Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 9 of 20

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

A better analogy would be to say that I’m telling you that I think there is something wrong with the way the Nazis are doing things and that they will hurt Germany, which most intelligent people would say is accurate. And in response you’re telling me that I’m saying all Germans are Nazis, when it is quite clearly obvious that I am only criticizing the Nazis.

Um, what's your timeframe, because this statment is either kind of right or wholly wrong depending on when and where you are talking about. This analogy is rather bad in general because of this.

In the beginning of the the Nazi movement they were a small political party and thus couldn't be confused with Germans in general.

During the hieght of there power, there may have been confusion for the sheer amount of power that they had. But it was clear to many that many Germans were helping the allies.

And if you look to the intellecutal newspapers in the time period when the Nazis where rising to power and in influence, they definitly were saying how horrible the Nazis were. A lot even left the country before (and after) the war broke out and lived in England.

When my German wife gets home I can ask her about how many Germans in general supported the war if anyone is interested.

Now, the Nazis are just an annoyance which everyone just lets yell and shout to prove there ignorance. They are a threat only to there direct surroundings; kind of like a gang in North America. So, no confusion is there.

What at least myself (and some others) are saying is that you are a bigot because you only consider but a fraction of the gay community when you form your opinions. You must consider the whole community and compare it to our own community to see if any real differences exist. It is clear that none really do.

Gay man in pink thong - Fat man in spedo on beach
Promiscuous gay man - Promiscuous straight people
Obnoxious anti-gay marriage activist - Obnoxious pro-gay marriage activist
etc

ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

It’s not that I don’t comment on these things, but rather that you conveniently choose to ignore where I have said. You pick and choose my comments out of context to suit your pre-conceived accusation of bigotry. You fabricate a bigoted argument and claim I said it, when in reality I said no such thing. This is called a strawman.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because it's not my argument. It's something you invented.

You can't logically accuse me of bigotry if you use my argument, so you invent something and then pretend that I said it. But I never made any of the claims you accuse me of having made. You invented them all. You're entire posts is essentially a fabrication.

So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

Some gays are.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

Actually I did not. You invented this.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

It’s not that I don’t comment on these things, but rather that you conveniently choose to ignore where I have said. You pick and choose my comments out of context to suit your pre-conceived accusation of bigotry. You fabricate a bigoted argument and claim I said it, when in reality I said no such thing. This is called a strawman.

All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

I've brought up (and others) that the straight community has the same problems in the same proportions.

Quote yourself addressing this.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

Some gays are.

But you imply that they ALL are. Which is my problem with this and you never address the fact that a lot of straights are as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

Actually I did not. You invented this.

You did read the word imply right? If you didn't want to say this the you shouldn't have kept going on about only refering to gays that are on the parade floats. You should have said something like, "I know that they aren't representive of the gay community, but..." which is what you exactly didn't do. But then again, that'd take a lot of wind out of the sails of your argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

What?

On a different note, I'm finding this quick back and forth somewhat amuzing

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

Well, since I never made that quote, there is no possible way you could have read that from me. So this statement of yours is basically a lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I've brought up (and others) that the straight community has the same problems in the same proportions.

Quote yourself addressing this.

Previously posted by me. (And unlike your fabricated quote, this is a real quote by me in this thread, which presumably you read, but clearly ignored):

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
These pink thong wearing gay men certainly demonstrate a horrendous degree of immaturity by exposing themselves in such a manner that children are likely to see. But heterosexuals are just as likely to do that same thing. There are perverts are both sides.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You did read the word imply right? If you didn't want to say this the you shouldn't have kept going on about only refering to gays that are on the parade floats. You should have said something like, "I know that they aren't representive of the gay community, but..." which is what you exactly didn't do. But then again, that'd take a lot of wind out of the sails of your argument.

Ah. So finally we get to the crux of it. You assumed that is what I meant. A convenient assumption, I think.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

Well, since I never made that quote, there is no possible way you could have read that from me. So this statement of yours is basically a lie.

Um, you clearly didn't read the "something like" in the sentence.

Basically, what this boils down to is that you think that I've (and others) have misinterpreted you. But, it's your job to type a clear as possible post that you can. It's our job to read your posts as best we can and see if we can't get what you meant.

Clearly, at times there are going to be misunderstandings and at that point they must be cleared up... by you. This is exactly what I don't see you doing.

All I see you doing is saying stuff like, "That's not what I said, this is just a lie!" Where is the, "I didn't mean that. What I actually meant was..."?

You just post a reponse attacking the person who attacked you saying that they have no right to call you a bigot, etc, not even acknowledging the possibility that the other person may have a point. That the problem could have been in the way you are communicating your ideas or you may actually be that way (though I imagine none of us wants to think of ourselves in that way).

I've been, in not so many words, called a bigot before on a select few occasions as well. My response was to stop the person and find out why they thought what they did and then fix the problem. This has always ended up in an "I'm sorry" type situation.

So, what are you doing to rectify the situation here besides just telling us that you aren't?

Here's my argument:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
bigot:
"
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
"

What I've read of your posts is that you are intolerant of those that differ (gays, on floats at least). That you are strongly partial to your own notion of marriage (man and woman only) and unaccepting of another way.

You say that you're for it, but then make an argument against it. Should we not be fighting for what's right and not saying that it shouldn't be done because of how a few are going about trying to make it happen? Is this not reasonable?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prejudice
prejudice:
"
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
"

What I've read of your posts you are holding an unreasonable notion of gays basing your knowledge about them on only a select few that are on the fringe of gay culture. As I've said before, to base an opinion about a people on only the extreme and/or the delinquents is irresponsible. It also does less than justice to the reasonable majority of the gay population.

The above is at least a short explination of my opinion of you based on what you've said here. So, if you would care to re-state your position with greater clarity so that we may have a chance of understanding what you actually originally meant, please do so.

But even throwing aside the bigotry issue, how do you justify not allowing gays to marry given that it is unConstitutional to do so? Or is it now, america the free, unless you're gay? Do you not see the future implications by not allowing gays to marry? How many other things might come up in the future that are Constitutional, but because the majority find it icky or are uncomfortable with it and thus want it banned, it will be banned? What happened to all that freedom that I keep hearing you guys talking about?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:41 AM

We've already determined that your assumptions about what I've said are essentially fabrications. This is simply further fabrication.

And you're fabrications and accusations of bigotry continue to prove my point.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE