Okay, culture works. But it nevertheless strikes me as odd that you keep using the word “bad faith”, because it implies that there IS a component of faith involved which you are accusing me of being in violation of. Hence I am going to maintain my position that LGBT has at least a quasi-religious character.
Also, I can’t help but notice that by saying “certain people are OK to exist”, you are elevating their right to exist over that of everyone else, i.e. you are creating in- and outgroups, those whose rights are worth protecting and those whose aren’t — something the Nazis knew a thing or two about.
Dude your mental gymnastics game is on point. You practicing for your fox news interview? Like you know words can have multiple definitions right? Bad faith has nothing to do with religion and you know that. Also to say that a historically persecuted group trying to be “ok to exist” somehow degrades others rights is complete bullshit. Explain how. You proposed the idea I want you to explain how someone’s right to exist peacefully somehow takes away from someone else’s right. I’ll wait. 🙄
Alright, I looked up the definition and this is what I found:
Bad faith is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
So in order for me to be guilty of this, I would have to pretend that I am in favor of LGBT while simultaneous arguing against it. If you can show me where I did that, I will accept the charge. But you can’t, because I never did that. Ergo, you are simply misusing the word in order to convict me of some sort of wrongdoing. It is, in fact, you who is acting in bad faith here.
Paragraph 1: “bad faith” is arguing or acting in an intellectually dishonest way. Like if I were to say this paragraph was written in bad faith, I might accuse you of knowing the term has nothing to do with religion yet still trying to shoehorn it into this whole “religion of LGBT” thing you have going.
LGBT rights are human rights. If by “has a quasi-religious character” you mean that it is ideologically derived, then sure. Human rights are normative ideology. But to say that the idea of individual liberty and human rights are ideologically equivalent to watery tarts handing out swords, is to demonstrate an extremely profound ignorance of moral philosophy.
No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:
Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
The fact that you cited that article specifically tells me a lot about what you believe a family should be. I dream of a world in which “family values” is not a code word for “queer people fuck off”, or at least not so universally one that fuckwads infer the latter from a UN document stating that parents and their children deserve state protection from groups that would try to separate them.
Additionally, if you think being homosexual in general, or worse, believing that homosexual people should not be prosecuted for being so, constitutes belonging to an organization, I do not know what to tell you.
Okay, culture works. But it nevertheless strikes me as odd that you keep using the word “bad faith”, because it implies that there IS a component of faith involved which you are accusing me of being in violation of. Hence I am going to maintain my position that LGBT has at least a quasi-religious character.
Also, I can’t help but notice that by saying “certain people are OK to exist”, you are elevating their right to exist over that of everyone else, i.e. you are creating in- and outgroups, those whose rights are worth protecting and those whose aren’t — something the Nazis knew a thing or two about.
Dude your mental gymnastics game is on point. You practicing for your fox news interview? Like you know words can have multiple definitions right? Bad faith has nothing to do with religion and you know that. Also to say that a historically persecuted group trying to be “ok to exist” somehow degrades others rights is complete bullshit. Explain how. You proposed the idea I want you to explain how someone’s right to exist peacefully somehow takes away from someone else’s right. I’ll wait. 🙄
Alright, I looked up the definition and this is what I found:
So in order for me to be guilty of this, I would have to pretend that I am in favor of LGBT while simultaneous arguing against it. If you can show me where I did that, I will accept the charge. But you can’t, because I never did that. Ergo, you are simply misusing the word in order to convict me of some sort of wrongdoing. It is, in fact, you who is acting in bad faith here.
So you’re just an openly ignorant bigot, thanks for clearing that up.
You’re welcome
Paragraph 1: “bad faith” is arguing or acting in an intellectually dishonest way. Like if I were to say this paragraph was written in bad faith, I might accuse you of knowing the term has nothing to do with religion yet still trying to shoehorn it into this whole “religion of LGBT” thing you have going.
Paragraph 2: wat
LGBT rights are human rights. If by “has a quasi-religious character” you mean that it is ideologically derived, then sure. Human rights are normative ideology. But to say that the idea of individual liberty and human rights are ideologically equivalent to watery tarts handing out swords, is to demonstrate an extremely profound ignorance of moral philosophy.
No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:
Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
The fact that you cited that article specifically tells me a lot about what you believe a family should be. I dream of a world in which “family values” is not a code word for “queer people fuck off”, or at least not so universally one that fuckwads infer the latter from a UN document stating that parents and their children deserve state protection from groups that would try to separate them.
Additionally, if you think being homosexual in general, or worse, believing that homosexual people should not be prosecuted for being so, constitutes belonging to an organization, I do not know what to tell you.