Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2013, 09:04 AM   #121
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
Most Christian doctrines don't even believe in mortal sin. That's a Catholic thing.
And Catholicism is the largest denomination.

Anyhow point is he is saying that a gay persons love for their partner is a bad thing and something to be ashamed of precisely because it is sinful. nSounds pretty bigoted to me.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-13-2013, 12:45 PM   #122
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
You are equating belief systems to genetic identity. It's such an obvious error that I've spent too much time trying to point out over and over. Why are you having such a hard time with this?
...
You can't be bigoted toward a religion (or any belief system) any more than you can find the square root of a pork chop. It's because you're applying incompatible terminology.
I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Regardless of how any individual member may view blacks, do you think the belief system itself should go forever unchallenged because opposing any belief system is bigotry against its members?
...
I noticed you dodged my question about the KKK. You really think that anyone who stands up to them is no more than an intolerant hypocritical bigot? Or at the very least, is just as worthy of the label as a KKK member?
I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)

And what do you mean by Mormon beliefs going 'unchallenged'? (Lots of people disagree with Mormonism today). This seems premised on the belief that bigotry must be prohibited... which goes back to my original question(s) regarding bigotry accusations towards religious teachings: do you want to dictate acceptable doctrine to the Mormons? Do you want to rewrite the Book of Mormon or perhaps edit sermons and Sunday school lessons? Do you want to penalize some Mormon beliefs or perhaps prohibit Mormonism altogether? Do you want to ridicule and bully their members until they renounce their faith? If that doesn't work, do you turn to force and/or force of law? How would any of that be prettier or different than the bigotry you find so ugly?

And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry. My assumption regarding why you brought up the specifics of Mormonism and the KKK is that you are hoping to use them as examples of 'crazies' that deserve collective hatred/shaming/bullying/censorship (and therefore it can't be 'bigotry' because it is 'acceptable').

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-13-2013 at 12:49 PM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:27 PM   #123
Thespiralgoeson
Guru
 
Thespiralgoeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 10,289
Thespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.
I think any mature adult can at least agree to this much. While I don't agree with fundamentalist Christianity's stance on homosexuality, name calling certainly doesn't help anybody. I do think that people need to be held accountable for (what I see as) intolerant, misguided, and harmful beliefs. But yes, everyone should be tactful and civil in order for any kind of debate to be productive.

Last edited by Thespiralgoeson; 05-14-2013 at 05:03 PM.
Thespiralgoeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 10:04 PM   #124
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.
I thought you considered it a useless label. Now you want to use it in a broader sense? OK...

Quote:
I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)
I don't know why you keep bringing up this crap about "silencing" anybody. There has been no talk from me about legislating against their free speech. Everyone has a right to be hateful, and I have a right to call out their hate speech. That doesn't mean there's no fundamental difference between challenging ideas and claiming genetic superiority.

That's what I find most disturbing about your position. It doesn't look like you see any fundamental difference between the KKK's hatred of blacks and my own denouncement of the KKK. It's as if you think all ideas are worthy of equal respect and we just have minor philosophical differences.

I find their position despicable. Yet according to you, that makes me just as hateful, and therefore a hypocrite.

Quote:
And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry.

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.
Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 11:28 PM   #125
Scoobay
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,730
Scoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant futureScoobay has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.
sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...
Scoobay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:05 AM   #126
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobay View Post
sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...
Well not necessarily genetic but it is congenital. It is believed for whatever reason that too much or too little androgens produced by the fetus OR mother causes the fetus' sexual orientation to switch. It could have nothing to do with the fetus itself but with the mother. There have been many studies on estranged siblings showing that younger brothers are much more likely to be gay than older brothers. This would mean that the first brother had an effect of the mother's body's response to testosterone.

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological. There have been multiple studies on gay and straight brains showing a difference. Here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Last edited by SeanL; 05-15-2013 at 10:07 AM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:19 AM   #127
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological.
It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 05-15-2013 at 10:21 AM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:24 AM   #128
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.
Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:30 AM   #129
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.
Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:38 AM   #130
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.
Gotta agree...
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 11:50 AM   #131
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.
The difference being that scientists allow science to correct itself, while fundamentalists refuse to consider that their understanding of their deities might ever grow or change.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-16-2013 at 11:52 AM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 12:09 PM   #132
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post
The difference being that scientists allow science to correct itself, while fundamentalists refuse to consider that their understanding of their deities might ever grow or change.
Scientists aren't the problem with science - half-educated people are... Idiots like SeanL stating that a few studies conducted in a lab equate to "scientific fact" are no different than fundamentalist Christians citing cryptic rabbinic passages in the Old Testament as a reason to treat gay people with intolerance, when it completely contradicts Christ's message of tolerance. Neither one of them has any idea of what they're talking about, yet they're determined to wield their ignorance as a political tool.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 05-16-2013 at 03:17 PM. Reason: late typo catch
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:32 PM   #133
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Scientists are human just like religious people. To think otherwise is silly. They have beliefs that color their conclusions just like anyone else. They fall into group think and use data that supports their beliefs just like any other person.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:50 PM   #134
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Tolerance is simply a flawed foundation for harmony. You either have to tolerate intolerance (and thus never reach harmony), or you fall short of pure tolerance. And trying to force harmony (even under the guise of tolerance) will inevitably risk authoritarianism; if you want everyone singing the same song, you have to mandate the music sheet or silence the ones who differ.
I’m not sure to what extent I agree with this, but it’s kind of an interesting way to look at things, at least. True at least in the sense that silence isn’t the same thing as harmony. From an LGBT perspective, until the last 40 years or so, gays & lesbians have had to live (when they weren't busy being actively persecuted) in a sort of suffocatingly authoritarian, morally-disapproved “silent (and invisible) harmony” with society in general, and religious zealots in particular. Part of the dissonance you now hear is gays & lesbians gaining their voice, deciding NOT to live in a second-class, invisible silence; asserting their right to equal protection and equal treatment; and more and more fair-minded people agreeing with them. It’s the dissonance of “SINNER!” being shouted at gays & lesbians, and “BIGOT!” being shouted in reply.

The other part of the dissonance you're hearing is the cognitive dissoance that fundamentalist evangelicals experience when they attempt to assert that they should be able to attack and condemn individuals/groups without response, challenge or repercussion, like in the good ol' days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Do you propose rewriting the Bible or censoring the Church? Does the government get to dictate what religious teachings are now acceptable and which are forbidden? Or are you hoping everyone outgrows the need for Christ entirely? (There is also the extension into other religions, but I won't speculate on their texts.)
Is this an either/or choice, or can it be both? Or 'All of the above'? (Joking! …Really!)

Rewriting the Bible? Apart from the obvious fact that religious texts and canons have been re-writtten, added to, deleted from, translated, re-translated, revised, interpreted and re-interpreted by an unknowable number of people, in different eras, subject to different political influences and social traditions, infinitely many times already; and that the context in which they were originally written and the context in which we currently live has changed dramatically (Analogy: The 'I'm sitting in a room" video-file project)……

No. I don’t think that re-rewriting a religious text again is necessary. Or meaningful. The more that I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve come to think that the inconsistencies, contradictions, and anachronisms in religious texts should actually serve to show and remind people that these texts are merely imperfect historical documents, that provide a glimpse into the way people lived in ancient times, but definitely not a literal mandate/blueprint for living in a modern world. The problem of course comes when textual literalists insist that every word came from God’s lips (and in Shakespearean English, no less), that every word is correct, and that every principle continues to correlated perfectly to modern life; ignoring the possibility/inevitability of misinterpretation, misappropriation, and contemporary irrelevance. The problem comes in fetishizing religious texts and creating false idols out of them, and asserting that EVERYONE, adherents and non-adherents alike, bow down before them, and live in slavish obedience to a particular set of (mis)interpretations of archaic texts.

Censoring the churches? Again, unnecessary for the most part, not to mention untenable with the U.S.Constitution, (although you DO have to account for the Mormons’ government-forced abandonment of polygamy, the undercover government informants in mosques, the recent and ongoing attempts by the State of Texas to seize YFZ’s El Dorado temple and property, those ever-pesky IRS regulations about requirements for non-profit status for religious institutions, and the sporadic interference of state wildlife authorities in the interstate transport of reptiles used for religious observances, just to name a few specific instances).

More generally, churches that aspire to remain in the mainstream, churches that aspire to remain relevant, tend to self-censor; that is, they modulate and moderate their message to what will sell to a sustainable level of membership. You hear fundamentalist evangelicals acknowledging this reality bitterly and lamentingly when they denounce the mega-churches and their damnable prosperity gospel, with its lesser emphasis on hellfire, brimstone and condemnation, and more up-with-people-you-too-can-drive-a-Cadilliac/Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/Lear Jet-just-like-your-televangelist-pastor-can! theology.

That’s also why you hear so much less condemnation of divorce, or alcohol consumption, or single parenthood among more mainstream denominations today. And even in fundamentalist evangelical congregations, while you still may get some stone-faced stares, titters, and barely suppressed tut-&-clucks about mixed-race marriages, people rarely come out and out-and-out condemn them from the pulpit anymore. Or in public. At least in mixed company. Usually.

The more a denomination (or a specific church) condemns, the more they limit their potential 'market'. When you get a group who really equally condemns everybody for everything all the time...well..you get Westboro Baptist Church. Would you argue that they are censored? Were they being persecuted when the father of the soldier sued them for demonstrating at his son’s funeral? Were they being mocked when the Supreme Court took their appeal and found in their favor? Are the Westboro Baptists undeserving of public ridicule and condemnation? Can we really contend that they are treated unfairly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
It seems like you pine for a world in which pretty much everyone agrees with your viewpoint. Yet you also acknowledge that, not too long ago, pretty much everyone disagreed with your viewpoint. The past world you view as bigoted and needing to be abandoned; yet, your proposed future is portrayed as somehow idyllic.
Not really. Not at all, actually. Though I will confess to kind of enjoying seeing the LGBT movement and their supporters turn the tables, and throw the arguments of religious zealots (some of whom are undeniably out-and-out bigots, others cynical political maneuverers) right back into their faces.

France. Rhode Island. Delaware. Minnesota. Brazil. The just-released Gallup results showing 53% support in the United States for allowing gays & lesbians to marry, the third consecutive poll reading with more than 50% acceptance, and the same poll showing that a majority of Americans believe that people (some, at least) are born homosexual. Another poll showing 56% support in Virginia for allowing gays & lesbians to marry, up from 46% in 2006. Or another poll showing 57% support for marriage equality in Michigan, up 12.5 points from a year ago. Or another poll showing 55% support for marriage equality in Arizona. The upcoming SCOTUS decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. While far from idyllic, I think that things are more equal now, and that we are headed toward being a better society for it. But I harbor no illusion that the world will ever be in a “perfect” state of agreement on anything. In the same way that the poor will always be with us, so too will the ignorant, and the over-zealous, and the bigoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
True Christians believe that the choices we make in life affect our immortal souls. If we love our neighbors as Christ loves us, we can't silently let them ruin their immortal souls out of what we see as a short-sighted desire to enjoy life;…Now the proper language isn't Westboro-ish; that is not loving and likely risks the speaker's soul just as much. But it is also not silence or acceptance of the choice.

So what about the fundamentalist evangelicals? Do the “True Christians” (the “True” revealing so much) want to force gays & lesbians back into a state of ‘harmonious’ silence and inoffensive invisibility? (I think that genie may already be out of the bottle.) Will True Christians continue to try to condemn and shame gays & lesbians for what True Christians see as the ‘short-sighted desire of gays and lesbians to enjoy their lives’. Or are the True Christians willing to live with the dissonance.

Judging from your perspective, DirkFTW, and from the anguished yelps from bigots like Michele Bachmann for “spiritual warfare” in response to Minnesota's recently-passed legislation in favor of equality for gays and lesbians, I’m guessing not. But the longer that “True Christians” continue to refuse to moderate their message, the more they will move on the relevance spectrum, precisely in the direction of the snakehandlers and the Westboro Baptists. It’s the curse of the fundamentalist evangelicals to forever misinterpret and mis-apply the Great Commission mandate, to perversely wield it as an all-purpose excuse to try to manipulate and coerce others (other believers, alternative believers, and non-believers alike) to see the world THEIR way, and to live according to THEIR values, all in the name of “…loving our neighbors as Christ loves us…”

It’s a shame (but a reality) that people can’t just shut up already and stop condemning one another, and stop calling one another names. In the same way that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, screaming “SINNER!” and “BIGOT!” in one another’s ear makes us all deaf to reason, numb to fairness, insensate to compassion, ambivalent about tolerance, and ultimately, averse to acceptance. And that's hardly idyllic.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-19-2013 at 01:13 PM. Reason: Orthographic errata, formatting anomalies.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 07:03 PM   #135
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.
It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:07 AM   #136
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.
No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?

Quote:
On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.
So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 05-17-2013 at 11:08 AM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:28 PM   #137
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?



So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)
Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.

Last edited by SeanL; 05-17-2013 at 12:45 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:47 PM   #138
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about.
If you have multiple scientific degrees, then I'm the Queen of England. You've repeatedly displayed that you don't even possess the most basic grasp of scientific vocabulary, as you obviously can't recognize the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," nor do you know what a "fact" is.

Quote:
The fact that you are bashing scientists
I never bashed scientists - if anything, I've defended science from being manipulated by ignorant tools like yourself who invoke "because science" to win a political debate... No different than people who invoke "because Jesus" to win a debate... Oh, and winning a debate has nothing to do with Science's sole purpose of discovering truth.

Quote:
just proves my point that people who tend to vote Republican are anti-science neanderthals.
Nice try, but you've decided to paint me as your opposite, rather than paying attention to anything I've tried to communicate to you... The last person I voted for in a presidential election was John Kerry... The time before that? Ralph Nader.

It's kinda hard for you to discredit me when you don't know a damn thing about me. Stick to the issues.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 05-17-2013 at 12:52 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:50 PM   #139
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.
jeez dude.. you just love to dig holes (and fall in them) dont you?
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:48 PM   #140
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post


I never bashed scientists - if anything, I've defended science from being manipulated by ignorant tools like yourself who invoke "because science" to win a political debate... No different than people who invoke "because Jesus" to win a debate... Oh, and winning a debate has nothing to do with Science's sole purpose of discovering truth.
"I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis,""

That quote is dripping with contempt. And it's not like you were referring to just a few scientists. You were clearly referring to all of them. Although I can't say I'm shocked that a troglodyte like you would show contempt for learned individuals.

And the fact that you think science and religion are equally valid or invalid when justifying an argument kind of proves my point.

Last edited by SeanL; 05-17-2013 at 01:50 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:15 PM   #141
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
"I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis,""

That quote is dripping with contempt. And it's not like you were referring to just a few scientists. You were clearly referring to all of them. Although I can't say I'm shocked that a troglodyte like you would show contempt for learned individuals.
It's only "dripping with contempt" in your mind because you're looking for any way you can to win an argument that you've clearly lost... I was using scientists and the intellectual elite as an example of what you're trying (and failing) to represent yourself as... You echo their words without any understanding of what they're saying in an attempt to paint yourself as an authority on "all things science" so you can trump "backwards-ass Texas inbreds" on a sports forum (lowest-hanging fruit?), but all you're doing is displaying your own ignorance.

Quote:
And the fact that you think science and religion are equally valid or invalid when justifying an argument kind of proves my point.
I never debated their validity - I only stated that science and religion are equally invalid in the hands of the ignorant.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:43 PM   #142
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.
Heh...such a hata'...
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:52 AM   #143
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Religious Condemnation and Violence, Hand in Hand

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post

...public condemnations of homosexuality as 'sin', 'evil' and 'disordered' DO have consequences, sometimes violent, sometimes fatal. .... A religious leader stacks the kindling, a political extremist pours the gas, and thugs on the street light the match.
04.29.2013: Jason Collins Discloses That He is Gay, Chris Broussard Condemns Him as a Sinner

05.01.2013: Pat Robertson Defends Broussard, Says that Condemning Homosexuality as Sin/Abomination Is Not Bigotry

05.05.2013: Newt Gingrich Claims That Gay Rights Violate Religious Rights

05.05.2013: Two Gay Men/Sinners Beaten by Group of Knicks Fans After Knicks Loss to Pacers

05.10.2013: Two More Gay Men/Sinners Beaten in Midtown Manhattan, Assailants Asked if They Were Gay Before Attacking



05.17.2013: Gunman Shoots Greenwich Village Sinner-Man in Face After Accosting Couple with Gay Slurs, Sinner-Victim Dies

04.08.2013: Putin Says That Gays' Rights are Not Threatened in Russia, Gays Free to be Abused Just Like Anyone Else

04.29.2013: Putin Says That French Marriage Equality Law Puts International Adoptions At Risk

05.10.2013: Russian Man Beaten Murdered After Acquaintances Learn He's Gay

05.17.2013: Orthodox Priests Lead Mob of Rioters in Anti-Gay Protests in Tibilisi, Georgia

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-19-2013 at 01:46 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:56 AM   #144
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Dude's All-Purpose Advice for Sinners

Young Lesbian couple assaulted, shot in Portland, TX; one sinner dies, one scarred for life
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Better move their ass to massachusetts

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-19-2013 at 12:24 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 06:59 PM   #145
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post
Young Lesbian couple assaulted, shot in Portland, TX; one sinner dies, one scarred for life
Better move quicker.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 07:47 PM   #146
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Mulkey pressured Griner to hide sexuality so as not to damage Baylor's recruiting

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Better move quicker.
Unless your name is Brittney Griner, and you have intercollegiate athletic eligibility left.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 08:34 PM   #147
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

As much as I find the absurdity of homophobia, I'm not buying the over-sensationalizing of the topic.

If a few blacks committed violence against a few whites during the civil rights moment, does that in any way reflect negatively on the movement?

The violent few do not represent the majority, and the majority do not enable the violent few.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:42 PM   #148
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
As much as I find the absurdity of homophobia
Come again?

I guess I know what you mean. But as for the idea of sensationalism, I would suggest that it has a lot to do with whose ox is being gored. At least, on a very dispassionate level. On a truly passionate level, it is easy to see the connections, to see how the violent thoughts and actions are enabled by society at large.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 08:08 AM   #149
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Whites hate blacks, blacks hate whites, straights hate gays, gays hate straights.

Got it.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 12:29 PM   #150
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Better move quicker.
Just to clarify, you're saying that gays and lesbians should either leave, or face physical violence, unfair treatment by the courts, and sometimes even death.

Leave or die. Got it.

I've always known that I knew what kind of person you were.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 02:54 PM   #151
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post
Just to clarify, you're saying that gays and lesbians should either leave, or face physical violence, unfair treatment by the courts, and sometimes even death.

Leave or die. Got it.

I've always known that I knew what kind of person you were.
No, I'm saying I'm tired of everyone making out like a victim. There were hundreds if not thousands of people attacked for all kinds of reasons. im tired of folks trying to pull at peoples heartstrings with a select few to try and win political arguments.

Where is the outrage for the Muslim girl killed by her parents. Or the Christians who's church was burned down, or the folks who went to a service station and were beat up because they were in the wrong part of town and not the correct race.

Make the political argument, just try to do it without trotting out all kinds of sob stories to make it.

Make a damn police report just like everyone else has to do who are not part of the victim du jour group.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 05-20-2013 at 02:56 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 06:11 PM   #152
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
No, I'm saying I'm tired of everyone making out like a victim. There were hundreds if not thousands of people attacked for all kinds of reasons. im tired of folks trying to pull at peoples heartstrings with a select few to try and win political arguments.
So your rhetoric has come full-circle. You were the first to yelp in this thread about ‘bigoted anti-Christian viewpoints’ being expressed, and now you’re tired of people ‘making out like a victim’. Utterly, absurdly hypocritical. And I can assure you that neither the family members of the recent shooting victim, nor the victims of the assaults themselves feel like they’ve ‘made out like a victim’, as if they would sacrifice themselves for the sake of winning a political argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Make the political argument, just try to do it without trotting out all kinds of sob stories to make it.
Making the political argument involves explaining the real-life consequences of bigoted hate-speech. Of course, you want the stories to be hushed up, ignored, denied. It makes it easier to deny the effects of hate-speech when you don't have to consider flesh-and-blood victims. But the targets of these hate-motivated attacks would be all-too-happy to stop having to tell their ‘sob stories’ if hypocrites like you would stop spewing your S.O.B. hate speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Where is the outrage for the Muslim girl killed by her parents. Or the Christians who's church was burned down, or the folks who went to a service station and were beat up because they were in the wrong part of town and not the correct race.
And of course, you’re too lazy to link to any actual incidents, but people have already spoken in this thread against parents killing their disobedient children—whether it’s fundamentalist evangelicals following some whacked-out effed-up interpretation of Leviticus, or Muslim parents committing violence in the name of the Qur'an. The situations to which you vaguely allude are, of course, outrageous, but they will only be parallel to the recent rash of anti-gay hate crimes when can identify actual statements by political and religious leaders or social activists encouraging the burning of churches or the beating of people because of their race. You can’t show that, because it doesn’t exist. When you’ve got no basis for your bigoted opinion, you make a false analogy, spin a false argument, and manufacture fake outrage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Make a damn police report just like everyone else has to do who are not part of the victim du jour group.
A police report? What about trying to prevent hate crimes in the first place, BEFORE they occur? You define dishonest reactionaryism. I wonder to myself if you had a lesbian granddaughter if you might eventually feel differently. But then, no child deserves having to endure a grandfather with attitudes like yours, just so that one old pathetic man's attitudes change. The world will change with you or without you. Hopefully, you won't feel the need to exit this world like Dominique Venner did.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 11:43 AM   #153
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Maybe they can move to NYC. Ruh roh..
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/...medium=twitter
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bigots hating bigots, gay jesus, i hate because "jesus", i love because of jesus, i'm thankful for jesus, jesus bottomed., john 3:16

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.