Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "'Free speech is not appreciated’: Melbourne Professor fired over online posts" video.

@simonharris4873 "How did the referendum show that? It had nothing to do with any threat to the employment of 10.5 million voting Australians." I gather that's the point. There was no threat to employment in the referendum, so they were free to express views (i.e. vote) that as employees they may not have been.
6
@Hgfdrfgjjgf "Tell that to Americana Sky Opinion Show they love to let Australians know what we should be thinking..." Perhaps you don't realise it, but Sky is not a university. Duh!
3
@Hgfdrfgjjgf "learning in class only makes up probably 5 percent...of knowledge..." That depends on what sorts of knowledge you're talking about. School grounds and life are not going to teach you much about grammar, maths, geography, science, etc. But sure, it will teach you plenty of other things. But what does that have to do with your previous comment?
3
@EL_Duderino68 "I'm not giving anyone who decides to work for a propaganda channel a break." what does that have to do with Sky?
3
@EL_Duderino68 "Phil, you didn't respond to my last comment to you. Do I need to repost it?" Yes. I don't believe that I've failed to reply to any that I've seen. Although you could also reply to my question above. "You run away again?" Nope. But I do do other things in my life.
1
@EL_Duderino68 I did reply to that, as I said in that thread. Funny thing is, I even checked in a browser that I wasn't logged into that my comment was visible. And it was. But it no longer is! So my next comment here will be the response I gave to that.
1
@EL_Duderino68 "I'm disappointed you would try and wriggle out of what you wrote. " I'm not wiggling out of anything. I was simply explaining what I wrote. I concede that it would have been easy to misunderstand, but a misunderstanding it was. "You write "No, I'm also here, and debating you." You know what "also" means." Yes, I know what "also" means. I was saying that I was also here in contrast to your claim that I am instead here. You do know the difference between instead and also? I was correcting your use of instead. I'll put it this way, bolding a couple of your words: " Instead, you're here entertaining me" My reply had two words stressed: "No, I'm also here, and debating you." Each stressed (italicised) word was a counter to your two words that I have bolded. "There is no substance in your debate. It's based on faith at its base, not logic." An evidence-free and reason-free dismissal of my comments. What is not logical about it? "Faith is the antithesis of reason." As I have almost certainly explained to you before, biblically, faith means trust in a trustworthy person, i.e. someone that the evidence shows to be worthy of our trust. It's only antithetical if you substitute a different meaning of the word, as you have done here. "Why are you commenting to me? I'd really like to know? Are you a warrior for your faith?" Two reasons. One is that I'm following the example of the Apostle Paul who said that "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God," The other is so that others reading this won't be led astray by your comments. "In your religion, I'd think that you are committing the first deadly sin of Pride." Still with the ad hominems.
1
@EL_Duderino68 I have repeated my reply. I hope you can see it.
1
@EL_Duderino68 "I didn't write wiggle, did I? The expression is not to wiggle out of something, is it? It's to wriggle out of something. You should look it up if you don't believe me." No, you didn't. But you're making a big deal out of a simple typo. And you responded solely to that one typo, not to the substance of what I wrote. "You think you are smart and can make logical comments but you are really not. " Says the person who complained that I hadn't replied, but has yet to reply to my questions. And who maligns me without providing evidence. "You're going to hell for lying if you believe in the Bible." Because....?
1
@EL_Duderino68 " I'm starting to think you don't really believe in the teachings of your faith,. You've just built your ego around them. Is it because you weren't "blessed" with children?" More ad hominem. "Hey I've just thought of a question for you. Do you believe in Cane and Able?" Sugar cane? Yes, I believe that it exists. And it is able to produce the raw product of sugar.
1