[Info-vax] The Gender Fluid IT Crisis

[Dirk Munk]

Richard Maher wrote:
> On 31-Jul-17 7:46 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 31-Jul-17 3:42 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> David Froble wrote:
>>>>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and he still allowed to express his opinion. That doesn't 
>>>>>> mean an organization doesn't have the right
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because one has the "right" to do something doesn't make it 
>>>>> "the right thing to do".
>>>>
>>>> True, but that also applies to Mr. Eich. He had the constitutional 
>>>> right to take the position that he took. But many people will have 
>>>> seen that as trampling around on the very basic right of happiness 
>>>> and dignity of a minority, and they didn't want a person like that 
>>>> having an important position in the Mozilla organization.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Take a position"??? He donated money as a private citizen in his 
>>> private capacity and was outed by the Gestapo! You should go further 
>>> and burn down his house. Yet we have the head of Qantas over here 
>>> using shareholder funds to pursue his very public agenda of "Ugly 
>>> gay boys like me should get married too!" and no one says anything.
>>
>> Perhaps his shareholders think that this agenda makes Quantas look 
>> like an open minded company, and that is good for business.
>>
>>> Someone shoves a pie in his face and he gets taken out and shot with 
>>> hard labour.
>>
>> Yes, that is what you can expect when you use violence. Perhaps the 
>> judge also took in account the reason for shoving the pie, and that 
>> didn't give him any reason to be lenient.
>>
>>>
>>> Who else will you target? Those fucking Christians keep sticking 
>>> their heads up about morality and the sanctity of marriage,
>>
>> Morality? Others may find it immoral if you try to force your idea of 
>> morality and sanctity on others. They find it immoral to deny 
>> homosexual people the same rights heterosexual people have.
>
> Good to have your lies exposed! So there will be no exemptions for 
> religions to "deny marriage rights". So we'll have to get married in 
> secret just like previous persecutions.

We don't have that problem, we only have the civil marriage by a civil 
servant of the municipality. Afterwards you can go to a church to 
solemnize the marriage. But in your case, if a church refuses to marry a 
homosexual couple, find another church or get a civil marriage. I think 
that's the way they do it in the UK.

>
>>
>>> time to give them a good kicking eh?
>>
>> No, we have ultra-orthodox Christians here, and they have their own 
>> political party in parliament. The leader of that party is highly 
>> respected, and often asked for his opinions on TV.
>>
>>> The whole idea of "sanctity" must be anathema to any free thinking 
>>> person and banned as a concept. Why not make them wear little yellow 
>>> crosses so that people can identify them and spit on them in the 
>>> streets? It worked for you guys before.
>>
>> I get the impression that your kind of people would like to see gays 
>> in striped pyjamas with a pink triangle.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah and Brendan Eich locked up Turing. We get your 
> bullshit straw man thinking. Being opposed to gay marriage does not 
> mean someone is homophobic but that wouldn't suit your bigoted 
> narrative so carry on.

Didn't you bring up the yellow crosses idea?

>>
>>
>>> The National government funded broadcaster here (ABC) is at war with 
>>> Christianity and attacking it every night on TV. 
>>
>> There are many so called 'Christians' who know every verse in the 
>> bible, and use their 'faith' as a weapon to tell others how to live 
>> and how not to live. These pseudo Christians think they are God by 
>> proxy.
>
> What no Jews? No Muslims? Your hatred is really showing now arse-wipe. 
> What exactly have you got against Christianity to constantly single it 
> out? Buggered by the local priest? Unrequited love?

If I'm not mistaken, you brought up the ABC being at war with 
Christianity. I've got quite a good idea what kind of Christianity they 
mean, and that was what was I was referring to.

>>
>>> Let's go global? (Muslims throwing homosexuals off tall buildings 
>>> doesn't seem news worthy)
>>
>> You don't like that?
>
> Anti gay-marriage = poofter-basher. We got it already!
>
> Let me know if you get any new material.

The mere fact that your are using a word like poofter-basher shows that 
I'm not far off.

>>
>>>
>>> Time for you to bring up the Spanish inquisition isn't it? At least 
>>> when Spain and Germany Lorded over you we didn't have to put up with 
>>> your shit.
>>>
>>> Your "minority" is much more important than theirs!
>>
>> Who is 'theirs' please?
>>
>>>   No poverty in Holland?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> No people sleeping rough on the streets? 
>>
>> Yes, many of them even like it. And they can get about €500 per month 
>> social security.
>>
>>> Domestic violence
>>
>> Yes, of course like in any country.
>>
>>> and drug abuse non-issues? 
>>
>> Not that much. Far less than in other countries.
>>
>>> How's the economy going?
>>
>> Excellent, thank you for asking.
>>
>>> As long as you've got your priorities right, that's the main thing :-(
>>
>> Yes, civil liberties and respect for minorities are high on the agenda.
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it. Your helpless "minority" is actually the most 
>>> well-funded and resourced lobby group in the world.
>>
>> Ah, that well known argument again. In the 1930's Hitler used it as 
>> well, it was called "Das internationale Finanzjudentum", but I guess 
>> you can use it for gays as well.
>>
>>> Between politicians that can be bought (99%) and those with a hidden 
>>> rent-boy in the cupboard this'll be easy.
>>
>> Politicians don't need a hidden rent-boy in the cupboard over here. 
>> If they are gay, that's fine with us. There are numerous gay 
>> politicians. We had/have gay ministers and MPs, Belgium and 
>> Luxembourg had a gay prime minister, Germany a gay foreign minister, 
>> Iceland has or had a lesbian prime minister, and so on.
>>
>> So no need to buy politicians.
>>
>