Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#52 Aug 20 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Speaking of fallacies, there's an excluded middle one going on right here.
You got me!!Smiley: rolleyes

I'm not sure if the rolly-eyes are supposed to magically do away with your poor logic or not but emoticons don't work that way.

Quote:
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.

You're making a very poor point. There is a difference between 17 and 18 year olds. One is a year older with a year more experience under their belt. I was a different person at 18 than 17. Maybe you weren't, I have no idea.

For that matter, there's no discrimination against 17 year olds in an AOC context. It's illegal for ME to have *** with a 17 year old (assuming it is in whatever state). It's not illegal for THEM to have *** with me. No one arrests young teens simply for having *** with older partners.

There's also the painfully obvious point that one major difference between homosexuals/17 year olds and heterosexual/18 year olds is that all 17 year olds become 18 year olds and the "discrimination" against them ends.

Quote:
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?

Define "Wrong". Thinks it's silly? Thinks it makes the homosexual a lesser person? Thinks it makes them evil? Omegavegeta said he found it "creepy" but also that there's nothing wrong with it, it's their business and it'd be weird for him to obsess about it. If you're asking whether I'd call someone who finds homosexuality yucky as an act but also says there's nothing innately wrong with it, it's none of his business and who thinks it's weird to worry about it, no I wouldn't consider them a homophobe.

Edited, Aug 20th 2012 3:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53Almalieque, Posted: Aug 20 2012 at 2:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's the thing. Your own bigotry and prejudice projects such silliness unto people who simply think homosexuality is wrong. These people might think homosexuality is wrong just like they might think numerous of other accepted forms of lifestyles and/or life choices are wrong. You accept and/or are indifferent to some, but react negatively when its about homosexuality. Calling people bigots and homophobes who are either secretly *** or afraid of homosexuality because they simply don't accept homosexuality is terrorism in itself. You can't just start making up bogus reasoning on their beliefs and react to them. You are creating a hostile environment for people who disagree with your opinions and you have the audacity to belittle someone else for bolstering a "hate group".
#54 Aug 20 2012 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Quote:
It's your sexual lifestyle based on homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality or some other form of sexuality.


Ok, so it's not ***? You said so yourself. A "sexual lifestyle" would suggest that it's all about the *** as opposed to dieting.
____________________________
"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
#55 Aug 20 2012 at 3:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
jophiel wrote:

I'm not sure if the rolly-eyes are supposed to magically do away with your poor logic or not but emoticons don't work that way.


Nope. It was to enhance the sarcasm in the previous statement.

jophiel wrote:
You're making a very poor point. There is a difference between 17 and 18 year olds. One is a year older with a year more experience under their belt. I was a different person at 18 than 17. Maybe you weren't, I have no idea.


A year? I'm referencing to the same person. You might have been someone totally different in a year, but it can be as little as 24 hours apart. Your 18th birthday is tomorrow. Today you're too "immature", but tomorrow you aren't? Surely you didn't mature that quickly?

I would argue that the average person changes gradually each year and not dramatically EVERY year. Out of curiosity, what happened on your 18th birthday that made you so different than 24 hours prior?

jophiel wrote:
For that matter, there's no discrimination against 17 year olds in an AOC context. It's illegal for ME to have *** with a 17 year old (assuming it is in whatever state). It's not illegal for THEM to have *** with me. No one arrests young teens simply for having *** with older partners.


It's still discrimination. Thank you for pointing that out. That's no different than saying that it's not discrimination or unfair to ban SSM, because a homosexual man can still marry an eligible woman. We make these laws, so you can't hide behind something being "illegal", especially if you're fighting to change the law.

jophiel wrote:
There's also the painfully obvious point that one major difference between homosexuals/17 year olds and heterosexual/18 year olds is that all 17 year olds become 18 year olds and the "discrimination" against them ends.


'Tis true, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter that a line is made.

Jophiel wrote:
Define "Wrong". Thinks it's silly? Thinks it makes the homosexual a lesser person? Thinks it makes them evil? Omegavegeta said he found it "creepy" but also that there's nothing wrong with it, it's their business and it'd be weird for him to obsess about it. If you're asking whether I'd call someone who finds homosexuality yucky as an act but also says there's nothing innately wrong with it, it's none of his business and who thinks it's weird to worry about it, no I wouldn't consider them a homophobe.


I'm not being smart, but I define "wrong" as "not right". The belief that a man should be with a woman. You're intentionally trying to add other beliefs that aren't present. "yucky" or "silly" are just childish ways of saying "wrong". I'll ask again. Do you consider a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong but is indifferent to homosexuality in society a bigot?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#56 Aug 20 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, given your inability to understand what a terrible comparison AOE is and your inability to actually define "wrong", I'm just going to let that one stand on its own merits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57Almalieque, Posted: Aug 20 2012 at 4:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FTFY
#58 Aug 20 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
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.


That's because you misunderstood the comparison. I didn't say that the two were the same. I was making a conceptual comparison of society making a "arbitrary" line of acceptance. One was for age and the other was for homosexuality. That doesn't mean that the two are the same.
age isn't arbitrary at all. it's beyond dispute that a child isn't an adult. a person that's 50 can't make the claim they're a child.

likewise there is really no arbitrary line of acceptance for homosexuality. you can't deny people are ***. it's accepted. your acceptance is some kind of line where 'you' can decide how 'right' or wrong it is to be ***.

How right is it to be black?


alma wrote:
Elinda wrote:

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.


Do you know what bigotry means, because your usage is incorrect. According to your definition, everyone is a bigot.
See above.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#59 Aug 20 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.

Well, I never intended to excuse their behavior if that's what you thought I meant. However, the idea that there is some universal morality which everyone is aware of deep down in their cardiac muscle is a fantasy. You try to draw a distinction between knowing and admitting/accepting, but I'm not seeing it.

Let me try to give you another example of what I'm talking about. Take an orthodox Muslim, one who believes women should wear a burka or other full-covering garb. Do you think he believes he is oppressing women, but it's just too much fun to stop? Or do you think he believes he's enforcing god's will on earth and that this is the right thing to do?

People who you and I would say do bad things, tend to think of themselves as good people. People go through enormous contortions of reasoning to let themselves believe their actions are acceptable. IF I'm stealing pencils off your desk everyday, maybe I think everyone does the same thing and therefore it's fine, maybe I think pencils are community property and everyone gets to use them, maybe I think that I'd let you do the same thing to me so it's ok. I'll tell you I probably don't think of myself as a thief.

When two people disagree, it might be comforting to think the other person knows he is wrong but just doesn't want to admit it because he's jealous/doesn't want to lose the argument/wants to save face/whatever. However more often than not, the other party genuinely believes he is right. That perspective makes a world of difference in how you interact with people.
#60 Aug 20 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Oh, I see, so *** marriage would just be a "sexual lifestyle" and should be fine with everyone since it's like eating carrots, 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
#61 Aug 20 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Marres wrote:
Oh, I see, so *** marriage would just be a "sexual lifestyle" and should be fine with everyone since it's like eating carrots, or something.


Of course. Didn't you know that "homosexual relationships are just “one man violently cramming his ***** into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations"?
#62 Aug 20 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Elinda wrote:
age isn't arbitrary at all. it's beyond dispute that a child isn't an adult. a person that's 50 can't make the claim they're a child.


It's completely arbitrary. The age of an adult and level of maturity to do certain things (i.e. drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes) vary among cultures in the world. We picked an age that coincides with our laws. There is nothing life changing that happens to a person on their 18th birthday that s/he didn't posses 24 hours previous to that day.

Elinda wrote:
likewise there is really no arbitrary line of acceptance for homosexuality. you can't deny people are ***. it's accepted. your acceptance is some kind of line where 'you' can decide how 'right' or wrong it is to be ***.


You're not understanding the concept. There is a line of acceptance in regards of what society thinks is right or wrong. That line will always exist. Currently p-philes, polygamists, etc. are considered as "unacceptable" in our culture. The current movement is to shift that line so homosexuality isn't included in that group as it once was.

Elinda wrote:
How right is it to be black?


As I said, your skin color isn't a life style, so there is no comparison. I'm not sure why people insist on believing that it is. Is it wrong to be born blind, deaf and/or mute?

Elinda wrote:
See above.


I'll take that as you didn't even bother to look up the word. So, unless you believe everyone is a bigot, then you have no idea what that word means.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#63 Aug 20 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
FTFY

I'm okay with you telling yourself that Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Aug 20 2012 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,956 posts
Quote:
As I said, your skin color isn't a life style, so there is no comparison. I'm not sure why people insist on believing that it is. Is it wrong to be born blind, deaf and/or mute?


Sounds like something a black person would say, to justify their terrible lifestyle decisions.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 Aug 20 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Allegory wrote:
Well, I never intended to excuse their behavior if that's what you thought I meant. However, the idea that there is some universal morality which everyone is aware of deep down in their cardiac muscle is a fantasy. You try to draw a distinction between knowing and admitting/accepting, but I'm not seeing it.


There are fundamentally universal actions that all society considers as bad or good.

Allegory wrote:
Let me try to give you another example of what I'm talking about. Take an orthodox Muslim, one who believes women should wear a burka or other full-covering garb. Do you think he believes he is oppressing women, but it's just too much fun to stop? Or do you think he believes he's enforcing god's will on earth and that this is the right thing to do?


Is that what the women want? If that's what the women believe and want to do, then it's not oppression. Just because in our culture, we see that as negative, doesn't mean it's negative. When I went to college, I saw a variety of Muslim women who clothes varied from fully clothed to tank-top and mini shorts. We can't project our beliefs onto other people and say that they are being oppressed.

That's like when people claim that women who want to stay at home are "holding women back" or some other nonsense. Each person has the right to decide how they want to live their life. If a woman decides to be a domestic engineer then she has that right. That doesn't make her any less of a woman in comparison to a woman who decides to be a CEO of her business.

Allegory wrote:
People who you and I would say do bad things, tend to think of themselves as good people. People go through enormous contortions of reasoning to let themselves believe their actions are acceptable. IF I'm stealing pencils off your desk everyday, maybe I think everyone does the same thing and therefore it's fine, maybe I think pencils are community property and everyone gets to use them, maybe I think that I'd let you do the same thing to me so it's ok. I'll tell you I probably don't think of myself as a thief.


As I said, there are universal fundamental actions that are considered as bad or good, and stealing is one of them. The fact that you, as a person, have certain attachments to things that are yours, by default, instills the concept of stealing to your brain. If your thought is communal, then it isn't a thought of stealing, it's sharing. If you're sneaking to get the pencil or have no intention of giving it back, then it's wrong and you know that. Bottom line.

Allegory wrote:
When two people disagree, it might be comforting to think the other person knows he is wrong but just doesn't want to admit it because he's jealous/doesn't want to lose the argument/wants to save face/whatever. However more often than not, the other party genuinely believes he is right. That perspective makes a world of difference in how you interact with people.


You are conjecturing two different concepts. The original concept is specifically in reference to being a bigot and not knowing it. That is impossible. The second concept is simply being "wrong" in a discussion and not knowing it. In that sense, most people would believe that they are right, else they wouldn't argue with you in the first place. You can't use the latter to abet the former.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#66 Aug 20 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Calling someone a bigot is terrorism...?

Alma has gone off the deep end.
#67 Aug 20 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
Belkira, quit being a terrorist.
____________________________
Banh
#68 Aug 20 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
Calling someone a bigot is terrorism...?

Alma has gone off the deep end.


He's been off the deep end since the day he was born, best as I can tell.

He lapses in logic so reliably that you'd think he was genetically engineered to do so. It's truly uncanny. Every quote of his is bewildering.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Aug 20 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Belkira, quit being a terrorist.


I can't help it. It's my lifestyle.
#70 Aug 20 2012 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Belkira wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Belkira, quit being a terrorist.


I can't help it. It's my lifestyle.


*terrorist fist bump*
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#71 Aug 20 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
You know, I'm not new to this rodeo. I've been hearing just these kinds of arguments to minimize the hateful things people say and do for decades now. "Oh, they're not a bigot, they just don't agree with this lifestyle choice." "Oh, they don't hate *** people, they just want to protect the sanctity of marriage." "They love the gays! They just don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle so they're spending money trying to prevent gays from getting married." "Them? They're not a hate group, they're just donating money to have gays put to death in Uganda because their faith is so important to them." "They love the gays so much they're donating money to Exodus international to attempt to cure them of their homosexual lifestyle."

So, if someone says they're against the "homosexual lifestyle" are they a bigot? Well, maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly not going to allow them to get away with what they're saying and doing without challenging it. So sure, they can think it's wrong all they want. But if they're attempting to interfere with my civil rights--as the Family Research Council has done numerous times--then I'm going to call em as I see em. Like when a senior fellow at FRC said that homosexuality should be a crime back in 2009, or Robert Knight and his statements about gays attempting to entice young children to the cause. See the Bloomberg article discussing why FRC deserves to be called a hate group: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/why-not-call-the-family-research-council-a-hate-group-.html

Or back in March when FRC was asking members to "pray" to reverse laws (see: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council-prays-against-homosexual-tyranny

Did you know FRC was attempting to drum up interest in boycotting Girl Scout cookies? http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council-prays-against-girl-scout-cookies

I mean, come on, if these are the kinds of arguments certain people are going to put forth then we'd be stupid to sit back and be silent.
____________________________
"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
#72 Aug 20 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Yeah, it's worth arguing a lot and protesting against the FRC... it's just not justifiable to start physically attacking them, unless one of them decks you first. Uh.

So yeah, murder bad, *** hate bad.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#73 Aug 20 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Marres wrote:
Did you know FRC was attempting to drum up interest in boycotting Girl Scout cookies?
I'm all for a war against those filthy little drug pushers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Aug 20 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Marres wrote:
Did you know FRC was attempting to drum up interest in boycotting Girl Scout cookies?
I'm all for a war against those filthy little drug pushers.

War on Cookies!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#75 Aug 20 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Be prepared for a furry blue nemesis.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#76 Aug 21 2012 at 12:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 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?
It's nice that you can look in the mirror, maybe you should try to learn from what you see. Now go read a dictionary.
Since your sexuality does not have a significant impact on the way you lead your life aside from who you want to sleep next to it is not a lifestyle.

So once again, you're a ******* ******.
____________________________
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.
#77 Aug 21 2012 at 1:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,956 posts
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#78 Aug 21 2012 at 3:29 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Marres wrote:
Oh, I see, so *** marriage would just be a "sexual lifestyle" and should be fine with everyone since it's like eating carrots, or something.


No, I didn't say SSM was a lifestyle. I said homosexuality is a lifestyle. Just because two men decide to marry, that doesn't make them homosexual.

Since it seems like you are being genuine, I will explain.

What I did was make a metaphor/simile. I was making a conceptual comparison between an action and a lifestyle and I used something that you could relate to in order to convey the difference. A single action doesn't make a lifestyle. You getting high after work once, doesn't make you a druggie. You getting high every weekend, makes you a druggie.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
FTFY

I'm okay with you telling yourself that Smiley: smile


You and I both know that isn't what you mean. I'm just giving you a nudge. I take "JUL" (Jophiel, Ugly, lolgax) more seriously than others.

Belkira wrote:
Calling someone a bigot is terrorism...?

Alma has gone off the deep end.


Uh... no... I didn't say that.

Almalieque wrote:
Calling people bigots and homophobes who are either secretly *** or afraid of homosexuality because they simply don't accept homosexuality is terrorism in itself. You can't just start making up bogus reasoning on their beliefs and react to them. You are creating a hostile environment for people who disagree with your opinions and you have the audacity to belittle someone else for bolstering a "hate group".


ter·ror·ism
   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Calling a bigot a bigot is not terrorism. Scaring people into agreeing with your beliefs, falls under these definitions. It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group. If it's valid one way, then it has to be valid the other way.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#79 Aug 21 2012 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
Why do you think Homosexuality is wrong, Alma? Your answer to that question, which odds are you will never actually answer, will let you know if you're a bigot or not.

Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the **** they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty ******* stupid.

You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...

You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?

You think gays are amoral, pedophiles, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#80 Aug 21 2012 at 4:37 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Quote:
It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group.


Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost. See those links I provided? The actions of FRC certainly DO make them a hate group
____________________________
"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
#81 Aug 21 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
Omega wrote:
I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit).


See? Everyone has their threshold.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#82 Aug 21 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Omega wrote:
I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit).


If Puss-in-Boots purrs in Antonio Banderas, I could totally let the feline sleep at the foot my bed.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#83 Aug 21 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Marres wrote:
Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost.
When you respond to him, the terrorists win.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Aug 21 2012 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
age isn't arbitrary at all. it's beyond dispute that a child isn't an adult. a person that's 50 can't make the claim they're a child.


It's completely arbitrary. The age of an adult and level of maturity to do certain things (i.e. drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes) vary among cultures in the world. We picked an age that coincides with our laws. There is nothing life changing that happens to a person on their 18th birthday that s/he didn't posses 24 hours previous to that day.
No. It's recognition that a child isn't an adult.

Quote:
Elinda wrote:
likewise there is really no arbitrary line of acceptance for homosexuality. you can't deny people are ***. it's accepted. your acceptance is some kind of line where 'you' can decide how 'right' or wrong it is to be ***.


You're not understanding the concept. There is a line of acceptance in regards of what society thinks is right or wrong. That line will always exist. Currently p-philes, polygamists, etc. are considered as "unacceptable" in our culture. The current movement is to shift that line so homosexuality isn't included in that group as it once was.
No, you're not understanding the concept. You can't 'not accept' that people are homosexuals anymore than you can not accept that girls aren't girls, or blacks aren't black, or albinos aren't albinos or diabetics aren't diabetics. They exist. You can't make that go away.

When you can understand that, then maybe you can see how ridiculous it is to argue about acceptance (approval).








Edited, Aug 21st 2012 2:59pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#85 Aug 21 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
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?
It's nice that you can look in the mirror, maybe you should try to learn from what you see. Now go read a dictionary.
Since your sexuality does not have a significant impact on the way you lead your life aside from who you want to sleep next to it is not a lifestyle.

So once again, you're a @#%^ing ******.


Do you actually read these definitions or do you just quote them in the hopes that they say what you want them to say? First of all, when defining an "Is-A" relationship, you define the child (sexuality), not the parent (lifestyle), since we're talking about sexuality. Doing the reverse is a "Has-A" relationship. In other words, if you want to know if an apple is a fruit, you look up "apple", not "fruit".

In any case, let's continue down your backwards logic. Unless you believe the relationship you have with a person starts and ends in the bedroom, then it has a huge impact on your life. Do you expect to see monks and nuns trying to pick up hot dates in a club? Do you expect virgins who are saving themselves for marriage to put out on the first date? Do you expect whores to have a "90-day/5 date" rule before putting out? Do you expect someone who is sexually expressive to wear sexually conservative clothes? Do you expect a heterosexual to seek partners of the same ***?

Omegavegeta wrote:
Why do you think Homosexuality is wrong, Alma? Your answer to that question, which odds are you will never actually answer, will let you know if you're a bigot or not.

Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the **** they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty @#%^ing stupid.

You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...

You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?

You think gays are amoral, @#%^philes, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.


Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.

Answer my questions first, then we can talk.

Hint: It's none of those ridiculous reasons that you listed.

Marres wrote:
Quote:
It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group.


Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost. See those links I provided? The actions of FRC certainly DO make them a hate group


You're reading too much into it. That statement wasn't meant to say that FRC was innocent, but to show the reasoning behind the accusation. You can't accept one line of logic to label someone a hate group, but then not for another.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#86 Aug 21 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There are fundamentally universal actions that all society considers as bad or good.

I don't want to be rude to you, but that is pretty laughably wrong.

A fair number of people think it's morally reprehensible for me to eat pork. Our views on when a girl is of proper marriageable and impregnable age differs widely for our own culture over time and for other cultures within the present. Pillaging, slaughter, and slavery were all pretty ok as long as it was perpetrated against the next tribe over. It's ok for a man to rape a woman, but it's not ok for a woman to be raped, because that's adultery.

What people think is right and wrong is highly mutable.
Almalieque wrote:
Is that what the women want? If that's what the women believe and want to do, then it's not oppression. Just because in our culture, we see that as negative, doesn't mean it's negative. When I went to college, I saw a variety of Muslim women who clothes varied from fully clothed to tank-top and mini shorts. We can't project our beliefs onto other people and say that they are being oppressed.

I guess I should have been more specific. Take an orthodox Muslim man who believes women should wear a burka, not be able to leave the home without a male escort, and should not participate in government. Many of the women of his society would like to be free from these rules and do consider it oppression. Do you think he believes he is oppressing women or rather that he believes he is doing the right thing?
Almalieque wrote:
If your thought is communal, then it isn't a thought of stealing, it's sharing.

But that's the point. IF I come by to get a pencil, and you're not there I might think it's ok to take it from you because I see pencils as communal. You don't think it's ok because a pencil is personal property to you.

You think I've stolen from you, but I don't think I've stolen from you. It's not that I know I did wrong but won't accept/admit it. I genuinely believe I've acted appropriately while you genuinely believe I've slighted you.
Almalieque wrote:
The original concept is specifically in reference to being a bigot and not knowing it. That is impossible.

But it is possible. Just like a religious man who is oppressing women but believes he is enforcing benevolent divine order or just like the pencil taker who doesn't see himself as a thief, Bigotry is in actions not feelings. When a bigot espouse separation of the races, most probably feel it is for the benefit of society and their children. "Blacks can do whatever they want, but we don't want them around us, dragging us down. Here's some research I found showing a correlation between blacks and crime."
#87 Aug 21 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Do you expect to see monks and nuns trying to pick up hot dates in a club? Do you expect virgins who are saving themselves for marriage to put out on the first date? Do you expect whores to have a "90-day/5 date" rule before putting out? Do you expect someone who is sexually expressive to wear sexually conservative clothes? Do you expect a heterosexual to seek partners of the same ***?
I don't see how this is even remotely connected to whether someone is hetero-, ****-, bi- or asexual. Which really just proves once again that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I don't get why you think this "arguing" is fun either, all you do is desperately try to derail the discussion to some tangent without ever having enough courage to give your own opinion or stand by that. And when someone tries to argue with you all you can do is run and hide behind some nonsensical comparison (like your persistent comparing of homosexuality and prostitution) while insisting that it is totally the same.

No offense to lolgaxe and others around here who are in the army but they must have some ridiculously low standards that someone with your intellect has been able to progress beyond cannon fodder.




EDIT: Well, that was a ******* waste of my 19k non ding.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2012 12:31am by Aethien
____________________________
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.
#88Almalieque, Posted: Aug 21 2012 at 5:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's not necessarily bigotry. You are just proving my point of not understanding the word. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about doing research about the correlation between blacks and crime. If anything, for the said community, it can be used beneficially. There are correlations between crime and every race, so you're not really providing anything that isn't already known. As long as you're not making stuff up or twisting facts around to mislead people into believing what you say, then it isn't inherently wrong to do such a study.
#89 Aug 21 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
EDIT: Well, that was a @#%^ing waste of my 19k non ding.
WORST.POSTER.EVAR.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#90 Aug 21 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
As I said, there are also many women who willingly follow that lifestyle.
If by "willingly" you mean "I'll comply so I don't get beat by a piece of rebar" then...yeah, I suppose you're right.Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#91 Aug 21 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Alma, we get it! You hate women because they won't have *** with you. Smiley: deadhorse
#92Almalieque, Posted: Aug 21 2012 at 7:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. Even though I only lived in the middle east for a short time, I've seen women cover themselves at different levels. What I was told prior to my deployment, matched exactly what I saw on my college campus and in Iraq and Kuwait. Traditional women cover themselves up completely, modern women may only have a veil. When I was downtown Kuwait, I saw the whole range of women. I can't say that holds true for everywhere, but I haven't seen a place to the contrary yet. Just because they choose to cover themselves up in support of their beliefs, doesn't mean that they are being oppressed. Not every country needs the US to "save" them.
#93 Aug 21 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
If a woman in that situation is covering up, how do you magically decide she's Ok with it? Did you ask? Of course you didn't, because that's prohibited.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#94 Aug 21 2012 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
It is not whether or not the women in question are ok with it that makes it oppression. It's whether or not the women in question have a choice that matters when deciding if it is oppression or not. Since you like definitions so much (even though here's only a 5% chance you'll understand it):

The dictionary (at Google) wrote:
op·pres·sion  
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
The state of being subject to such treatment or control.


Bolding mine.
#95 Aug 21 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?
#96 Aug 21 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?


It doesn't count if I don't quote him... Right??
#97 Aug 21 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?


It doesn't count if I don't quote him... Right??

Smiley: mad
#98 Aug 21 2012 at 11:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.

Answer my questions first, then we can talk.

Hint: It's none of those ridiculous reasons that you listed.


By all means, ask me some questions. I've got the balls to answer them, you have demonstrated consistently that you do not.

Coward.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#99 Aug 22 2012 at 12:07 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Guenny wrote:
Alma, we get it! You hate women because they won't have *** with you. Smiley: deadhorse
Probably why he hates the gays too.
____________________________
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.
#100Almalieque, Posted: Aug 22 2012 at 3:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhh. You obviously don't read my posts.... I said that I already asked you questions and you haven't answered them. I guess you're a coward after all huh? Go figure. I mean, unless I overlooked your post, then I apologize.
#101 Aug 22 2012 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Dear Alma,

Failing to acknowledge your own short-comings and attempted to cover them up with stupid rhetoric is what makes people sub-default you (ie - it's not your opinion that gets rated down).

I'm so ashamed I got sucked in. I'm saying ten "hail Uglies" in penance.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT