nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + +
→Blocks: Bad analogy.
:::For me to call anyone's views as archaic is like a conservative calling me or my views immoral because you disagree with them. Do you think that homosexuality is immoral? Yes. This you cannot deny. So, by extension, I am immoral for supporting and doing everything i can to uphold gay rights such as marriage and adoption. It's all a matter of perspective. Religious Conservatives will say some of the harshest things (i.e. referring to things and people as perverse, disgusting, ungodly, immoral...) simply because they represent an ideal of morality that differs from theirs. I was not being rude nor was i any more demeaning that some things I've seen on this site that refer to people like me. I thought talks pages were designed to get people talking. If this site's idea of a talks page is a mutual admiration society then so be it. I thought i would be able to have frank, honest, and civil discussions. If not. Also, so be it. I haven't vandalized a single page not do I intend to. I did not break any of the commandments, either. I'm simply here for debate. If this is forbidden, please let me know and I'll refrain.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::For me to call anyone's views as archaic is like a conservative calling me or my views immoral because you disagree with them. Do you think that homosexuality is immoral? Yes. This you cannot deny. So, by extension, I am immoral for supporting and doing everything i can to uphold gay rights such as marriage and adoption. It's all a matter of perspective. Religious Conservatives will say some of the harshest things (i.e. referring to things and people as perverse, disgusting, ungodly, immoral...) simply because they represent an ideal of morality that differs from theirs. I was not being rude nor was i any more demeaning that some things I've seen on this site that refer to people like me. I thought talks pages were designed to get people talking. If this site's idea of a talks page is a mutual admiration society then so be it. I thought i would be able to have frank, honest, and civil discussions. If not. Also, so be it. I haven't vandalized a single page not do I intend to. I did not break any of the commandments, either. I'm simply here for debate. If this is forbidden, please let me know and I'll refrain.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::: An idea being old, i.e. around for a long time, does not make it a bad idea, but "archaic" is a derogatory way of saying "old", to give the impression that it's bad when it's not necessarily so. Calling a view "immoral", on the other hand, is an accurate way of explaining what is wrong with something (assuming, of course, that the thing ''is'' immoral). So that's not a valid analogy. It's like the difference between calling someone mistaken and calling them stupid. And no, Christians will not call things perverse, ungodly, immoral, etc. "simply because they represent and ideal of morality that differs from theirs", but because they ''are'' these things according to God.
:::: And others being rude does not excuse you being rude.
:::: But that's getting off the point, which was that you weren't blocked simply for disagreeing, but for the way in which you disagreed.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)