Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Options
1…910121415

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,983 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    demolitionman wrote: »
    Definitely not voting for him purely because of his sexual preference.

    That's something none of us shoud do, but i have a feeling he'l step up to the mark. We'l see how he handles himself in frint of the other canditates.


  • Options
    #333
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    i was quoting the website

    You mean the thoroughly well researched Campaign for Conscience? That website created by the finest minds Mayo has to offer?

    It's quite the work of hilarity.

    Sadly it wasn't meant as such.



    Oh Enoch Burke you wacky bigot!


  • Options
    #334
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,983 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    You mean the thoroughly well researched Campaign for Conscience? That website created by the finest minds Mayo has to offer?

    It's quite the work of hilarity.

    Sadly it wasn't meant as such.



    Oh Enoch Burke you wacky bigot!
    One section was how a politician in sligo didn't declare she thought gays were ok in her election campaign and therefore was somehow guilty of defrauding the electorate!


  • Options
    #335
    upandcumming
    Registered Users Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    I like the man, he is intelligent, witty and he cares. However, I can't help but thinking a gay president would look weak and even more fun would be poked against us!


  • Options
    #336
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    upandcumming wrote: »
    I like the man, he is intelligent, witty and he cares. However, I can't help but thinking a gay president would look weak and even more fun would be poked against us!

    Hardly. Besides, his OH is a fine big man and well able to stand up for us on the international stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Patricide
    Registered Users Posts: 4,658 ✭✭✭Patricide


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ^^ Nothing like a bit of militant agnosticism to make everything better eh? :pac:
    God there is no winning here haha :)


  • Options
    #338
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What issue? :confused:(If you mean arguing against evolution, I'd agree)
    Indeed, what do you classify as a "religious nut"?

    You're exhibit A Jakkass.


  • Options
    #339
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    That's a bit smug mate. You're not going to convince anyone to change their views if you outright insult them.

    I believe in this day and age the only real opinion left is to out right insult them.


  • Options
    #340
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    upandcumming wrote: »
    I can't help but thinking a gay president would look weak

    Weak?
    In what way would he look weak?


  • Options
    #341
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Weak?
    In what way would he look weak?

    You know, wimpy, cowering, introverted........everything Norris isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    raah!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I believe in this day and age the only real opinion left is to out right insult them.

    You should probably learn to speak first though, elsewise you'll just look like a little fool who's trying and failing to make himself appear intelligent by "out right insulting" people.


  • Options
    #343
    Augmerson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson


    LOL that Campaign for Conscience site, what bull****.

    EDIT: Don't know why Norris is running, this next Prez is Bertie.

    /runs.


  • Options
    #344
    JonJoeDali
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭JonJoeDali


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    That's something none of us shoud do, but i have a feeling he'l step up to the mark. We'l see how he handles himself in frint of the other canditates.

    Voting for or against someone on the basis of their sexual preference is as good as any other reason. We all have one vote and you can vote for him on the basis of him being a cat lover for all the ballot box cares.


  • Options
    #345
    JonJoeDali
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭JonJoeDali


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Have you heard of safe sex?

    There's no such thing as "safe sex".


  • Options
    #346
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I believe in this day and age the only real opinion left is to out right insult them.
    Unless one's goal is a self-affirmation of perceived intellectual superiority, I don't really see how effectively telling someone to get back inside their box is conducive to anything positive.


  • Options
    #347
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    Voting for or against someone on the basis of their sexual preference is as good as any other reason. We all have one vote and you can vote for him on the basis of him being a cat lover for all the ballot box cares.

    Sexual preference has no bearing on how good a politician someone is though and since this is a political office it's not really that good a reason.

    Obviously all votes count though. It's just not that good a reason.


  • Options
    #348
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Unless one's goal is a self-affirmation of perceived intellectual superiority, I don't really see how effectively telling someone to get back inside their box is conducive to anything positive.

    How would you address these people?


  • Options
    #349
    JonJoeDali
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭JonJoeDali


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Sexual preference has no bearing on how good a politician someone is though and since this is a political office it's not really that good a reason.

    Obviously all votes count though. It's just not that good a reason.

    The personal moral choices of individuals are very important factors for many people. You have no right to demand otherwise.


  • Options
    #350
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Patricide wrote: »
    All people who A) are religious nuts, or B) athiest were better than you and your an idiot for even thinking about the possibility of a god type, or C) any asshole thats similar. The doors that way....
    Patricide wrote: »
    God there is no winning here haha :)

    Look, how about we all just get out and bow our heads in shame for allowing this topic to pervade AH again! (Agnostics first :pac:)


  • Options
    #351
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    The personal moral choices of individuals are very important factors for many people. You have no right to demand otherwise.

    Moral choices and sexuality can be separated... as can your personal life and your actions as a professional. You can vote that way if you wish no one is 'demanding' otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    The personal moral choices of individuals are very important factors for many people. You have no right to demand otherwise.

    I didn't say people wouldn't vote for or against him because of his sexuality. I just said that they shouldn't as it's not a good reason to select someone for political office.

    As for me 'demanding' anything - I have no idea what you're on about. I haven't demanded a thing, I merely stated my opinion.


  • Options
    #353
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    You're exhibit A Jakkass.

    Here was I thinking I was semi-moderate by this threads standards :p

    By religious nut, do you mean anyone who in any way believes in God?


  • Options
    #354
    RobAMerc
    Registered Users Posts: 5,863 ✭✭✭RobAMerc


    Never has a saying been so apt I think.

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

    what a bunch of biggoted f8ckwits - disgraceful.


  • Options
    #355
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    There's no such thing as "safe sex".

    How about Safer Sex?


  • Options
    #356
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,334 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    Voting for or against someone on the basis of their sexual preference is as good as any other reason. We all have one vote and you can vote for him on the basis of him being a cat lover for all the ballot box cares.

    Eh, no it isnt. That's like saying that voting based on gender or ethnicity are valid reaons for voting. And it usually results in some asshole getting elected.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #357
    stevoslice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭stevoslice


    so from reading this thread the pros and cons of voting for norris are:

    PROS
    He's Eloquent, A Good Speaker, He's Gay, and it would piss off a few people on a website

    CONS
    Has defended people using 'barely legal' teenage prostitutes
    Has called the signaturies of the proclomation 'terrorists' (would he then stand proudly in front of the GPO during Easter 2016 to open the centenary celebrations)
    Would advocate a return to the commonwealth

    As far as I can see that is.


  • Options
    #358
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    raah! wrote: »
    You should probably learn to speak first though, elsewise you'll just look like a little fool who's trying and failing to make himself appear intelligent by "out right insulting" people.

    Christians had 2,000 years to state their case and basically all of Christianity's doctrines have been proven false. Why therefore must we listen to the opinions of people who's ideas are archaic, irrelavent and false? People who maintain such ideas in the face of a massive amount of condradictory evidents should expect to be called 'nuts' unless they're thoroughly delusional. I know it's a democracy but to listen to these people would be quite a pointless waste of time.


  • Options
    #359
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Here was I thinking I was semi-moderate by this threads standards :p

    By religious nut, do you mean anyone who in any way believes in God?

    That would imply that I view agnostics as 'semi-nuts'. No, I regard people who have a dogmatic belief in something ludicrace that has been proven false as 'nuts'.


  • Options
    #360
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Christians had 2,000 years to state their case and basically all of Christianity's doctrines have been proven false. Why therefore must we listen to the opinions of people who's ideas are archaic, irrelavent and false? People who maintain such ideas in the face of a massive amount of condradictory evidents should expect to be called 'nuts' unless they're thoroughly delusional. I know it's a democracy but to listen to these people would be quite a pointless waste of time.

    Absolute nonsense.

    There is nothing to suggest anything you've just said here. Anyone can use hyperbole, but one can leave the rest of us wondering what cognitive reason one really has for using it.

    I think for the purpose of the thread, if you genuinely believe that you have "disproven God" you should be invited to present your disproof. The first person in the world to produce such!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Absolute nonsense.

    There is nothing to suggest anything you've just said here. Anyone can use hyperbole, but one can leave the rest of us wondering what cognitive reason one really has for using it.

    I think for the purpose of the thread, if you genuinely believe that you have "disproven God" you should be invited to present your disproof. The first person in the world to produce such!

    The existence of God (i.e., a supreme being/ prime mover of some sort that created the universe) hasn't been disproven but it is likely not to exist. The existence of a personal God (i.e., the Abrahamic God personified by the scriptures and other God (s) who directly interact in the course of the apparent 'fate' of humanity) has been proven false. I therefore see people who dogmatically assert the existence of a personal God and his/her alleged attributes as a 'NUT'.


Advertisement