User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 112

  1. #51
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You have the right to call people "losers," who seek your help as a social worker.
    Not only do you have the right, you exercised that right in this forum.
    You post disparaging remarks about those less fortunate, but that's okay to you.
    But if someone makes a remark about the Pope, who is being investigated for covering up for other priests committing child abuse, it's not okay with you.
    Clearly, objectivity is out the window here.

    But then as usual, Lark, you can drop this thread and start another, and another, and another, and another, and another, to keep spinning off the same point of view.
    If someone disagrees with you, all you do is run away and begin again.

    I think a blog is a good option for you.
    Don't forget he doesn't fancy asian/oriental or black women. - Something I am glad to be informed of. Hopefully the ladies will take the hint: whites only need apply for a go at this repugnant idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In my experience (a couple European nationals, Irish/UK blonde, red head, brunette) this isnt true but then I dont find either Asians/Oriental women or African women attractive and it was these two who he would obsess about.
    A blog would be an excellent venue ....

    Go for it, Lark.
    Last edited by Bellflower; 04-28-2010 at 03:22 PM. Reason: for obvious reasons

  2. #52
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Or what really is free speech?

    On about three seperate forums now I'd read where people had to edit their insulting posts went to the whole idea of freedom of speech to excuse their behaviour, I've heard it said in response to the discussion about insults of the Pope by public servants in the UK.

    Now I'm getting used by the day to a world racing to the bottom in terms of a complete loss of rectitude and manners were assurity of punishment is just about the only thing motivating people but does anyone else get annoyed when they hear someone behaving like an asshole say their rights are being violated? Or that their right to behave like as asshole was the reason for resisting Nazism or totalitarianism?

    I think it makes a complete mockery of the very idea of rights or freedom altogether, which I think has become so, so broad a statement of principles or norms that its beginning to lose touch with reality anyway.

    The thing about freedom of speech specifically is that I think it is important and defensible, not simply from ill conceived legislation but even from a kind of creeping close mindedness which makes topics "off limits" because they are too cringeworthy or offensive. That's totally different from permitting someone to act like a sophist at best and a bully at worst with stupid remarks.
    The point is yeu have the RIGHT to say anything yeu want, however, if yeu say the wrong thing to the wrong person, there may be repercussions.

    The fact that yeu disagree with them, however, does not mean they don't have the right to say it. They are allowed to say stuff yeu don't agree with. They are allowed to say stuff yeu find offensive. They are allowed to say their mind without fear of being thrown in jail just because they didn't like bush (though that wasn't entirely accurate..).

    Yeu, on the other hand, have the right to say anything yeu want back. Yeu have the right to defend yeur beliefs. The right to punch holes all through their argument and make them look like a fool. The right to tear them apart verbally. And the right to take offense to whot they said and use other means of repercussions against them.

    In the case of the situation where the pope was insulted, people will have the right to not vote for that party now, and they likely shall make use of such. Whot yeu say as a normal person is not the same as whot yeu're allowed to say as a politician who's attempting to get reelected.

    In the situation of people on the forum insulting the pope, many have good reason to vent their frustrations against someone who claims to be the divine will of god and literally is "better than everyone else" and knows right from wrong better than anyone else does, yet then continues to do things that most people are heavily against, such as creating slander against condoms in countries who have a ridiculously high AIDS level and it is literally KILLING people, to personally preventing child abusers from being prosecuted.

    People have a right to be pissed off at that kind of behaviour. And they have the right to complain, to make fun of, and to insult whot they deem to be rude and horrible acts.

    Kind of like yeu're doing right now. Yeu've just made a post complaining and insulting people yeu didn't agree with. The mere fact that yeu've been allowed to make the post and it hasn't been locked and yeu haven't been banned shows yeu have been afforded the same freedom of speech. Were this not the case, yeu have done the *EXACT* same thing they did, and should be punished equally to whot yeu believe they should be.

    But yeu haven't been. Because it's within yeur rights to say that kinda stuff, as long as it's kept kinda vaguely civil.

    Fact is, yeu're not on a "holier than thou" position right now. Yeu're part of the very problem yeu're condemning.

    And since I'm neutral on the topic at hand, I don't really care. I may not necessarily agree with yeu, but I'll still defend yeur right to express yeur frustrations.

    I won't, however, allow yeu to pass across the boarder of fairness. And that's not the line of "well it's insulting!" Oh boo hoo toughbeans. No, yeu're allowed to insult people, at the risk they'll insult yeu back. But whot yeu CAN'T do, is create slander, stating they do something they actually haven't. Making false roumers. Lies. Etc, with the intent to cause malicious harm to that person's image. Yes, yeu can say something yeu had believed to be accurate at the time with the information yeu were provided; we're afforded the courtesy to make mistakes now and again. We are not afforded any right to make false roumers about people to hurt them though.

    Yeu can speak yeur mind, if yeu express it as YEUR OPINION.

    Yeu can express distaste with someone else's policies or behaviour, if expressed as yeur opinion.

    Yeu can insult people who piss yeu off, as long as it's expressed as yeur opinion.




    Forum rules, and the law, however, restrict things to a point;

    Yeu can NOT bait specific people into a fight intentionally. Being pissed at someone is one thing, calling them out into the ring is another.

    Yeu can NOT make up false comments in an attempt to damage their reputation.




    As these have not occurred in this post, I have no issue with such. Nor do I believe the mods do really. Yeu have the right to complain.

    I just hope yeu don't honestly believe that yeu can whine that others are allowed to whine and think that anything will change when yeu're doing the exact same thing as the people who yeu're complaining about are.

  3. #53
    Member Amphion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Have you read the thread, Amphion? If you have then perhaps you could explain the above comments as anything other than - as you put it - "pathological fear of homosexuality"?

    If not accepting a brother into your home, specifically because he is gay, does not display a pathological fear of homosexuality, well I don't know what does.

    I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, Amphion.
    Where you see pathological fear of homosexuality, I see contempt. You may think it's small minded, or based on illegitimate premises, but I don't view it as fear-based.

    Would it be different if Lark's brother was a polygamist? What if Lark said, "You know what, I don't approve of polygamy, I think it's morally repugnant. I love my brother, but I'll be damned if he's coming over to my house with his three wives, because I don't condone his behavior."

    My personal observation is that gay activists are attempting to stigmatize any anti-gay sentiment as "homophobic" as a way of controlling the acceptable public discourse about gays. So unless you subscribe to the idea that gays should be able to marry, adopt children, and have a place of equal respect in modern culture to non-gay couples, you are "homophobic" and presumably in need of education. At the very least, your outdated, draconian, insensitive, and hateful views shoud be marginalized and not taken at all seriously. So it's a way of leveraging political correctness to advance an agenda.

    It's effective but it's not worthy of respect, because some people disagree with things like gay marriage or gays adopting children based on sincerely held beliefs, whether moral, philosophical, or practical. I think it's an important discussion for modern society, but labeling and stigmatizing the conservative side circumvents that discussion in the name of political power.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    Would it be different if Lark's brother was a polygamist? What if Lark said, "You know what, I don't approve of polygamy, I think it's morally repugnant. I love my brother, but I'll be damned if he's coming over to my house with his three wives, because I don't condone his behavior."
    I agree what you're trying to say, there is an exaggerated stigma for being against gay marriage and homophobia is an overused term. However I think the distinction between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy seems less biologically "excusable". So I don't think this is an accurate parallel.

  5. #55
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    I agree what you're trying to say, there is an exaggerated stigma for being against gay marriage and homophobia is an overused term. However I think the distinction between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy seems less biologically "excusable". So I don't think this is an accurate parallel.
    And it's also a rather scruffy Straw man.

    Followed by a threadbare Appeal to tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    It's effective but it's not worthy of respect, because some people disagree with things like gay marriage or gays adopting children based on sincerely held beliefs, whether moral, philosophical, or practical.
    Can we have some more logical fallacies?

    As you say, Amphion - worthy of respect.

  6. #56
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    Where you see pathological fear of homosexuality, I see contempt. You may think it's small minded, or based on illegitimate premises, but I don't view it as fear-based.
    Then you are a declared enemy of homosexuals, which, in my mind, is far worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    Would it be different if Lark's brother was a polygamist? What if Lark said, "You know what, I don't approve of polygamy, I think it's morally repugnant. I love my brother, but I'll be damned if he's coming over to my house with his three wives, because I don't condone his behavior."
    Lark clearly values his religious beliefs more than his family, as he is more willing to abandon his family, than his religion.

    I don't choose to live that way. Family Values > Religious Values

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    My personal observation is that gay activists are attempting to stigmatize any anti-gay sentiment as "homophobic" as a way of controlling the acceptable public discourse about gays. So unless you subscribe to the idea that gays should be able to marry, adopt children, and have a place of equal respect in modern culture to non-gay couples, you are "homophobic" and presumably in need of education. At the very least, your outdated, draconian, insensitive, and hateful views shoud be marginalized and not taken at all seriously. So it's a way of leveraging political correctness to advance an agenda.
    Stigmatizing homosexuality worked wonders in suppressing homosexual tendencies throughout the Western World for the past 1,500 years.

    Are you crying because your own tactics are used against you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    It's effective but it's not worthy of respect, because some people disagree with things like gay marriage or gays adopting children based on sincerely held beliefs, whether moral, philosophical, or practical.
    Since when do sincerely held beliefs automatically gain respect?

    Extremists of all sorts hold sincere beliefs, yet I don't see you bending-over-backwards to "respect" the KKK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I think it's an important discussion for modern society, but labeling and stigmatizing the conservative side circumvents that discussion in the name of political power.
    We are not interested in discussion, as there is no reasoning with religion.

    Our intent is to fundamentally change the values of Western Civilization, and we are winning. A combination of stigmatizing homophobes, educating through the media, and demonstrating that homosexuals are just like everyone else through example, is finally defeating 2000-year-old religious bigotry.

  7. #57
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I would say that freedom of speech is much like the legal right to kill an intruder in your home - i.e., the right is there, but that doesn't mean that the full exploitation of your right can't be considered stupid, callous, or even ethically indefensible.

    You can say what you wish, but always remember that your right to free speech is not accompanied by a duty on anyone's part to treat your speech with attention, thought or respect.
    I will note that ramifications abound on the personal level as well.

    (IOW, if you act like an insensitive jerk, don't be surprised if everyone avoids you in the future. Enjoy being alone.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    My points a pretty simple one, behaving in an incivil and insulting manner and then invoking freedom of speech is BS, its BS on a private moderated forum but its doubly BS because it brings the very idea of freedom of speech into disrepute and is disrespectful of the sacrifices of the fallen.
    For me, freedom of speech means willingness to accept consequences for one's speech.

    Acting like a jerk and invoking free speech as a shield is immature to me.
    One should already be aware of the possible results of their speech and be willing to deal with and accept the consequences for their words... not try to hide from or dodge said consequences. Words have ramifications, it's not about being able to say what you want, whenever you want, without any responsibility involved.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    When I think about it my childhood was populated with kids who were ultra violent and aggressive in a split second, its a wonder I've actually survived as well as what I have done and probably a good thing that I've proven so capable of repressing a lot of shit. The path of least resistance makes a lot of sense sometimes.
    Sometimes it's good, but I found that a lot of the survival mechanisms I developed to protect me during my childhood actually were killing me as an adult and destroying any chance I had to grow or develop deep relationships with others.

    Kids aren't tough enough to survive some things without defense mechanisms; adults have a shot at being able to take those hurts and still work through them. That's what I've found to be true, I had to let myself hurt over some stuff rather than dodging it or defending against it... and it helped me grow past it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    Where you see pathological fear of homosexuality, I see contempt. You may think it's small minded, or based on illegitimate premises, but I don't view it as fear-based.
    Interesting. I think I can see what you're saying there.

    Would it be different if Lark's brother was a polygamist? What if Lark said, "You know what, I don't approve of polygamy, I think it's morally repugnant. I love my brother, but I'll be damned if he's coming over to my house with his three wives, because I don't condone his behavior."
    I have been pretty expansive in how I have dealt with family whose opinions I strongly disagree with, in order to respect their values.

    In the end, the conclusions I came up with was -- although I would allow them in my house and still wanted to be with them and embrace them because they're family even if I disagree strongly with their values in some respects -- it was more important for them to shun and draw boundaries.

    The only way to show love in a situation like that is to respect the boundaries. In that way, I can give them "free speech" and respect them as people.

    But their "free speech" that leads to rejection/shunning also means I am not obligated to give them more a place in my life than I want or that I feel they deserve. Since they are dedicated more to their values, but I need people I can love and be loved by, I can develop a family of choice to accepts and embraces me as a person. It's not fair for biofamily to expect someone they've rejected to still prioritize them... as part of free speech. I'm going to invest in people who truly love me and accept me.

    My personal observation is that gay activists are attempting to stigmatize any anti-gay sentiment as "homophobic" as a way of controlling the acceptable public discourse about gays. So unless you subscribe to the idea that gays should be able to marry, adopt children, and have a place of equal respect in modern culture to non-gay couples, you are "homophobic" and presumably in need of education. At the very least, your outdated, draconian, insensitive, and hateful views shoud be marginalized and not taken at all seriously. So it's a way of leveraging political correctness to advance an agenda.
    I agree, that's been happening.
    (It happens with anti-gays too, btw.)

    I didn't appreciate all the shit about the "Gay Agenda" from the Right, and I don't appreciate all the talk of homophobia from the Left. It kills any form of dialogue.

    It's effective but it's not worthy of respect, because some people disagree with things like gay marriage or gays adopting children based on sincerely held beliefs, whether moral, philosophical, or practical. I think it's an important discussion for modern society, but labeling and stigmatizing the conservative side circumvents that discussion in the name of political power.
    It's an important discussion, but I'm not sure it will ever be resolved. Like Seymour says, the basis for rejection usually comes through religious or visceral/emotional reasons, it's not logic-based. Most people who approach it with a spoken rationality choose the "as long as it's not affecting my life, people can do what they want to be happy" approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    I agree what you're trying to say, there is an exaggerated stigma for being against gay marriage and homophobia is an overused term. However I think the distinction between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy seems less biologically "excusable". So I don't think this is an accurate parallel.
    That's one difference.

    Is there an innate drive for preference, and being with an opposite-sex partner won't work?possible.

    Is there an innate drive for polygamy, and having just one wife won't work? Meh.

    One definitely seems to be more a belief and arbitrary choice, rather than to some level a part of who someone is.

    I think one reason the Right can dismiss LGBT concerns easily is because they reduce preferences and identity to a "choice" (which misses the point, IMO), whereas the Left pushes for it to be seen as intrinsic and thus not a choice at all... and especially not a choice that non-LGBT people were ever forced to make, comprising the majority.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #58
    Member Amphion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    I agree what you're trying to say, there is an exaggerated stigma for being against gay marriage and homophobia is an overused term. However I think the distinction between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy seems less biologically "excusable". So I don't think this is an accurate parallel.
    I could see how from a certain viewpoint polygamy is less morally excusable. But biologically?

  9. #59
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post

    We are not interested in discussion, as there is no reasoning with religion.

    Our intent is to fundamentally change the values of Western Civilization, and we are winning. A combination of stigmatizing homophobes, educating through the media, and demonstrating that homosexuals are just like everyone else through example, is finally defeating 2000-year-old religious bigotry.
    Indeed, the limitations of productive discussion end when religion comes into the picture, along with a plethora of other excuses.

    There can be no discussion with thugs, morons and religious zealots. How would one go about "discussing" the wrongs of homophobia with the killers of Ian Baynham in broad daylight in the heart of London?

  10. #60
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Lark clearly values his religious beliefs more than his family, as he is more willing to abandon his family, than his religion.
    Or whatever he is following.

    I don't choose to live that way. Family Values > Religious Values
    Same here. Or, better put, I'm not going to let something non-relational things impact my relationships. I don't see sexual preference or gender issues as "moral ones" in the same way I would see murder, cheating on one's spouse, lying, or other obvious offenses against others as relational violations.

    Hence, to shun someone because of them seems <adjective self-censored>. Sure, everyone has their own values; but people who do that lose my respect even if I will treat them as best as I can anyway.

    Stigmatizing homosexuality worked wonders in suppressing homosexual tendencies throughout the Western World for the past 1,500 years. Are you crying because your own tactics are used against you?
    That's the problem.

    Yes, there is an "eye for eye" fairness there... and it's kind of unavoidable... but it only slows down progress at some point.

    Our intent is to fundamentally change the values of Western Civilization, and we are winning. A combination of stigmatizing homophobes, educating through the media, and demonstrating that homosexuals are just like everyone else through example, is finally defeating 2000-year-old religious bigotry.
    I'm all for conversation, education, and putting oneself out there as a positive example to challenge people's misconceptions about stigmatized groups.

    I'm not sure the lot for white supremicists have improved when they've done that. I think it's definitely worked wonders for the trans community.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Humanism the basis for the world's religions and philosophy
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-25-2011, 11:40 PM
  2. [NT] Strategies for Rationalists in a Sensationally Feely world.
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 08:54 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP-When is it safe for Fi to come out?
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 11:06 PM
  4. Plot for NT World Domination
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 02:13 AM
  5. Help Stop the Plot For NT World Domination
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 02:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO