Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

6. I think a passive-aggression filter would do much more than an ignore button.

Reply to trotsky (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 12:33 PM

Aug 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is a religious institution that advocates aganst LGBT equality promoting bigotry? [View all] Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 OP

Yes. And so are those skepticscott Aug 2015 #1

Seems obvious to me. Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #3

Yes. I have heard pastors, hetero and not, preach against that kind of bigotry in beautiful ways. merrily Aug 2015 #2

the part I love is when they claim it is god's law rurallib Aug 2015 #4

god is the trump card Angry Dragon Aug 2015 #24

Yes and it's pathetic seeing people try to defend those institutions on a progressive website. trotsky Aug 2015 #5

I think a passive-aggression filter would do much more than an ignore button. rug Aug 2015 #6

you could always vote "no". Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #7

No, I'm warring on stupid polls. rug Aug 2015 #8

why is the question stupid? Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #9

It makes assumptions and is designed as a loyalty oath. rug Aug 2015 #11

Almost every religion requires shows of loyalty. Promethean Aug 2015 #12

That would be pithy only if you consider atheism a religion. Do you? rug Aug 2015 #14

where "loyalty oath" means agreeing that "advocating against lgbt equality" is bigotry Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #13

Agreement doesn't require loyalty oaths. rug Aug 2015 #15

The other thread is down from 67 to 10 posts for me now. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #16

I just used the magic slice and dicer, too. Goblinmonger Aug 2015 #17

And the best part is, only had to put one person on ignore. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #25

I wonder if some people's answer would be the same edhopper Aug 2015 #10

I've noticed that none of the people skepticscott Aug 2015 #20

That's because we're not gullible. rug Aug 2015 #21

One of them did in the GD poll: beam me up scottie Aug 2015 #22

People really don't want to think about tough questions Lordquinton Aug 2015 #18

What a catty remark about my dogma. guillaumeb Aug 2015 #27

Bah! Lordquinton Aug 2015 #32

Well said. But enough horsing around, back to the fray!! eom guillaumeb Aug 2015 #33

There's no option for "Well duh" so I went with yes. beam me up scottie Aug 2015 #19

There's always room for butts. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2015 #23

Minions! beam me up scottie Aug 2015 #34

I voted "no" because your poll was resembling North Korean election results. eom guillaumeb Aug 2015 #26

The votes there are framed the same way. rug Aug 2015 #28

very well put, rug. Very well put. And with the same (expected) results? guillaumeb Aug 2015 #30

I thought you already agreed that the parts of your church's Catechism was bigoted? Humanist_Activist Aug 2015 #38

You thought wrong. rug Aug 2015 #40

I would say that both the DSM and Catechism language was and is bigoted... Humanist_Activist Aug 2015 #42

There's no shame in being wrong. rug Aug 2015 #43

Wouldn't a better framing be this? "Is an institution that advocates aganst racial equality racist?" Humanist_Activist Aug 2015 #39

No. Here's why. rug Aug 2015 #41

That's part of the point, for some people it isn't obvious, its kinda like when I made this post: Humanist_Activist Aug 2015 #44

interesting reaction. Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #29

A definition: guillaumeb Aug 2015 #31

my mistake. Your satire was a victim of poe's law. Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #35

Not a problem. Given that I did intend it as humor, how did you like it? guillaumeb Aug 2015 #36

it had the correctly smug tone. Fooled me. Warren Stupidity Aug 2015 #37