Racism and sexism

[Dave-W]

"Liberal:
1. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."

"Liberal" is the opposite of "conservative" for our purposes here.

con·serv·a·tive kənˈsərvədiv/

adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

dictionary.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if we look at the conversation:

I support Christian men having the right to treat their wives the way they always treated them before liberals starting imposing their beliefs on others.

When it comes to people beating their wives, I am anything but liberal.

Samir wants wives to be treated the way BEFORE the liberals changed everything.
So he is conservative.

And you quatona said you are anything BUT liberal, meaning you are also conservative.

And that goes back to maintaining the previous status quo "before liberals starting imposing their beliefs." And that is beating your wife with impunity.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah, well, that seems a little draconian.

 

[Dave-W]

Ah, well, that seems a little draconian.

Perhaps. But I suspect he is the opposite of what he actually said; so by pointing out what his words really said, I am giving him the chance to correct it.

Sometimes we word something in a way that comes out different than what we are trying to say. I know that happens to me on occasion; and I am glad to be able to correct it in such cases.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, no, sorry, I was replying to Radagast.

 

[samir]

From what I understand, this is precisely the situation now. If a baker would make a cake for (straight) couple A, they must agree to make precisely the same cake for (same-sex) couple B. But couple B cannot force them to make a cake they would not make for anybody (same sex specific details, for example).

Why are Christians opposed to making wedding cakes for them but not birthday cakes?

I agree with it only when I can demonstrate that not imposing my beliefs leads to harm. I do not agree with it as a general principle otherwise.

Okay. Since you support imposing your beliefs on others when you think it's important then you shouldn't oppose others imposing their beliefs on you when they feel it is important.

 

[samir]

I think for your next thread Samir you should get a debate on what exactly does it mean to be a conservative v Liberal.

No need as both are defined in the dictionary. The confusions stems from the words having multiple definitions which means someone could be both or a liberal in one country and a conservative in another.

 

[samir]

"Liberal:
1. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."
( liberal | Definition of liberal in English by Oxford Dictionaries ).

"I´m not liberal when it comes to domestic abuse" = "I´m not willing to respect or accept this behaviour; I am not open to it."

Hope this helps.

(If you are looking for someone who is in favour of it, there this conservative Christian poster...)

I'm a liberal if we're using that definition. One of the biggest problems I have with many who identify as liberal is their intolerance and disrespect toward those who don't agree with their "progressive" ideas. For example, I don't really care if two men want to call thejir relationship a marriage but I'm opposed to shoving that belief down everyone's throats by persecuting Christians who don't agree with it which is what happened after a Christian refused to bake a custom cake to celebrate a sodomous relationship.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why are Christians opposed to making wedding cakes for them but not birthday cakes?

Is it a sin to be born?

 

[samir]

Is it a sin to be born?

Exactly. Those who support forcing Christians to bake custom cakes for "gay marriage" are persecuting Christians which is a very grave sin.

 

[samir]

So you support men punching and kicking their wives, breaking bones and causing brain damage?

Is that how Christian men have always treated their wives?

Thatall legal when I was a kid (and witnessed it first hand).

Very sad you witnessed that but I question whether it was ever legal to intentionally break someone's bones or strike someone hard enough to cause significant brain damage. I certainly don't think society should tolerate that behavior.

 

[Go Braves]

Is that how Christian men have always treated their wives?



Very sad you witnessed that but I question whether it was ever legal to intentionally break someone's bones or strike someone hard enough to cause significant brain damage. I certainly don't think society should tolerate that behavior.

Well what exactly do you mean by 'husbands physically disciplining their wives.' Do you support the ladies doing the same to the husbands?

 

[samir]

Well what exactly do you mean by 'husbands physically disciplining their wives.'

I mean exactly what I wrote. I'd rather not go into detail to avoid sensitive people reporting me and getting me suspended but I'm sure you realize a husband can discipline his wife without breaking bones or causing permanent injuries.

Do you support the ladies doing the same to the husbands?

No, but if a culture practiced that I wouldn't clamour to make it illegal nor would I persecute or demonize them just because I don't approve of it.

 

[Go Braves]

I mean exactly what I wrote. I'd rather not go into detail to avoid sensitive people reporting me and getting me suspended but I'm sure you realize a husband can discipline his wife without breaking bones or causing permanent injuries.



No, but if a culture practiced that I wouldn't clamour to make it illegal nor would I persecute or demonize them just because I don't approve of it.

Well what you wrote clearly wasn't all that clear or else Dave there wouldn't have asked the question that he did. I don't know what you mean. Why is it alright to you for the men to do that to their ladies, but not for the ladies to return?

 

[samir]

Well what you wrote clearly wasn't all that clear or else Dave there wouldn't have asked the question that he did. I don't know what you mean. Why is it alright to you for the men to do that to their ladies, but not for the ladies to return?

The bible says men are the head of the household and in charge of their wives. The bible also says women should be taught to obey their husbands

 

[quatona]

I'm a liberal if we're using that definition. One of the biggest problems I have with many who identify as liberal is their intolerance and disrespect toward those who don't agree with their "progressive" ideas. For example, I don't really care if two men want to call thejir relationship a marriage but I'm opposed to shoving that belief down everyone's throats by persecuting Christians who don't agree with it which is what happened after a Christian refused to bake a custom cake to celebrate a sodomous relationship.

I think it´s not a good idea to use the word "persecution" that lightly.
I may be wrong, but I guess if businesses refused you their service for being a Christian, you´d be all up in arms about being persecuted, too.

Anyway, since you have repeatedly advocated men abusing their wives, our conversation ends here.

 

[bhsmte]

I support Christian men having the right to treat their wives the way they always treated them before liberals starting imposing their beliefs on others.

And, what does that treatment look like?

 

[bhsmte]

The bible says men are the head of the household and in charge of their wives. The bible also says women should be taught to obey their husbands

Obey their husbands regardless of what they demand?

 

[bhsmte]

No they did not. They had no problem serving homosexuals even ones who wanted to marry. They only opposed being forced to support a sinful celebration.

LOL

 

[Paidiske]

Okay. Since you support imposing your beliefs on others when you think it's important then you shouldn't oppose others imposing their beliefs on you when they feel it is important.

It's not that simple. I didn't say "when I think it's important," I said, "when not doing so would lead to harm." So in that situation the onus is on me to demonstrate the harm, and to convince enough others of it to get it legislated in a democracy.

The same applies in reverse. If someone else sees a harm that I am causing, can demonstrate it and convince enough others of it to get it legislated in a democracy, then that's fair. But it's about a lot more than "they feel it is important."

 

[samir]

It's not that simple. I didn't say "when I think it's important," I said, "when not doing so would lead to harm." So in that situation the onus is on me to demonstrate the harm, and to convince enough others of it to get it legislated in a democracy.

The same applies in reverse. If someone else sees a harm that I am causing, can demonstrate it and convince enough others of it to get it legislated in a democracy, then that's fair. But it's about a lot more than "they feel it is important."

Who are you to decide that "when not doing so would lead to harm" should be the standard to determine when it's okay for someone to impose their beliefs on others? You feel harm is important but other people have different standards for when it's okay to impose their beliefs on others.