Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[CaptainJackson]

Yeah and? I know that bro, your not talking to a dumb ****. I was replying to your quote that you sprout every couple of days. We know you strayed from Islam, we know you hate religion and religious people.

When we talk about religion you're the first one in to indirectly bag it and comment on it (where I directly bag out the extremist fuckwit atheists who talk shit. That's fine, you are still my brother. But don't act like it's religious people throwing it in your face, athiests, like vegans, love to show hate by their arrogance and superiority complexes.

For those who call to want to punch a Nazi, sounds like self directed hatred as they are acting like Nazis.

YES my faith that I would die defending tells me to turn the other cheek, but not against evil ***** insulting my faith or me. Obviously not pointed at you as we can discuss everything and anything while not punching on and respecting our differences.

Tank the basic point is, In the SSM debate, the no side only had "beliefs" to back up their case, they had no solid groundwork for their opposition

The yes side has current anti-discrimantion laws to back up their case and that marriage had to be updated to reflect these laws.

So when wahesh introduces his religious beliefs, again he can believe in it as much as he wants but it has nothing to do with SSM because not everyone shares his religious beliefs.

Meanwhile our anti discrimination laws exist we all share that and the SSM was an update to the existing anti discrimination laws

So in this legal case if I say keep religion to yourself to wahesh, it means that there's a lot of us who don't live by his religious laws and hence we're not interested in it.

Whereas anti discrimination laws are valid for everyone (except in churches, synagogues etc).

 

[CaptainJackson]

Actually there are still a few Christian countries. A little known fact I'd that England is still a theocracy and its laws are still governed by Christianity.

Funnily enough I'd say its the most tolerant and open minded of English speaking, first world western nations, even the ones that are secular

 

[The DoggFather]

Tank the basic point is, In the SSM debate, the no side only had "beliefs" to back up their case, they had no solid groundwork for their opposition

The yes side has current anti-discrimantion laws to back up their case and that marriage had to be updated to reflect these laws.

So when wahesh introduces his religious beliefs, again he can believe in it as much as he wants but it has nothing to do with SSM because not everyone shares his religious beliefs.

Meanwhile our anti discrimination laws exist we all share that and the SSM was an update to the existing anti discrimination laws

So in this legal case if I say keep religion to yourself to wahesh, it means that there's a lot of us who don't live by his religious laws and hence we're not interested in it.

Whereas anti discrimination laws are valid for everyone (except in churches, synagogues etc).

I'm sorry brother but your whole post is invalid from the first sentence. You can't say the "no side" and "yes side", there were intelligent people (few, not many) on both sides who stated their reasons without prejudice why they picked what they were asked to picked. Even us that didn't vote who just wanted fairness for all. As everyone knows that was I. I wanted all faiths (not just mine) to be protected but I wanted humans to be treated as humans.

Once we were protected and good people like our sister @Lov_Dog can marry like we can, I regret not joining the sheep exercise of voting and voting yes, but that was due to the shadiness of the government. If she can marry the lady that can love and look after her, this plebiscite, believe it or Not, was worth the 120 million. If she wants us there at her celebration, I'd be one of the first ones there.

Wahesh is entitled to use his belief to influence his view just as you are entitled to use your non-belief to influence your view.

Do you really think a true religious person cares what someone does outside the Church? We can't, if we want to stay true to our own core beliefs. You me as an example, one of the biggest sinners just trying to be true to myself.

Main point is I agree with your last paragraph, people don't want opposing views forced onto them, no matter what they believe or don't. Also labels on people are evil and just used to incite more hatred and separation, just as TPTB want it.

Don't be a product of the media, the media is like your wife, forget the 1000's of little things that you do right and focus on the 2-3 bad things you may have done. (Pardon the pun).

PS I'm glad that shops and businesses can't discriminate. Try looking like me walking into a high end shop like I did with Hugo Boss or LV with my missus this holiday. In Boss (the only brand I love because fuck brand names) I was ignored by the Anglo staff blowing all the Anglos who all did not buy anything for 17 mins. I walked in, found the hat I wanted and stood there as a "social experiment", they only started blowing me when I said loudly "what, non white money is no good here?" Then the dick sucking marathon started which I flipped the table on them and turned into a **** on. I even complained to the manager and ripped him apart.

He tried to offer me a discount and future vouchers which the obvious reply in TANK fashion... just said "stick your fucking discount and vouchers up your arse and respect everyone not just Anglos who waste time and don't buy shit".

PS he tried to offer me "free membership", I have been a member for years and its free anyways lol

PPS I wish I didn't need the newest hat for my collection so I could of just walked out lol

 

[The DoggFather]

Actually there are still a few Christian countries. A little known fact I'd that England is still a theocracy and its laws are still governed by Christianity.

The same England that is a global joke for letting in Muslim refugees? Yeah, they MAY be still Christian then. Because us Christians are the bad guys these days according to the media. I mean Isis only beheads people but us damn Christians want to protect our Churches. Shame on us.

 

[Dawgfather]

drivel
ˈdrɪv(ə)l/
noun

1. 1.
   nonsense.
   "don't talk such drivel!"
   synonyms: nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo; More

verb

1. 1.
   talk nonsense.
   "he was drivelling on about the glory days"
   synonyms: talk nonsense, talk rubbish, babble, ramble, gibber, burble, blather, blether, prate, prattle, gabble, chatter, twitter, maunder; More
2. 2.
   archaic
   let saliva or mucus flow from the mouth or nose.
   "the nurse leaves you to drivel, and never wipes your nose"

Bait taken. Hopefully you look more intelligent than you act.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I'm sorry brother but your whole post is invalid from the first sentence. You can't say the "no side" and "yes side", there were intelligent people (few, not many) on both sides who stated their reasons without prejudice why they picked what they were asked to picked. Even us that didn't vote who just wanted fairness for all. As everyone knows that was I. I wanted all faiths (not just mine) to be protected but I wanted humans to be treated as humans.

Once we were protected and good people like our sister @Lov_Dog can marry like we can, I regret not joining the sheep exercise of voting and voting yes, but that was due to the shadiness of the government. If she can marry the lady that can love and look after her, this plebiscite, believe it or Not, was worth the 120 million. If she wants us there at her celebration, I'd be one of the first ones there.

Wahesh is entitled to use his belief to influence his view just as you are entitled to use your non-belief to influence your view.

Do you really think a true religious person cares what someone does outside the Church? We can't, if we want to stay true to our own core beliefs. You me as an example, one of the biggest sinners just trying to be true to myself.

Main point is I agree with your last paragraph, people don't want opposing views forced onto them, no matter what they believe or don't. Also labels on people are evil and just used to incite more hatred and separation, just as TPTB want it.

Don't be a product of the media, the media is like your wife, forget the 1000's of little things that you do right and focus on the 2-3 bad things you may have done. (Pardon the pun).

PS I'm glad that shops and businesses can't discriminate. Try looking like me walking into a high end shop like I did with Hugo Boss or LV with my missus this holiday. In Boss (the only brand I love because fuck brand names) I was ignored by the Anglo staff blowing all the Anglos who all did not buy anything for 17 mins. I walked in, found the hat I wanted and stood there as a "social experiment", they only started blowing me when I said loudly "what, non white money is no good here?" Then the dick sucking marathon started which I flipped the table on them and turned into a **** on. I even complained to the manager and ripped him apart.

He tried to offer me a discount and future vouchers which the obvious reply in TANK fashion... just said "stick your fucking discount and vouchers up your arse and respect everyone not just Anglos who waste time and don't buy shit".

PS he tried to offer me "free membership", I have been a member for years and its free anyways lol

PPS I wish I didn't need the newest hat for my collection so I could of just walked out lol

Bro I take many of your points but you're not seeming to understand mine.

Wahesh went on a religious explanation And I understand it comes from a good spot but for those of us who don't believe in it, that religious explanation is quite offensive. So I'm not saying wahesh was trying to be offensive but the religious explanation is offensive.

I said to wahesh he would be better of saying "to you your way to me mine", which is a respectful way of saying he doesn't agree with the decision but so be it.

Wahesh responded to my post with peace to me and that was appropriate response that was the response that should have been offered in the first place rather than a religious explanation that others find offensive.

Fact is bro we operate under secular laws and our interaction in this multi cultural society is under secular laws. There are many different religions practised in Australia and the respect and freedom is given for people to practise these religions in far as that they do not harm or interfere with anyone else.

So this was purely a case of a logical explanation that those religious beliefs are harmful to the lgbt community and that it's best to probably not offer that up as an excuse to oppose SSM. It's probably best to just keep it to yourselves.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The same England that is a global joke for letting in Muslim refugees? Yeah, they MAY be still Christian then. Because us Christians are the bad guys these days according to the media. I mean Isis only beheads people but us damn Christians want to protect our Churches. Shame on us.

You're thinking of Germany.

England let in refugees but they didn't have a say about it. Germany and several other countries voted for England to take refugees. As England are part of the European Union, they had no say in the matter. That's why the Brexit (British exit from the European Union) vote started. English were sick of the European Union telling them that they had to take in refugees when they didn't want to.

 

[CaptainJackson]

When we talk about religion you're the first one in to indirectly bag it and comment on it (where I directly bag out the extremist fuckwit atheists who talk shit. That's fine, you are still my brother. But don't act like it's religious people throwing it in your face, athiests, like vegans, love to show hate by their arrogance and superiority complexes.

For those who call to want to punch a Nazi, sounds like self directed hatred as they are acting like Nazis.

Just re reading the posts and I missed this one.

It's called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance requires a person to be tolerant but where does that tolerance stop/continue.

Somewhere down the line every individual makes makes a choice of where their tolerance stops because each person does have a set value of morals and this defines when they stop being tolerant.

So opposing Nazi wannabes does not make me a Nazi, that's a mistruth by the alt right, its a typical tactic of theirs to purposefully confuse some terms which were used to attack them.

The term Nazi is used to describe fascsim and it's facets

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now I get it when the alt right (or people who've been confused by the alt rights misuse of this word) use nazi back on the left its to indicate that they are closing down or opposing "free speech".

But the key thing here is if someone correctly labels a statement bigotry, homophobia etc it's not closing down free speech. That person has still had their say and that person still has the opportunity to state their case with an appropriate use of facts, actual facts not cherry picked data like shapiro or gross generalisations like milo.

But again if the labels of bigotry/homophobia were CORRECTLY used then maybe just maybe the person making those offensive views should review their views.

These protests against milo as an example, that wasn't, In my eyes, closing down free speech (I'm sure hacky will disagree with me here) because milo has already been promoted massively. He's a high figure amongst media, He had numerous appearances on Australian tv, the "news"paper the Australian had massive coverage supporting milo in their print media. He wasn't closed down at all, his views were opposed yes. But was his free speech, as abhorrent as it is, closed down? Fuck no.

Did he say anything new in his seminars? Fuck no he's said all that shit before.

(Just as an aside I went to a Richard Dawkins seminar and was dissappointed that nothing new was said it was all re hashed shit and won't be going to another seminar, whether it be dawkins or anyone else , cause those articles/books are available)

So in conclusion labelling someone's stated views as bigotry homophobia or whatever is not closing down free speech.

Some of the idiots here have called me communist to try and stop the discussion and discredit me, what options do I have? Shut down of my own free choice or review my beliefs or continue to clarify my stance or retort to the mislabel of communist

But my speech hasn't been shut down

 

[Mr 95%]

I'm sorry brother but your whole post is invalid from the first sentence. You can't say the "no side" and "yes side", there were intelligent people (few, not many) on both sides who stated their reasons without prejudice why they picked what they were asked to picked. Even us that didn't vote who just wanted fairness for all. As everyone knows that was I. I wanted all faiths (not just mine) to be protected but I wanted humans to be treated as humans.

Once we were protected and good people like our sister @Lov_Dog can marry like we can, I regret not joining the sheep exercise of voting and voting yes, but that was due to the shadiness of the government. If she can marry the lady that can love and look after her, this plebiscite, believe it or Not, was worth the 120 million. If she wants us there at her celebration, I'd be one of the first ones there.

Wahesh is entitled to use his belief to influence his view just as you are entitled to use your non-belief to influence your view.

Do you really think a true religious person cares what someone does outside the Church? We can't, if we want to stay true to our own core beliefs. You me as an example, one of the biggest sinners just trying to be true to myself.

Main point is I agree with your last paragraph, people don't want opposing views forced onto them, no matter what they believe or don't. Also labels on people are evil and just used to incite more hatred and separation, just as TPTB want it.

Don't be a product of the media, the media is like your wife, forget the 1000's of little things that you do right and focus on the 2-3 bad things you may have done. (Pardon the pun).

PS I'm glad that shops and businesses can't discriminate. Try looking like me walking into a high end shop like I did with Hugo Boss or LV with my missus this holiday. In Boss (the only brand I love because fuck brand names) I was ignored by the Anglo staff blowing all the Anglos who all did not buy anything for 17 mins. I walked in, found the hat I wanted and stood there as a "social experiment", they only started blowing me when I said loudly "what, non white money is no good here?" Then the dick sucking marathon started which I flipped the table on them and turned into a **** on. I even complained to the manager and ripped him apart.

He tried to offer me a discount and future vouchers which the obvious reply in TANK fashion... just said "stick your fucking discount and vouchers up your arse and respect everyone not just Anglos who waste time and don't buy shit".

PS he tried to offer me "free membership", I have been a member for years and its free anyways lol

PPS I wish I didn't need the newest hat for my collection so I could of just walked out lol

They may have been parramatta supporters..

Ps.. Hugo Boss???? I thought all YOU GUYS wore Everlast and Adidas.. Ha ha ha ha ha

 

[south of heaven]

Every **** now should just focus on having a nice xmas with freinds and family. Pretty simples

 

[CaptainJackson]

Every **** now should just focus on having a nice xmas with freinds and family. Pretty simples

Fucking fence sitter pacifist

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Just re reading the posts and I missed this one.

It's called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance requires a person to be tolerant but where does that tolerance stop/continue.

Somewhere down the line every individual makes makes a choice of where their tolerance stops because each person does have a set value of morals and this defines when they stop being tolerant.

So opposing Nazi wannabes does not make me a Nazi, that's a mistruth by the alt right, its a typical tactic of theirs to purposefully confuse some terms which were used to attack them.

The term Nazi is used to describe fascsim and it's facets

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now I get it when the alt right (or people who've been confused by the alt rights misuse of this word) use nazi back on the left its to indicate that they are closing down or opposing "free speech".

But the key thing here is if someone correctly labels a statement bigotry, homophobia etc it's not closing down free speech. That person has still had their say and that person still has the opportunity to state their case with an appropriate use of facts, actual facts not cherry picked data like shapiro or gross generalisations like milo.

But again if the labels of bigotry/homophobia were CORRECTLY used then maybe just maybe the person making those offensive views should review their views.

These protests against milo as an example, that wasn't, In my eyes, closing down free speech (I'm sure hacky will disagree with me here) because milo has already been promoted massively. He's a high figure amongst media, He had numerous appearances on Australian tv, the "news"paper the Australian had massive coverage supporting milo in their print media. He wasn't closed down at all, his views were opposed yes. But was his free speech, as abhorrent as it is, closed down? Fuck no.

Did he say anything new in his seminars? Fuck no he's said all that shit before.

(Just as an aside I went to a Richard Dawkins seminar and was dissappointed that nothing new was said it was all re hashed shit and won't be going to another seminar, whether it be dawkins or anyone else , cause those articles/books are available)

So in conclusion labelling someone's stated views as bigotry homophobia or whatever is not closing down free speech.

Some of the idiots here have called me communist to try and stop the discussion and discredit me, what options do I have? Shut down of my own free choice or review my beliefs or continue to clarify my stance or retort to the mislabel of communist

But my speech hasn't been shut down

All accurate. I would slightly argue on the Fascism point but just to add that all Nazis are Fascists but not all Fascists are Nazis (there has been many Fascist movements). Fascism isn't a good thing though. Also I would argue that Trump is definitely not a Fascist even though he's often labelled as one. He has some close proximity to Fascism but he's not one as he actively supports non-Fascist ideals like democracy.

I would also add that I wouldn't disagree with you on the protesters. As I said many times, the protesters weren't shutting down free speech. That's just a thing the Milo supporters say 'cause they don't understand free speech. Even the police said that the protesters had the right to be there.

The issue with the protest was the violence. As the police said, both groups had a right to be there but the right wing group most likely turned up to cause trouble. That was speculation though because they didn't get a chance. The moment they turned up they were attacked by the protesters.

Free speech is one of the most misunderstood things. It just means that someone can't prevent you from speaking and you can't be charged for saying something. There's no real free speech in the world though. Every country has a different level of it. Australia has "free speech except if it insults someone", America has "free speech unless it deliberately instigates violence"

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Every **** now should just focus on having a nice xmas with freinds and family. Pretty simples

I'll Christmas you in a minute!

 

[CaptainJackson]

All accurate. I would slightly argue on the Fascism point but just to add that all Nazis are Fascists but not all Fascists are Nazis (there has been many Fascist movements). Fascism isn't a good thing though. Also I would argue that Trump is definitely not a Fascist even though he's often labelled as one. He has some close proximity to Fascism but he's not one as he actively supports non-Fascist ideals like democracy.

I would also add that I wouldn't disagree with you on the protesters. As I said many times, the protesters weren't shutting down free speech. That's just a thing the Milo supporters say 'cause they don't understand free speech. Even the police said that the protesters had the right to be there.

The issue with the protest was the violence. As the police said, both groups had a right to be there but the right wing group most likely turned up to cause trouble. That was speculation though because they didn't get a chance. The moment they turned up they were attacked by the protesters.

Free speech is one of the most misunderstood things. It just means that someone can't prevent you from speaking and you can't be charged for saying something. There's no real free speech in the world though. Every country has a different level of it. Australia has "free speech except if it insults someone", America has "free speech unless it deliberately instigates violence"

The use of the term fascist against Trump is more of a generalisation as many of his ideals border on fascism, e.g. shutting down media with "fake news", authoritarian tendencies (he HAS to operate in a democracy because that's what he is in), racism, etc

So I'd think that it's more used as an ease of reference in this case to the opposition of trumps tendencies that do border on fascism ideals.

Free speech has its roots in the government not punishing you and closing you down, ie book burning, erasing history, locking people up for views

And the whole socialist alternative attacking those extreme right wing groups comes from a whole history of conflicts in the past few years between those groups, it was always going to blow up given the history in Melbourne. It's gone past the stage of just peaceful protests between those groups.

Vice media actually recorded Neil eriksoon before he attended the rally and he stated right in front of the camera that his aim was to stir the leftys up.

 

[The DoggFather]

Bro I take many of your points but you're not seeming to understand mine.

Wahesh went on a religious explanation And I understand it comes from a good spot but for those of us who don't believe in it, that religious explanation is quite offensive. So I'm not saying wahesh was trying to be offensive but the religious explanation is offensive.

I said to wahesh he would be better of saying "to you your way to me mine", which is a respectful way of saying he doesn't agree with the decision but so be it.

Wahesh responded to my post with peace to me and that was appropriate response that was the response that should have been offered in the first place rather than a religious explanation that others find offensive.

Fact is bro we operate under secular laws and our interaction in this multi cultural society is under secular laws. There are many different religions practised in Australia and the respect and freedom is given for people to practise these religions in far as that they do not harm or interfere with anyone else.

So this was purely a case of a logical explanation that those religious beliefs are harmful to the lgbt community and that it's best to probably not offer that up as an excuse to oppose SSM. It's probably best to just keep it to yourselves.

Ok thanks for explaining but just remember in the case of your last two paragraphs I follow the same faith as Wahesh. We have convos about everything without forcing our views on eachother.

I keep it to myself until bigots and fuckwit atheists try to talk shit.

 

[The DoggFather]

You're thinking of Germany.

England let in refugees but they didn't have a say about it. Germany and several other countries voted for England to take refugees. As England are part of the European Union, they had no say in the matter. That's why the Brexit (British exit from the European Union) vote started. English were sick of the European Union telling them that they had to take in refugees when they didn't want to.

Well Germans are direct descendants of us Assyrians. No good deed goes unpunished lol

 

[The DoggFather]

Just re reading the posts and I missed this one.

It's called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance requires a person to be tolerant but where does that tolerance stop/continue.

Somewhere down the line every individual makes makes a choice of where their tolerance stops because each person does have a set value of morals and this defines when they stop being tolerant.

So opposing Nazi wannabes does not make me a Nazi, that's a mistruth by the alt right, its a typical tactic of theirs to purposefully confuse some terms which were used to attack them.

The term Nazi is used to describe fascsim and it's facets

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now I get it when the alt right (or people who've been confused by the alt rights misuse of this word) use nazi back on the left its to indicate that they are closing down or opposing "free speech".

But the key thing here is if someone correctly labels a statement bigotry, homophobia etc it's not closing down free speech. That person has still had their say and that person still has the opportunity to state their case with an appropriate use of facts, actual facts not cherry picked data like shapiro or gross generalisations like milo.

But again if the labels of bigotry/homophobia were CORRECTLY used then maybe just maybe the person making those offensive views should review their views.

These protests against milo as an example, that wasn't, In my eyes, closing down free speech (I'm sure hacky will disagree with me here) because milo has already been promoted massively. He's a high figure amongst media, He had numerous appearances on Australian tv, the "news"paper the Australian had massive coverage supporting milo in their print media. He wasn't closed down at all, his views were opposed yes. But was his free speech, as abhorrent as it is, closed down? Fuck no.

Did he say anything new in his seminars? Fuck no he's said all that shit before.

(Just as an aside I went to a Richard Dawkins seminar and was dissappointed that nothing new was said it was all re hashed shit and won't be going to another seminar, whether it be dawkins or anyone else , cause those articles/books are available)

So in conclusion labelling someone's stated views as bigotry homophobia or whatever is not closing down free speech.

Some of the idiots here have called me communist to try and stop the discussion and discredit me, what options do I have? Shut down of my own free choice or review my beliefs or continue to clarify my stance or retort to the mislabel of communist

But my speech hasn't been shut down

You speak the truth bro, as do I.

Have we ever done this? I don't think we have. I just hate these groups calling the other group a Nazi. You're all the same shit, justifying your hate.

Anyways beautiful day up here I'm off to the beach.

 

[The DoggFather]

I'll Christmas you in a minute!

JINGLE THIS!

 

[The DoggFather]

They may have been parramatta supporters..

Ps.. Hugo Boss???? I thought all YOU GUYS wore Everlast and Adidas.. Ha ha ha ha ha

I'm only 1/4 Leb and 1/2 Iraqi lol I'm more classy you Leh!

PS the singlet I'm wearing now for swimming is Everlast lol I hate Adidas, only Nike for me bro lol

 

[Mr 95%]

I'm only 1/4 Leb and 1/2 Iraqi lol I'm more classy you Leh!

PS the singlet I'm wearing now for swimming is Everlast lol I hate Adidas, only Nike for me bro lol

Oops sorry bro..I didn’t take into account the Iraqi 1/2..nor did I realise the only 1/4 Leb..which accounts for the dislike of Adidas and Nike.. But what is not accounted for is the love of Hugo Boss hats..this is an example of a Hugo Boss hat below.. Actually this and the beard might actually look quite fetching.. ha ha ha ha!!!!