oseame

About

Username
oseame
Joined
Visits
26
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
183
Badges
1
Posts
73

Reactions

65Like0Dislike5Informative

  • Uber loses license to operate in London over public safety and security concerns

    oseameoseame
    As a Londoner I celebrate this decision. Those 40,000 drivers won't be out of work, there are plenty of taxi companies in London that pay their taxes and vet their drivers still around - many of them have apps as well.
    frumiousdysamoriaplanetary paulchiabaconstang

  • US Customs says it can search iPhones, but not cloud services

    oseameoseame
    Nations I will never visit in future:

    North Korea
    Russia
    USA
    brucemcprairiewalkerviclauyyc

  • 10th anniversary Apple Music Festival to start Sept. 18 in London

    oseameoseame
    The Roundhouse is an awesome venue. When Apple isn't filling it with crap like One Direction. But it is round like the spaceship…
    mknelsonaegean

  • Apple says Mississippi 'religious freedom' bill 'empowers discrimination'

    oseameoseame
    designr said:

    oseame said:
    1.Throwing the stone is analogous to passing judgement i.e. stating that a same-sex partnership is immoral
    2. Unless you're getting involved in the sexual congress between same-sex partners for financial gain I fail to see how doing business with them would be enabling/supporting it. If we're talking about an 'Adam & Steve' wedding cake all you're enabling is a celebratory cake, one which could quite well be substituted for a plain cake and a tube of icing.
    1. Well, stating a truth is (e.g., X is immoral according to God) may or may not be "passing judgement" but it certainly is not prohibited by God.

    2. The point is that some genuinely feel (whether you or I agree with them or not) that being involved with a same-sex wedding in those ways enables, supports or condones what they view as a sinful activity. The real issue here is whether you have any right to impose whatever our view of that question might be onto others by compelling them to take an action against their will under threat of the power of the state. I say no one has that right.

    1. I should have said acting on that judgement but in any case I think it's hasty to make statements about what's certainly allowed or prohibited by god

    2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.
    londor

  • Apple says Mississippi 'religious freedom' bill 'empowers discrimination'

    oseameoseame
    designr said:
    oseame said:
    I was merely objecting to your entirely unsubstantiated claim that I seem not to know a thing about the Christian religion. If you had expressed an argument to begin with rather that that claim, perhaps there would be one to be had. Do you want to try again with an actual argument? Substantiate your statement "Turn the other cheek refers exclusively to petty, secular behaviours, not to heresy and sin."? Would you consider adultery sin, as per the adage of throwing the first stone? Where exactly did Jesus tell us to discriminate against others based on their choice of life partner?
    So here we go again:

    1. Not throwing a stone. That is both literally and figuratively not stoning someone because of their sin.
    2. Not enabling, supporting and going along with a sin.

    These seem different to me.

    1.Throwing the stone is analogous to passing judgement i.e. stating that a same-sex partnership is immoral
    2. Unless you're getting involved in the sexual congress between same-sex partners for financial gain I fail to see how doing business with them would be enabling/supporting it. If we're talking about an 'Adam & Steve' wedding cake all you're enabling is a celebratory cake, one which could quite well be substituted for a plain cake and a tube of icing.
    londor