Dear Ozpen,

Really? You are just 3 posts in and already you are trotting out your logical fallacy guff.

I've done that dance with you before and on that occasion you exhibited a marked lack of understanding of the majority of the those fallacies. I see time hasn't improved your misuse of them now.

All you are signalling when you resort to this line is your cupboard is bare. If you don't have a reasonable retort to what is being put to you just thank people for their perspective and move on.

Otherwise you just come across as a twat.

Dan

I agree there have been occasions when LGBTQI+ activists have attempted to silence Christian leaders – the anti-discrimination case against the Tasmanian catholic church comes to mind.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/anti-discrimination-complaint-an-attempt-to-silence-the-church/6810276

That is why I support legal protections for freedom of speech and of religion. My main concern is to explore whether and where there should be limits on that freedom.

But I believe that LGBTQI+ people also deserve protection from discrimination and bullying - especially children and adolescents. And what evidence have you for your statement that “Gays are the rulers!”? They are under-represented in all positions of power I can think of.
__________

Spencer

I didn’t make an appeal to popularity – the point I was making is that you don’t speak for most Christians, not that you are wrong because most Christians disagree with you. That is not a logical fallacy. Moderate Christians find it irritating when fundamentalists present their views as representative of all Christians, or as the only authentic Christian perspective (because the rest of us aren’t “Bible believing”).

As Banjo’s post points out, the largest Christian denominations in Australia are Roman Catholic, Anglican and Uniting. Apart from the Sydney Anglicans none of these are predominantly what you would describe as “Bible believing”, though I agree there are evangelical minorities in all of them.

And where did I appeal to popularity in my analysis of Romans?

SteeleRedux,

<<Really? You are just 3 posts in and already you are trotting out your logical fallacy guff.>>

Now you dish up a red herring that is an impediment to further discussion of the issue: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#red-herring

I think it unwise, probably also unethical, to expel children from one's school based on their sexual inclinations.

Nevertheless, anyone should be able to freely select whom they associate with, and that includes whom they teach. No reason(s) need even be provided!

Forcing someone to perform a job they don't want to do, is called slavery, and teaching a child whom you do not want to teach is no exception.
I definitely oppose slavery, but of course, if one declines to perform a certain job then they need not be paid for it, thus public funding ought to be withdrawn for schools that expel students based on their sexual inclinations, in fact, previous payments should also be returned in such instances, dating back from the time that child entered that school.

Once an operation is truly private, you should be able to serve only those you wish to serve.

Dear Yuyutsu,

When a child is expelled from a school not only is the child expelled but also other children are deprived of contact with that child.

When I joined the army I was put in contact with people with different cultural and regional backgrounds who I never would have met otherwise. Although I didn't appreciate it at the time I realize it was a valuable learning experience as is my interaction with you. I am a richer human being due to my contact with you and others with whom I disagree.

Er.. Steelie: Otherwise you just come across as a twat.

That would be Twit, as A Twat is something else entirely. ;-)