Oh boy… curious how long a person is responsible for “points of view”?
First …this article:
The speechwriter/journalist articles quoted are from 20-25 years ago. The last residential school in Canada closed (finally) about 20 years ago … gay marriage wasn’t legal (big debates at the time) and a bag full of other “views” that were strongly held by a religiously minded society.
However - is his POV the same, or has he “evolved” his thinking, perhaps allowing a balance of thought? (7 yrs ago)
His writings (journalistic) are, IMO, heavily influenced by religious thought.
Now, what part would any of this play in his “job” as a speechwriter?
Should a person be “fired” for his POV (if held separate from his job)?
How “influential” is he? Perhaps his POV is actually moving forward agendas he himself may “hate”… I don’t know
When I worked for my government, I was required to sign a NDA with respect to all aspects of my service…until I am no longer. Culpability of what is said by a writer is to whomever that writer is working for. A writer for a premier, does not have the final authority for a speech…the premier does. Culpability is with the premier, and or the party. If said writer is working for a magazine, same thing. It behooves the periodical to implement laws that define what can, and can’t be said…including editorials…because ultimately they are culpable, not the writer.
Now that being said, law defines what is legal or illegal, or actionable on behalf of whomever. Was this writer breaking law by working for a premier, or prime-minister? Although hiring such a writer, is really quite stupid.
On a side note, my wife had a new work friend, who is a religiously soaked christian. As we drove to dinner out, past a gay pride sign, she commented on why gay people choose to be with the same sex. I responded by pointing out they where built that way. While looking up the studies defining human sexual orientation as genetic…she went on, in a fine christian way citing god and the buybull several times…I handed her my phone, and told her to read each research page I queued up for her. She did. When we arrived at the restaurant, she apologized to my wife Lori, saying she was not feeling well, and ordered a cab…we offered her a ride home, but she refused…she left in the cab, never to be seen again by me. At work, she eventually told my wife, she could never be friends with someone who believes what we do. My wife’s last words to her were, we didn’t do the research you read. Up until that point, my wife didn’t see much wrong with christians or the religious in general.
Personally, I don’t agree this speechwriter should be fired (not for this, unless such is leaking into politics) and the final speeches do fall on the Premier, Prime Minister. Again - whatever beliefs our politicians hold is fine as long as it is SEPARATE from public policy and legislation for all citizens.
Now, on a personal level - this fucker makes very poor arguments for his point of view and I would take him to task for his shitty analogies - although, the one “kernel” of truth in his rhetoric is a point he brings up that of tribal council/government corruption AND there is a lack of accountability to the tribe as to how funds are spent (or not spent) which conveniently gets blamed on the Federal gov’t that supplies funds (for Reserve use). Anyway, I’d like to drop his ass in Communist China - have him forced into one of their “Re-education Centers” and see if he still thinks it’s comparable to “boarding schools” (for rich kids or parents who sacrifice a shitload to afford them)…
Well, you know what they say… “Suck one dick and …”
There is a psychological phenomena, and I don’t remember or care to remember what they call it at the moment, whereby an argument is only as good as its weakest assertion. If someone can poke a hole in anything you have said, they then regard everything else as foolish.
This is obviously fallacious. Each assertion stands on its own. Who makes the assertion or how the assertion is made, may have nothing to do with the actual validity or truth of the assertion.
People hold onto shit for as long as they can so they can prove a point.
True - however it’s best to make your assertion somewhat appetizing. Wading through shit to find a “kernel” of truth () doesn’t make one want to digest it
Has anyone else nooticed that homophobia is a text book example of men creating deities in their own image, rather than the other way around?
I mean they seldom waste much time and energy condemning the consumption of shellfish, or decrying the wearing if blended fabrics, and when was the last time you heard a theist or religious apologist advocate unruly children be stoned to death at the edge of town?
The prejudice of homophobia is not a result of biblical doctrine, rather biblical doctrine was created and is used to indulge it, and in the 21st century it is very telling how many theists cling to this bigoted phobia.
Why would a deity create 2 to 4% of every population that has ever existed as gay, then condemn them, I have yet to hear a rational answer to this, that doesn’t dishonestly try to portray being gay as some sort of choice.
Sheldon… here’s another pertaining to JWs. You will be (unless you display the right amount of grovelling- depending on mood of Elders and gods spirit). DISFELLOWSHIPPED if you accept a blood transfusion to save your life (sketchy bible backing), smoking (???bible “principle”), celebrating birthdays and Xmas or other “pagan” holidays (although baptism and wedding rings [pagan] are fine) BUT I never once saw or heard of ANYONE being disfellowshipped for gluttony (one of the seven deadly sins)
I must reproduce that list next time they knock the door, they can’t fail to realise they’re wasting their time when I point out I am guilty of them all. I also never repent, I think it’s a waste of time, if I make a mistake I just try not to repeat it.
Been using this point for years, ever since the first genetic evidence for sexual orientation…mostly on FB. Have not to date, gotten a single rebuttal…then again that doesn’t mean much due the the quality of that social media site.
Ethel and Doris are two elderly ladies in and aged care facility.Ethel is 92 Doris is 97.
Ethel: “Umm, Doris do you still get horny?”
Doris: “Damned straight!”
Ethel: “What do you do about it?”
Doris “I suck a lifesaver”
Ethel: “Really. Whom do you get to drive you to the beach?”
Not my dad. He never let go of a certainty no matter how wrong it was.
First he would just yell. If that didn’t work, he would simply say"well you’re just stupid"and change the subject. In my dysfunctional family, no one was ever allowed to disagree with my father, on any topic whatsoever. I shit you not.
) doesn’t make one want to digest it 