LowlandsOfHolland
Active member
I disagree. I think that even two-party states require this, even if to a lesser degree than totalitarian societies. There has never been nor will there ever be an open society of the liberal sort.
I never said that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed their spaces. I simply expressed skepticism that there could ever be any "neutralized" spaces with regards to religion, given how central religion is to our lives. Even its absence is noticeable.
Once again, misrepresenting my views. Replace antisemitism with "prejudice against Jews" and watch your argument deflate. Because antisemitism doesn't mean "prejudice against Jews." It means "something I don't like." I suggest reading this article here.
In summary, I do believe that there is such thing as prejudice against Jews. What I deny is that antisemitism actually means anything at all.
I do say think that lesbians, gay men, and bi people should only be allowed heterosexual marriage or celibacy as choices. But I don't see this as evil. You do.
"Masochistic" implies I have sexual desire for them. I most certainly don't. You must certainly have some kind of masochistic desire if you keep replying to me. Or is this pride? Are you determined to not let me have the last word? I myself enjoy bringing out more and more of your disgusting nature into the foray. It allows me to build a profile of you for future reference.
1. "A lesser degree." Bucko, if there are two political parties and they have different views, then by definition there is not one singular point of view that is enforced by violence on everyone. What you are describing is simply the defense of the liberal pluralist society against those forces that seek to destroy it, and then weeping and crying because you happen to live in a society where you believe yourself to be on the wrong end of state violence.
2. "Their spaces." Well goody goody gumdrops for you, but the point is that public spaces should be for the public, not tradCaths and snake-handlers commiserating while the rest of us, Presbyterians to Vajrayana Buddhists, are permitted on sufferance.
3. "Terms like "prejudice against Jewish people" are not meaningless names, they have definitions. The use of violence to oppress Jewish people to force them into a status of formal inferiority constitutes prejudice against Jewish people."
I am unable to see where this argument deflates if you use "prejudice against Jewish people."
4. What does your desire to control the sex lives of people and rape them by proxy have to do with my statement that you're a coward if you don't make it apparent to lesbians and gay men and bi people that you want to rape them by proxy upfront? Are you saying that you do so but ended up rendering it so poorly the meaning was lost?
5. I can go on about my "disgusting nature" more if you like. I'm not sure what this "profile" means. Surely you can't be using me for masturbation fodder?