If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Wound Up wrote:
> indago wrote: > >> 041108 2142 - Wound Up posted: >> >> >>> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote: >>>> >>>>> No one deserves to be the target of blind, ideological, prejudicial >>>>> hate. >>>> >>>> ...unless they're, y'know, gay and living in the YSM (Yoonaad'd >>>> States of >>>> Mairca). >>> >>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the >>> target of hatred >> >> Well, then, maybe derision??? > > That's up to you. I can write derisive hatred very well. I choose not > to, because I don't think it's deserved, warranted, or appropriate. > > I will never understand it, but I know it's not a question of some "vile > lifestyle choice". Believe me, the gay friends I've had all said "it > would have been much easier to grow up, and know you were straight". > Want to throw an insult at me? Well, I grew up (ironic term) in a more > heterogeneous culture than a lot of people. I knew people from many > different walks of life, and had friends from many of them. I don't think "heterogeneous" means what you think it means. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
>> That's up to you. I can write derisive hatred very well. I choose
>> not to, because I don't think it's deserved, warranted, or appropriate. >> >> I will never understand it, but I know it's not a question of some >> "vile lifestyle choice". Believe me, the gay friends I've had all >> said "it would have been much easier to grow up, and know you were >> straight". Want to throw an insult at me? Well, I grew up (ironic >> term) in a more heterogeneous culture than a lot of people. I knew >> people from many different walks of life, and had friends from many of >> them. > > > I don't think "heterogeneous" means what you think it means. I'm quite sure it does. Take a look- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterogeneous |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
att Whiting wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote: >> >> >>>>> No one deserves to be the target of blind, ideological, prejudicial >>>>> hate. >>>> >> >> >>>> ...unless they're, y'know, gay and living in the YSM (Yoonaad'd States >>>> of Mairca). >>> >> >> >>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the >>> target of hatred >> >> >> >> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view. > > > What is the evidence of this? > > Matt Intolerance of many groups in our society is self-evident. Many of those who are intolerant are voters. Therefore, that statement is true. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Wound Up wrote:
> att Whiting wrote: > >> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> No one deserves to be the target of blind, ideological, prejudicial >>>>>> hate. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> ...unless they're, y'know, gay and living in the YSM (Yoonaad'd States >>>>> of Mairca). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the >>>> target of hatred >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view. >> >> >> >> What is the evidence of this? >> >> Matt > > > Intolerance of many groups in our society is self-evident. Many of > those who are intolerant are voters. Therefore, that statement is true. > > What part of hatred didn't you understand? That was the subject under discussion, not intolerance. Matt |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
>>>>
>>>>>>> No one deserves to be the target of blind, ideological, prejudicial >>>>>>> hate. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> ...unless they're, y'know, gay and living in the YSM (Yoonaad'd >>>>>> States >>>>>> of Mairca). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the >>>>> target of hatred >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What is the evidence of this? >>> >>> Matt >> >> >> >> Intolerance of many groups in our society is self-evident. Many of >> those who are intolerant are voters. Therefore, that statement is true. >> >> > > What part of hatred didn't you understand? That was the subject under > discussion, not intolerance. > > Matt > And I even started this part of the thread (head shake). I was just stating (the wrong) fact in a dry way, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. A LOT of people -HATE- gays? Well, not having been the target, I can't say how it feels, but a LOT in terms of likening it to the election? No, I'm with you; give me some evidence, because that's a very flimsy argument. And you might say - it's an unfair generalization... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote:
> > What part of hatred didn't you understand? That was the subject under > > discussion, not intolerance. > A LOT of people -HATE- gays? Well, not having been the target, I can't > say how it feels, but a LOT in terms of likening it to the election? > No, I'm with you; give me some evidence, because that's a very flimsy > argument. The difference between hatred and intolerance is *de facto* merely a question of degree. The UN is expert on this kind of semantic dancing on the head of a pin; they spend months arguing whether to "firmly reprimand" or "strongly censure" countries that misbehave. DS |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
041109 0022 - Daniel J. Stern posted:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote: > >> I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an >> individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is >> gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him >> straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?" > > A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of > understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those > self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy. > For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along > the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is > inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and > a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and > Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges." > > That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said > just the other day: > > "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for > the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a > union of a man and a woman." > > Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy > around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a > century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either). > > Now I am recalling the story of the schoolbus driver who was driving a bunch of school kids to school, and listening to all the name calling and chatter. He finally got tired of it and pulled the bus over to the side of the road, and hollered back to the kids: "OK you kids, I'm tired of listening to all you kids namecalling each other, calling ******s, whitey, chink, and whatever. From now on we're all going to be one color on this bus. We're all going to be GREEN. Now you dark greenies get on toward the back of the bus and you light greenies move on up front here." |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the >>> target of hatred >> >> >> >> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view. > > > What is the evidence of this? Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote: > > > I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an > > individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is > > gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him > > straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?" > > A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of > understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those > self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy. > For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along > the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is > inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and > a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and > Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges." > > That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said > just the other day: > > "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for > the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a > union of a man and a woman." > > Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy > around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a > century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either). > Uh, Dan, don't forget that Kerry didn't endorse gay marriage either. Post-election, since the 2 major issues that caused the election to go for Bush were the war and "moral values" (euphasim for gay marriage) it seems apparent that the Democrats are going to be screwing all the gays over and purging any hint of mention of gays from their platforms as well. They won't be coming out and attacking them, but they won't be saying boo in support of them either. I think that it's pretty evident that if the Democrats had done this early on during the primaries, that they would have won. The Dems can count on the gay vote coming out in support of them all the time, at least they can until the Republicans stop knocking gays. (and it will be a cold day in hell when that happens) It wasn't necessary for the Democrats to make any statements in support of the gays whatsoever, all it did was make them lose the election. It would have been much better to have totally and completely ignored the issue. The Republicans effectively used the gay issues as a means of directing attention away from their failures, and the Democrats fell into the trap of letting them get away with it. Next time they won't. Ted |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Wound Up wrote:
>>> That's up to you. I can write derisive hatred very well. I choose >>> not to, because I don't think it's deserved, warranted, or appropriate. >>> >>> I will never understand it, but I know it's not a question of some >>> "vile lifestyle choice". Believe me, the gay friends I've had all >>> said "it would have been much easier to grow up, and know you were >>> straight". Want to throw an insult at me? Well, I grew up (ironic >>> term) in a more heterogeneous culture than a lot of people. I knew >>> people from many different walks of life, and had friends from many >>> of them. >> >> >> >> I don't think "heterogeneous" means what you think it means. > > > I'm quite sure it does. Take a look- > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterogeneous You're right, my bad. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Tim Klopfenstein | VW air cooled | 43 | November 30th 04 04:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Napalm Heart | Mazda | 20 | November 30th 04 04:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ______ | Z28_Sedan | Saturn | 1 | November 15th 04 02:59 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ isubtob | Mark Davisons | Simulators | 33 | November 11th 04 05:07 PM |