Is anyone genuinely going to boycott?

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

In before the lock. 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

Just now, hejammy said:

You could argue to a certain point that Science is based on faith - the faith of the scientist - faith that the parameters used are correct - scientific "fact" changes all the time - what was once perceived as fact can be replaced with a new "fact". So whatever your thoughts on Religion - wouldn't it be acceptable that you should respect the fact that some people believe in it and not ridicule it? 

I'm not ridiculing religion. I've said nothing to ridicule it.

 

As for science, of course it changes all the time. That's exactly how science works. It's an attempt to understand and explain how the world works based on the evidence available. When new evidence is found, the understanding of how the world works develops a little, and sometimes what was thought to be true is found to be not so true. It's a rational process. No scientist believes that current knowledge and understanding is complete; it's always only the best guess on the basis of what we know so far.

[K1FOX]

11 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Well apparently some people believe the world is flat. They're wrong. There are probably people who believe the sun goes round the earth. They're wrong. There are people who believe that everyone with brown skin should be kicked out of the UK. They're wrong.

And if there really are people who believe sexuality is a choice, then they're wrong too.

But who are you to say they’re wrong? They have belief in their religion. People waving rainbows in their country isn’t going to change their belief.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 minute ago, K1FOX said:

But who are you to say they’re wrong? They have belief in their religion. People waving rainbows in their country isn’t going to change their belief.

Do any religions actually say that sexuality is a choice? I know some say that homosexual acts are wrong/bad/sinful, but that's not quite the same thing.

[K1FOX]

2 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

I'm not ridiculing religion. I've said nothing to ridicule it.

 

As for science, of course it changes all the time. That's exactly how science works. It's an attempt to understand and explain how the world works based on the evidence available. When new evidence is found, the understanding of how the world works develops a little, and sometimes what was thought to be true is found to be not so true. It's a rational process. No scientist believes that current knowledge and understanding is complete; it's always only the best guess on the basis of what we know so far.

Maybe going off topic but there are ample examples that what’s been written in religious scriptures centuries ago now being proven by the science. Hard to argue with things like that and also difficult to call it irrational if there is evidence behind it.

[K1FOX]

2 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Do any religions actually say that sexuality is a choice? I know some say that homosexual acts are wrong/bad/sinful, but that's not quite the same thing.

Not that I’m aware of. 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

5 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

8 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Do any religions actually say that sexuality is a choice? I know some say that homosexual acts are wrong/bad/sinful, but that's not quite the same thing.

Not that I’m aware of. 

That's all I'm saying here, is that one's sexuality itself is not a choice.

What one does with that sexuality is a different kettle of fish and a whole other can of worms and this is so not the place to discuss religious attitudes to that..!

 

(If what you do with your sexuality involves either kettles of fish or cans of worms then I'm all for live and let live, but  Eewww...!)

[hejammy]

19 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

I'm not ridiculing religion. I've said nothing to ridicule it.

 

As for science, of course it changes all the time. That's exactly how science works. It's an attempt to understand and explain how the world works based on the evidence available. When new evidence is found, the understanding of how the world works develops a little, and sometimes what was thought to be true is found to be not so true. It's a rational process. No scientist believes that current knowledge and understanding is complete; it's always only the best guess on the basis of what we know so far.

Well you kind of have - you said that reason and faith are the opposites - which some people believe they are one and the same. You choosing to say they are the complete opposite is basically saying faith is ridiculous and should have no place in logical society.  

 

Anyways I think we digress from the point of the topic - my conclusion is that there is no reason to boycott the world cup - political world and the sports world should not cross - unfortunately they somewhat have and I firmly believe that the fault lies with FIFA. 

Edited 24 November 2022 by hejammy

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, hejammy said:

As someone else has mentioned, you cannot be one way for the rights of one community and then completely disregard the beliefs of another - calling religion irrational is in some ways the same as some people saying homosexuality is unnatural. Let people be the way they want to be and the beliefs they want to have. If you do not affirm to that community - then there are 100s of other communities which will welcome you with open arms. 

And I addressed exactly why that isn't the same thing (power structures) upstream.

 

18 minutes ago, hejammy said:

But a state based on Christian laws is fine is it?

Nope. Nor is any state that makes its laws based on any Abrahamic dogma.

 

Secular state policy that allows for freedom of belief while keeping that belief away from lawmaking is the ideal for a human future that won't be based mostly on death and misery. Or the best chance, anyway.

 

13 minutes ago, hejammy said:

You could argue to a certain point that Science is based on faith - the faith of the scientist - faith that the parameters used are correct - scientific "fact" changes all the time - what was once perceived as fact can be replaced with a new "fact". So whatever your thoughts on Religion - wouldn't it be acceptable that you should respect the fact that some people believe in it and not ridicule it? 

The scientific method and the consensus used to attain it, which does change as our knowledge changes, is very different to the unchanging dogma of organised religion.

 

It uses Empirical evidence rather than faith to ascertain the truth of something, for a start.

 

9 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

So let’s get this right - you go into an Islamic country and tell them they’re wrong but if anyone tells you you’re wrong they’re homophobic? 
 

I know you’ve not said that in words but in effect that’s what it means 

ALL of those things would be true - I'd be saying they're wrong because of their state policy, they'd think I'm wrong because of their own religious viewpoint, I'd think they are homophobic and could cite evidence to support it.

 

Again, however, the difference is that my own viewpoint means very little in terms of actual consequence, but theirs very much may well be far more consequential. As I have found out, opinions are very rarely consequential without the power to act upon them in a way that affects other people. To me that's reasonably obvious, and also why some opinions are more important, or even more dangerous, than others.

 

Anyhow, it's late over here. We will or won't pick this up again another time.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

11 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Maybe going off topic but there are ample examples that what’s been written in religious scriptures centuries ago now being proven by the science. Hard to argue with things like that and also difficult to call it irrational if there is evidence behind it.

And if reputable science proves anything to the satisfaction of other reputable scientists then reputable scientists will believe it as the best current understanding based on the evidence available. And so will I.

[FoxesDeb]

Bewildering that people still consider sexuality a choice  

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

2 minutes ago, hejammy said:

you said that reason and faith are the opposites - which some people believe they are one and the same.

Who believes this? I've never heard anyone say they believe this. They literally are opposites!

 

4 minutes ago, hejammy said:

You choosing to say they are the complete opposite is basically saying faith is ridiculous

I'm not 'choosing' to say it. The words literally have opposite meanings. And it is not at all saying faith is ridiculous. It is, though, quite literally 'irrational.'

 

6 minutes ago, hejammy said:

and should have no place in logical society.

You're putting a lot into what I say that really isn't there. I forget who, but some thinker once said in one way the logical thing to do is to believe in a God, because the consequences for you of not believing if there is one could be awful, while the consequences of believing in a God and there not being one are non-existent. Many theological discussions have a lot to do with logic; logicians and theologians are very similar in many ways.

[K1FOX]

8 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Bewildering that people still consider sexuality a choice  

Everything in life is a choice. 

[Mark_w]

6 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Everything in life is a choice. 

Wow I’m very interested in your branch of philosophy. Why do so many people choose to get cancer?

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Everything in life is a choice. 

Disability? Mental illness? Death? Cancer, or any other awful illnesses? They are all choices are they?

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

Wow I’m very interested in your branch of philosophy. Why do so many people choose to get cancer?

What a ridiculous response. An illness and who you ‘decide’ to sleep with or get in a relationship with? 
 

Maybe everything was the wrong word to use but apart from death a lot of what happens in life or what you choose to do in life is based on a choice or decision that you have made.

Edited 24 November 2022 by K1FOX

[K1FOX]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

Disability? Mental illness? Death? Cancer, or any other awful illnesses? They are all choices are they?

Read reply to Mark. 

[Mark_w]

Just now, K1FOX said:

What a ridiculous response. An illness and who you ‘decide’ to sleep with or get in a relationship with? 

You’re the one who said everything in life, I’m making no comparison, I just think you’re talking out of your arse and that was a particularly obvious demonstration of it.

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

What a ridiculous response. An illness and who you ‘decide’ to sleep with or get in a relationship with? 

Sexuality and gender isn't about making choices who you sleep with ffs  

 

 

Edited 24 November 2022 by FoxesDeb
Inclusion

[K1FOX]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

Sexuality and gender isn't about making choices who you sleep with ffs  

 

 

Correct you’re born a male or a female. You choose whether you sleep with or a man or a woman. Or whether you date a man or a woman. Or whether you marry a man or a woman. Nothing wrong with choosing to be gay - each to their own.

[K1FOX]

3 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

You’re the one who said everything in life, I’m making no comparison, I just think you’re talking out of your arse and that was a particularly obvious demonstration of it.

Corrected that everything was the wrong word. But I think you know what I meant.

[Mickyblueeyes]

Well this escalated quite quickly.....

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

3 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Correct you’re born a male or a female. You choose whether you sleep with or a man or a woman. Or whether you date a man or a woman. Or whether you marry a man or a woman. Nothing wrong with choosing to be gay - each to their own.

You're confusing 'sexuality' with 'sex.' Of course sleeping with someone - anyone - or not is a choice. Who you find yourself attracted to? That isn't a choice. I'm assuming from your comments about choosing to be gay that you aren't gay. Neither am I. Did you 'choose' not to be? I certainly didn't.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

Just now, Mickyblueeyes said:

Well this escalated quite quickly.....

As the man said soon after stepping on the moving staircase.

[K1FOX]

6 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

You're confusing 'sexuality' with 'sex.' Of course sleeping with someone - anyone - or not is a choice. Who you find yourself attracted to? That isn't a choice. I'm assuming from your comments about choosing to be gay that you aren't gay. Neither am I. Did you 'choose' not to be? I certainly didn't.

The term mentioned from foxesdeb was sexuality. 
 

I believe it’s a choice, you don’t. Nothing wrong with that. As mentioned previously each to their own. 
 

But if you woke up tomorrow and decided to sleep with a man then would you be choosing to be gay?