Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#27 Aug 20 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'll buy that with the caveat that there is nothing wrong with the "root" of politics, but society has bastardized it into something baleful where the focus isn't on the people, but on themselves.

This treads a line somewhere between nonsensical and naive.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Aug 20 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll buy that with the caveat that there is nothing wrong with the "root" of politics, but society has bastardized it into something baleful where the focus isn't on the people, but on themselves.
This treads a line somewhere between nonsensical and naive.
The sky is blue, and other obvious observation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Aug 20 2012 at 9:54 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Paskil wrote:
The man that shot the security guard should definitely be in jail and prison if convicted.
Was there even any argument against that?


No there wasn't, at least not here. However, I was tacitly agreeing with the fact that I have seen people commenting as well that this group "deserves" this attack because of their views, at least in the typical semi-anonymous commenting you see on forums/news articles.
#30 Aug 20 2012 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
OV wrote:
Understand that the people whom said it are ***** & that by saying these kind of things they're trying to drum up support for their cause by: using a slippery slope argument, lying, using fear, misleading purposefully to pursue an agenda, & inciting hatred. Ya know, using hate speech?


As I said before, pro homosexual supporters always use the civil rights and women's movements as their foundation for their arguments, but when people use the SAME EXACT rationale for other forms of sexuality, it becomes a "slippery slope". It's either a valid rationale or it's not.

OV wrote:
Child lovers hurt children, @#%^.


Oh really? Let's examine this.

What defines a child? Are you defining by maturity or by age? Current societies use age for legal definitions, but the reasoning is due to the immaturity and understanding of the child. So a 17 year old girl is protected by law from the 47 year old man because she is too "immature" to understand life, but magically when she turns 18, she is ready, because 18 year olds are matured individuals that fully understand life.

How is it that two 15 year old high school students can be in a relationship, be in love, plan to marry, want to run away together, be sexually active and that be legal, but add a 47 year old, then it's "wrong"? What's the difference? The said teen is already participating in the very same things. What is difference? How is it ok with another 15 year old, but not with a 47 year old?

If you want to look at it in the long run, who is she better off with? The 15 year old boy who has no job, house and understanding of life. Or Mr. Johnson, the 35 year old social economics teacher with a job, house and life experience?

I'm not advocating "child love", I'm just keeping it real. Societies world wide had such relationships as norms at one point in time of their history. As a society, we just decided to say that's "icky" and prevented it from happening. That is no different than what some people are doing towards homosexuals.

OV wrote:
You don't have to like it, just stop being such a **** about it. I think furries are creepy, but they aren't hurting anyone, so why worry about it?


Being a ****? My point is that you can say things like "I think furries are creepy" and not be labeled a bigot who want furries dead. You realize that it is perfectly plausible to totally disagree with their lifestyle and not hate them as a person. That same treatment isn't equal towards homosexuals. If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK. So, who's using hate speech now?

OV wrote:
WHy do you, personally, have such a hard-on for the gays? If you're secretly worried you might be ***, there's a test you can take: suck a ****- if you like it, you're probably into dudes.


This is exactly my point. Hate speech. Say anything contrary to the homosexual life style and you're secretly a homosexual or a homophobe. How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?
#31 Aug 20 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
What exactly is the "homosexual lifestyle." I mean, I've been *** all my life and seem to be missing out on something special. I see this term thrown about all the time as if my daily routine and/or home life is special.
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#32 Aug 20 2012 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
Almalieque wrote:
OV wrote:
Understand that the people whom said it are ***** & that by saying these kind of things they're trying to drum up support for their cause by: using a slippery slope argument, lying, using fear, misleading purposefully to pursue an agenda, & inciting hatred. Ya know, using hate speech?


As I said before, pro homosexual supporters always use the civil rights and women's movements as their foundation for their arguments, but when people use the SAME EXACT rationale for other forms of sexuality, it becomes a "slippery slope". It's either a valid rationale or it's not.

OV wrote:
Child lovers hurt children, @#%^.


Oh really? Let's examine this.

What defines a child? Are you defining by maturity or by age? Current societies use age for legal definitions, but the reasoning is due to the immaturity and understanding of the child. So a 17 year old girl is protected by law from the 47 year old man because she is too "immature" to understand life, but magically when she turns 18, she is ready, because 18 year olds are matured individuals that fully understand life.

How is it that two 15 year old high school students can be in a relationship, be in love, plan to marry, want to run away together, be sexually active and that be legal, but add a 47 year old, then it's "wrong"? What's the difference? The said teen is already participating in the very same things. What is difference? How is it ok with another 15 year old, but not with a 47 year old?

If you want to look at it in the long run, who is she better off with? The 15 year old boy who has no job, house and understanding of life. Or Mr. Johnson, the 35 year old social economics teacher with a job, house and life experience?

I'm not advocating "child love", I'm just keeping it real. Societies world wide had such relationships as norms at one point in time of their history. As a society, we just decided to say that's "icky" and prevented it from happening. That is no different than what some people are doing towards homosexuals.

OV wrote:
You don't have to like it, just stop being such a **** about it. I think furries are creepy, but they aren't hurting anyone, so why worry about it?


Being a ****? My point is that you can say things like "I think furries are creepy" and not be labeled a bigot who want furries dead. You realize that it is perfectly plausible to totally disagree with their lifestyle and not hate them as a person. That same treatment isn't equal towards homosexuals. If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK. So, who's using hate speech now?

OV wrote:
WHy do you, personally, have such a hard-on for the gays? If you're secretly worried you might be ***, there's a test you can take: suck a ****- if you like it, you're probably into dudes.


This is exactly my point. Hate speech. Say anything contrary to the homosexual life style and you're secretly a homosexual or a homophobe. How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?


Take a deep breath and relax. You want to know why FRC is a hate group vs a group that says that homosexuality is icky and gives them the creeps? Because they run studies linking homosexuality to pedophilia. They opposed the Uniting American Families Act because it would allow the partner of a commited individual in a permanant relationship to apply for a green card/immigratation, they "would rather see us export homosexuals, than import them" (paraphrasing but very close to the quote you can find on 'tube). THey think that homosexuality is destructive to our society, in the same way that other hate groups see Jews or Blacks in that light. Take five minutes out of your day to check out some of the studies they proudly link to on their website. There are many interviews floating around in text, audio, and video with their members happily shooting off their mouths about how dangerous teh gays r.

They are a hate group.
#33 Aug 20 2012 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,738 posts
The *** lifestyle is 20% more FABULOUS.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Aug 20 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Just 20%? Hmmm...I may have to "***" things up around here. Better buy some Donna Summer records or something.
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#35 Aug 20 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
What's a furry?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#36 Aug 20 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,738 posts
People who take the birds and the bees story too literally.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Aug 20 2012 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As I said before, pro homosexual supporters always use the civil rights and women's movements as their foundation for their arguments, but when people use the SAME EXACT rationale for other forms of sexuality, it becomes a "slippery slope". It's either a valid rationale or it's not.

Speaking of fallacies, there's an excluded middle one going on right here.

Quote:
but magically when she turns 18, she is ready, because 18 year olds are matured individuals that fully understand life.

I doubt anyone believes that. Rather, 18 is considered by society to be a reasonable compromise on when to consider someone an adult with everyone realizing that some children mature faster than others. Of course, that's assuming (for "child love") purposes that the age of consent in that state is 18. And ignoring the obvious attempt on your part to steer clear of the stigma of pre-teen pedophilia which is what the "Gays are child lovers!" set is really talking about.
Quote:
How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?

Omegavegeta isn't supporting preventing them from marrying other furries, serving in the military or whatever else.

Edited, Aug 20th 2012 1:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 20 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
That's a fairly contradictory statement there, but I think it you're still somewhat agreeing with me. If they're in denial about their bigotry, then they don't see themselves as bigots.


It's not contradictory at all. My distinction maybe irrelevant, but I took your comment as bigots do not realize that they are bigots. In other words, they don't think that they are doing anything wrong. My counter references people who argue slave owners didn't know that slavery was wrong because owning slaves was the norm. That's a load of crap because they weren't desiring to be slaves and they weren't enslaving their friends and family, so obviously they knew it was subhuman. Likewise, any bigot KNOWS that what they are doing is indeed bigotry ( I would say most to be realistic ). Whether or not they admit to being one is another story.

Marres wrote:
What exactly is the "homosexual lifestyle." I mean, I've been *** all my life and seem to be missing out on something special. I see this term thrown about all the time as if my daily routine and/or home life is special.


It's not special at all. The word "lifestyle" can be seen as redundant as it is defined in the word homosexuality. It's your sexual lifestyle based on homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality or some other form of sexuality.

Paskil wrote:
Because they run studies linking homosexuality to @#%^philia.


There's nothing wrong with that. Making up results or creating misleading studies is wrong, but simply doing the study isn't classified as a "hate group". If the claim is as bogus as you want to believe, then it should show up in the research. If I did a research to show that women are from the devil, I would get laughed at. However, providing studies that falsely "prove" it would fall under "hatred". Once again, you're expressing your hatred towards 'philia.

Paskil wrote:
They opposed the Uniting American Families Act because it would allow the partner of a commited individual in a permanant relationship to apply for a green card/immigratation, they "would rather see us export homosexuals, than import them" (paraphrasing but very close to the quote you can find on 'tube).


I can see that being considered as hatred; however, I would be hesitant to solidify my answer without seeing it in context.

Paskil wrote:
THey think that homosexuality is destructive to our society,

In what way? Would say the same thing if they believed strippers, prostitutes and whores (men and women) were destructive to our society? Are they fighting for sexual purity or are they singling out homosexuality?

Paskil wrote:
in the same way that other hate groups see Jews or Blacks in that light.

Given the fact that your skin color and national origin are not life styles, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be in the same way. THAT is the slippery slope used by pro-homosexual supporters as their foundation.

Paskil wrote:
Take five minutes out of your day to check out some of the studies they proudly link to on their website. There are many interviews floating around in text, audio, and video with their members happily shooting off their mouths about how dangerous teh gays r.

They are a hate group.


It doesn't seem necessary as everything provided by supporters fall short of a hate group. I'm not going to deny some "hateful" phrases that might be floating around, but what constitutes a hate group? If simply the words provided, then the average pro-homosexual support group is equally a hate group for labeling everyone homophobic bigots who don't support them.
#39 Aug 20 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
329 posts
So *** is a lifestyle now? Who knew! Tell me about this "heterosexual lifestyle." How does one lead it? Does it involve cake decorating?
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#40 Aug 20 2012 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Paskil wrote:
in the same way that other hate groups see Jews or Blacks in that light.

Given the fact that your skin color and national origin are not life styles, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be in the same way. THAT is the slippery slope used by pro-homosexual supporters as their foundation.
Homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) is not a lifestyle you ******* ******.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#41 Aug 20 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Marres wrote:
Tell me about this "heterosexual lifestyle." How does one lead it? Does it involve cake decorating?

Actually, you just hang around the house on a Friday night watching a "Cake Boss" marathon because you're too tired to find a babysitter and go out.

So... sorta?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Aug 20 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Marres wrote:
So *** is a lifestyle now? Who knew! Tell me about this "heterosexual lifestyle." How does one lead it? Does it involve cake decorating?

It mostly involves wearing wife-beaters. And Alma.
#43 Aug 20 2012 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Marres wrote:
So *** is a lifestyle now? Who knew! Tell me about this "heterosexual lifestyle." How does one lead it? Does it involve cake decorating?

It mostly involves wearing wife-beaters. And Alma.
And makin' sure them there ****** aren't allowed to tell you that they're checking your *** out in the shower.
____________________________
Banh
#44 Aug 20 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Cake Boss? Bleah. Guess I'm glad my partner and I watch House Hunters, Chopped, and Antiques Roadshow instead.
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#45 Aug 20 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Speaking of fallacies, there's an excluded middle one going on right here.


You got me!!Smiley: rolleyes

Jophiel wrote:
I doubt anyone believes that. Rather, 18 is considered by society to be a reasonable compromise on when to consider someone an adult with everyone realizing that some children mature faster than others. Of course, that's assuming (for "child love") purposes that the age of consent in that state is 18. And ignoring the obvious attempt on your part to steer clear of the stigma of pre-teen pedophilia which is what the "Gays are child lovers!" set is really talking about.


I'm just making a point. As a society, we "arbitrarily" (placed in quotes to avoid that argument for now) choose an age to discriminate against. In reality, we know that there is no difference between 18 and 17, but choosing the age of 18 is "logical" as it coincides with other regulations. Allowing that restriction to include 17 year olds shatters the core argument of being an adult. At that point, what's the difference between 17 and 16? 16 and 15? So on and so on? I don't think there is a logical argument denying the difference between a 12 year old and an 18 year old, but what logical sound argument is used to allow 17 and 16 year olds that can't be applied to 12 year olds? Society has purposefully created a line of acceptance and stuck with it.

Do you see any resemblance here? Homosexuals are the 17 year olds. Everyone knows that there is no difference between 18 year olds and 17 year olds, but where do you draw the line ( assuming you're advocating a line)? How can you allow 17 year olds, but not 16 year olds? I'm not saying it's not possible, but you have to present that argument. Most arguments either include them or exclude them in a matter that is no different than the way that they are/were excluded.

Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta isn't supporting preventing them from marrying other furries, serving in the military or whatever else.

Which doesn't answer the question. Let a person who feels indifferent in the homosexual movement, but thinks homosexuality is wrong. Is he a homophobe?

#46 Aug 20 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Speaking of fallacies, there's an excluded middle one going on right here.


You got me!!Smiley: rolleyes

Jophiel wrote:
I doubt anyone believes that. Rather, 18 is considered by society to be a reasonable compromise on when to consider someone an adult with everyone realizing that some children mature faster than others. Of course, that's assuming (for "child love") purposes that the age of consent in that state is 18. And ignoring the obvious attempt on your part to steer clear of the stigma of pre-teen @#%^philia which is what the "Gays are child lovers!" set is really talking about.


I'm just making a point. As a society, we "arbitrarily" (placed in quotes to avoid that argument for now) choose an age to discriminate against. In reality, we know that there is no difference between 18 and 17, but choosing the age of 18 is "logical" as it coincides with other regulations. Allowing that restriction to include 17 year olds shatters the core argument of being an adult. At that point, what's the difference between 17 and 16? 16 and 15? So on and so on? I don't think there is a logical argument denying the difference between a 12 year old and an 18 year old, but what logical sound argument is used to allow 17 and 16 year olds that can't be applied to 12 year olds? Society has purposefully created a line of acceptance and stuck with it.

Do you see any resemblance here? Homosexuals are the 17 year olds. Everyone knows that there is no difference between 18 year olds and 17 year olds, but where do you draw the line ( assuming you're advocating a line)? How can you allow 17 year olds, but not 16 year olds? I'm not saying it's not possible, but you have to present that argument. Most arguments either include them or exclude them in a matter that is no different than the way that they are/were excluded.
Age doesn't come into play ...at all in homosexuality. There is no guessing if the person is mature enough to make their own decisions. So, it's a stupid comparison. It's even stupider that you keep going with it.

Quote:
Let a person who feels indifferent in the homosexual movement, but thinks homosexuality is wrong. Is he a homophobe?

Basically yes, if someone declares that it's 'wrong' for another person to be homosexual then they are passing judgement on someone else based on bigotry.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#47 Aug 20 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
I think that the idea is that when people find homosexuality wrong, a lot of times it's because they're scared of it (and what it could do to "traditional" marriage). Another form of homophobia is when mostly heterosexual males overcompensate because they are scared they might be "brainwashed" into the "lifestyle" because it's a "choice". Silly boys, if only you accepted that the gays are born that way and there's nothing we can do about it, you have so much less to be afraid of.
#48 Aug 20 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,738 posts
It's like you people have Weekend Alzheimers.

Edited, Aug 20th 2012 3:51pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Aug 20 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like you people have Weekend Alzheimers.

Edited, Aug 20th 2012 3:51pm by lolgaxe

50 First Posts With Alma. Who are you?

Speaking of Alzheimers, it's been linked to microwave popcorn. Smiley: eek
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#50Almalieque, Posted: Aug 20 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I see someone is being purposefully ignorant. Whatever floats your boat. So, I guess being a ***** isn't a lifestyle either huh? So, what defines a "lifestyle" Mr. Denial?
#51 Aug 20 2012 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I see someone is being purposefully ignorant. Whatever floats your boat. So, I guess being a ***** isn't a lifestyle either huh? So, what defines a "lifestyle" Mr. Denial?

"Being a *****" is sexuality now? Whoa, might want to ground those goalposts a little better before you move them again.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (46)