 |
| |
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Thank you Rogan Josh. I am glad that not everyone here seems to be blind.
|
er.... didn't I just call you a bigot?
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I'm not anti-Christian, I'm against Christian Oppression.
|
It is not 'Christian Oppression' when a Christain has an opinion.
quote:
I know many Christians that I have no problems with in this respect (MrFun is one of them in fact), I just hate it when they march around talking about how homosexuality is a sin, etc.
|
hmm.... so you just hate it when they express their opinions?
quote:
They should get off their moral high horse and tolerate people who are different. Not everyone wants to live life like them.
|
I agree. So why don't you dismount then?
quote:
Your argument is nothing more than a rehashed "those people against intolerances are intolerant themselves" approach, which doesn't really work well... |
No it is not. You (or at least the others were) are criticising him for his Christianity - not his intolerance (which has nothing to do with Christianity).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
If I were to point out things where God had his hand at work, you would try to disprove that God had any play in it at all. That is why I don't want to waste my time, not because I am a lunatic. And you would refuse to believe there was a God if he slapped you in the face and told you to listen to Him for the simple reason that you don't WANT to believe that there is a God. You enjoy pissing off Christians, and you know it. You think you are God. But if you are so powerful then live forever. |
There is no reason to believe in God. These 'displays of God's miracles' or whatever are very easy to dispute and it seems to be more a matter of the Christian trying to interpret whatever he feels like from the thing.
And no God has slapped me in the face, nor is he ever likely to, therefore the God hypothesis is extremely implausible and is not worthy of rational consideration as a worldview.
I do not claim to be omnipotent either. I am a man of science, I want to know the answers, the truth of the matter. Not be swayed by thousands of year old fallacies. Finding the answers of the universe requires hard work and perseverence, not yielding to ignorance and the few who claim to offer solutions but really know nothing.
You are just getting in a flap because you can't come up with a convincing argument.
And Rogan, you should be aware by now that anyone who comes out with hatred and bigotry will be called to task for their outlook. They must be questioned, their reasoning scrutinised, and really shown why they are full of s**t.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
What is an argument with a base? I think everything is baseless. You really can't prove anything. That is why I argue no matter what is said. Because no amount of evidence can prove or disprove anything. |
Well, that's not entirely true, but in spirit I guess it is.
Which is why you should take the approach of letting people do whatever they want behind closed doors, and it's not consensual, and passing laws to prohibit this based on nothing but your own personal beliefs is overstepping your boundaries.
Nobody is hurt by it, yet you still insist on making it legal to ban it because YOU don't want to do it.
See, my argument has a basis of that of tolerance. It can't be something that can be proven, but it is pretty obvious that if everyone was tolerant the whole world would be a better place. 
Yours is based on your own personal faith, oblivious to the fact that not everyone has the same faith and moral code, and not everyone wants to be forced to live under yours.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
What I object to are PDIs (indecency, if you please): serious petting, nudity, gross sexual innuendo and french kissin' - again regardless of what kind of couple we're talking about. And homos win that contest hands down, almost entirely due to the the parades. |
I disagree, and here's why: All three of the above behaviors I have seen manifested in the heterosexual community far more than the gay community. Hell, I see hetero couples french kissing all the time, whether it be in the park, on the subway, at the movies, etc. You're caught up with the parades as the standard of gay behavior, and they simply aren't. And keep in mind we're not just talking about a minority behavior, we're talking about a minority of a minority here. Despite your blanket (and fallacious) assertion, even overall participation in the parades is by a minority of gays, not a majority.
quote:
I mean public events staged by acknowledged representatives of a group with massive participation of said group and without serious dissent within said group. Gay parades fit this bill - whereas the KKK, for instance, does not even come close to represent all whites as a group in this respect. |
So your logic is that if, within the realm of those public events, that unsanctioned acts of which you disapprove take place (and in fact actions that are explicitly disapproved of by the organizers), then it's still rational to judge the entire group based upon that?
quote:
The rather inept exemples you brought up (Jerry et al) fail to impress for the same reason. |
I dunno, the more I read your writings, the more appropro I believe the association is.
quote:
Then you'll just have to make peace with the thought that people will inevitably draw conclusions about all of those participating in these events from what they see. |
What most people see are the most extreme images broadcast by sensationalist media or given by antigays with agendas. Anyone who has attended a parade can't tell me honestly that even more than 2% of the participants engaged in the PDIs you described above. Most are dressed in shorts and t-shirts and marching behind banners (or in their Police/Fireman/EMT uniforms). You're drawing the conclusions wrong, which you keep admitting and then blithely not recognizing is wrong conclusion. It's baffling.
quote:
And given how the high extent these parades represent the gay movement at large, these infavourable impressions will certianly taint the image of all gays. |
And how high is that extent, really? You are seeing what you want to see in them, which is that you want to see the "disgusting" things so it reaffirms your beliefs.
quote:
Oh, come on. You're already drawing the line somewhere. I bet you don't think a "catholic gay priests who like to fondle little boys" float would make it, no matter how much tolerance you're out to display and no matter how much society regards that as abnormal. And this even if they made nothing more shocking than holding up banners proclaming thier believes. |
Sure, because such behavior is ILLEGAL and doesn't involve consenting adults. Or are you are comparing a guy kissing a guy in public to child molesting? Come on, don't be that dense. This is slippery-slope rationalism.
quote:
Quite. Now apply your own reasoning above to my argumentation in this thread and see where it leads you. |
Here's the big difference, sparky: Mine applies to only one individual, yours is stereotyping a group. See the difference yet?
And you still studiously ignored the fact that much of the lewd behavior you so decry is, itself, not condoned by the parade organizers. What more do you want? Have people with batons beat such folks should they do those things during the parade?
quote:
I've already given you a fair rationale of when I think it's not only possible but reasonable to apply stereotypes above. My conditions were a heck more stringent than this floppy ***-fot-tat attempt. |
It is not only not fair, it is not rational. A stereotype is a stereotype and is inherently irrational. It is indeed akin to saying all Blacks are bad because I can show you some who are in prison for murder, rape, drug dealing, etc. Your rationale is KKK rationale.
quote:
Actually, much as I'm sure this astounds you, I expect everyone to actively denonunce the cranks and extremists in their ranks, not only gays. |
Too bad, that's a pretty pathetic way to live...constantly making apologies for people who aren't you. I think herein is a major problem with the moral conservative mindset. Just mind yourself and don't worry about what other folks do. People who judge you on the acts of others aren't wise, and they sure aren't worth your time.
quote:
That's your opinion. Out in the big world where you can't attempt to cover up your shortcomings by throwing PC accusations of ignorance and bigotry around, it's a long-established tenet that all communication is happens by the terms set up by the recipient or not at all. However unfair this seems to gay activists and direct marketeers, if you have a message beyond "nya-nya, I can show my pope and you can do nothing about it!" you'll have to dress your message up to suit the audience. |
Would that be true if the message was "We shouldn't have to dress/act/be like you to be deserving of the same rights and priviledges?"  Regardless, this actually isn't true. I will point you to the Civil Rights movement, Women's suffrage, etc. as examples.
Oh, and the message isn't "nya-nya..." That's just your own stupid interpretation of it based on seeing what you want to see, not really looking. Especially since most parade participants are marching for issues of vital social importance, such as AIDS awareness, ending legal descriminations, etc. And they are all dressed just normally. But you don't care about that so long as you can point your finger at the ones who disgust you and say "See? It's all about that!" 
quote:
I'm certainly not equating these. The guy walking down 5th Ave. is displaying tastlessness and a monomanical disregard for others, and those marching with him display a severe lack of tact and so much as a shred of clue to what serves their interest |
I don't think it will ever be in the best interests of gays to show such hypocrisy as to denounce the guy by saying "you're making us look bad!" That's exactly the kind of thinking the gay rights movement is opposed to, as it has been used to marginalize gays for decades.
quote:
So, Boris, you want to shake me up, make me re-evaluate my bigoted ways and make me take gay issues more seriously? Here's a tip: next time you join a parade, make sure it's a parade where you all wear three-piece suits, eat ice-cream, play cool music and have a good time without looking like a bunch of inmates escaped from a 1920s freak show. Honest to god, I'd be more astounded than any amount of butt flaps would ever accomplish. |
First, I don't march in parades (which puts me with the majority of gays). Second, you're still making a fallacious argument, and now I have to conclude it's a deliberate lie on your part. You use your stereotype here (which you admit is such) to make a cheap shot point. And it's cheap because, as had said ad infinitum, most participants in the parades are dressed normally and behaving normally. You choose not to see that because you have your own agenda of "righteous indignation" that you just don't want challenged. Well, perhaps you're beyond hope, but I only hope you can wake up and see how silly you're being on this issue.
You either accept people on their individual merits or you don't, and doing the latter is foolish. If you're happy being a fool, that's your choice...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dimorier Maximus
|
 |
of Apolyton
May 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Well, that's not entirely true, but in spirit I guess it is.
Which is why you should take the approach of letting people do whatever they want behind closed doors, and it's not consensual, and passing laws to prohibit this based on nothing but your own personal beliefs is overstepping your boundaries. |
I guess if people want to kill each other, I shouldn't stop them. I mean, I don't want to kill people, but someone might want to. So I don't want to make them angry. I should give them the pleasure of being able to kill people.
quote:
Nobody is hurt by it, yet you still insist on making it legal to ban it because YOU don't want to do it. |
No one is really hurt by murder. Everyone dies anyways. What will it matter if they die today, or 50 years from now?
quote:
See, my argument has a basis of that of tolerance. It can't be something that can be proven, but it is pretty obvious that if everyone was tolerant the whole world would be a better place. |
In the days of Noah, every man did as he pleased (killing, stealing, sodomy), and God became angry with them and sent a flood. Tolerance isn't the new fangled thing it's made out to be. It has been around a looooooonnnnggggg time, and it isn't necessarily a good virtue. It is more based on carelessness and selfishness than anything else. I'm preaching to myself here too.
quote:
Yours is based on your own personal faith, oblivious to the fact that not everyone has the same faith and moral code, and not everyone wants to be forced to live under yours. |
I know not everyone has the same faith and moral code, but that doesn't stop us from enforcing laws about murder. I'm sure some murderers disagree with those laws, but do we listen to them? No. So why should we listen to homosexuals?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I guess if people want to kill each other, I shouldn't stop them. I mean, I don't want to kill people, but someone might want to. So I don't want to make them angry. I should give them the pleasure of being able to kill people. |
Horrible example, this infringes on the rights to security of others. Try again.
quote:
No one is really hurt by murder. Everyone dies anyways. What will it matter if they die today, or 50 years from now? |
Is that really the best you can do? Pathetic...
quote:
In the days of Noah, every man did as he pleased (killing, stealing, sodomy), and God became angry with them and sent a flood. Tolerance isn't the new fangled thing it's made out to be. It has been around a looooooonnnnggggg time, and it isn't necessarily a good virtue. It is more based on carelessness and selfishness than anything else. I'm preaching to myself here too. |
Tolerance is based on carelessness and selfishness? My God man, has anyone ever threatened to lock you up?
quote:
I know not everyone has the same faith and moral code, but that doesn't stop us from enforcing laws about murder. I'm sure some murderers disagree with those laws, but do we listen to them? No. So why should we listen to homosexuals? |
Murders infringe on the right to life of others, homosexuals do no such thing.
It should be fairly obvious to even you by now that there's zero logic or reasoning behind your argument, you're going for outrageous comparisons that aren't even close to being applicable -- and that's all you have. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2002 01:57
|