Why are you posing ideologically bent questions? Why are you shifting topics to avoid answering your own questions?

Why are you trying to redefine fascist? Are you a fascist? Why are you defending fascism? Why are you defending fascist ideology?

Answer your question with questions? It was you who replied to my original comment, and I asked you to clarify. Now you're just going round in circles.

I didn't try to redefine fascist, I asked what you meant and you apparanetly aren't able to explain. I'm not a fascist nor defending facsism, but I couldn't care less what you call me, especially when you evidently can't even define the word.

Where did I call you a fascist? Did I not answer your post with exactly how fascists are pushing the hate propaganda against queer folk?

Why do you agree with fascist ideology on attacking queer folk? Why are you intentionally deflecting by asking for basic definitions? Are you genuinely ignorant or is it simply a debate strategy to support your ideology?

I didn't say that you called me fascist, you wrote "Why are you trying to redefine fascist? Are you a fascist? Why are you defending fascism? Why are you defending fascist ideology?" And I answered. Now you're saying "Why do you agree with fascist ideology on attacking queer folk?", though I never said that I do, so it seems that you are trying to call me fascist, and I don't care what you think because I know that I'm not, but I'm fascinated that throwing around the word "fascist" monotonously appears to be your only argument, especially when you can't define it.

No, you didn't "answer your post with exactly how fascists are pushing the hate propaganda against queer folk" - I commented that it's not only right wingers who are concerned about drag in front of kids and you then claimed that the concern is fascism. I acknowledged that there are some fascists who are opposed, but that doesn't mean at all that everyone who's concerned is fascist. It's like the fact that people who are very Left wing and who protest about climate change (I'm not criticising them) are concerned about Global warming, but that doesn't mean that everyone who's concerned about Global warming is very Left wing and protests.

I'm not deflecting, and I was asking for definitions because I was trying to understand what you yourself personally mean.

 

We've been watching drag artists all our lives, from Some Like It Hot to Hinge and Bracket and far beyond. No one thought anything of it. Now some people are making it an issue because they are anti LGBT and so want to pretend that it will encourage children to 'become queer'. Did it do that to any of us ? No of course not. Gender and sexual orientation are hard-wired into us and more or less impossible to change (although sadly denial has had its place in the story).

Not the same. That's just cross dressing, as a joke in films for adults. Drag culture, now being aimed at kids, is derived from gay clubs - which is OK* for those adults who want to watch it (*except that it's seriously mysoginistic) but it's not kids' entertainment. As Tracy wrote, there's tonnes of inuendo and it's highly sexualised.

I'm not claiming that any of this makes kids become queer, but some kids are encouraged to mimic some of what they see - which, when it includes such actions as twerking, puts those kids at risk (I don't doubt that there are also other things, such as some music vodeos, which are problematic for this reason)

And again - how does this help kids? Serious question, what exactly is the motivation? I've asked this many times and no one's given me an answer, other than someone who said, in all seriousness and as a defense of it, that "it's empowering for men".

 

 

Trump doesn’t just cross moral lines; he doesn’t appear capable of understanding moral categories

Observing from the UK, I followed him on Facebook to see his own words and better understand why he's so controversial. As a Christian, I was particularly struck by how how attitude is entirely antithetical to everything Jesus taught.

Jesus wasn’t pimping abortion and homosexuality. That is the political religion of the alt left

Sure, but that doesn't mean that Trump isn't also out of line with Jesus' teaching. God does indeed lay out guidelines RE sex/relationships and against killing - but He *also* hates pride, selfishness and xenophobia.

 

can you specify what attitudes ?

The arrogance was especially striking, God hates that. But obviously, also, the disregard for vulnerable people, perversion, hatred of those with different views....

Yes, Jesus hates arrogance, but that's a little different than being self- confident. Trump actually did more for vulnerable groups. Obama disparaged Christianity every chance he got. Trump insured that Freedom of Religion was respected. Sex trafficking ( especially of children) was rampant ( as it is under Biden) , Trump established an anti- trafficking force that saved hundreds of trafficked children. Trump fought against abortion ( the most vunerable group), Obama and Biden seem to worship abortion and strippers in elementary schools. But, I guess it depends on how you define your " Christianity".

Trump is not just "self-confident", he is monumentally arrogant, prideful, boastful, and God hates that (as well as perverted "joking" Trump has engaged in, if not worse, and I could go on).

If he really saved children from trafficking - do you have evidence? - that's awesome, but it's a separate matter, as are the views/actions of Biden and Obama.

Christianity is to follow Christ, since you asked, and Trump continually demonstrated an attitude contrary to that. I'm horrified by things that the Democrats are doing also, but that's whataboutism/a non-sequitur, it doesn't change the point