|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2004 12:20:33 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
your missing the point spazmo. Hate has nothing to do with it. The VAST majority doesn't agree with you. They see this lifestyle as deviant behavior. If they have a right to live that way, then a business owner has a right not be forced to hire people their customers might be offended by. True, not all customers would be offended as many people are not bothered by it. But most people are. |
Interesting position... Let me ask you this. Many people in New York don't like Texans... If someone in New York was married to a Texan, would a company have the right to deny that person health benefits? Could a Texan be fired because customers might be offended?
I work for a large company with international customers throughout the world. Many of our customers find Texans to be offensive. But luckily, management is open minded enough not to care that some of our workers have choosen to be Texans, or who those Texans have decided to marry.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was given the same chance? Even in New York? :)
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 00:21:42.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:22:04 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
An example to show you how those offended by it feel: Many people concider drug use a deviant behavior. Would you want a drug user working for you? No you would not. |
Sorry, I just had to chime in one more time, because drug use is another topic I just looooove to talk about!
"No you would not." How presumptuous! I've smoked pot with three of my last four EMPLOYERS. You know... while sucessfully coding and publishing multimillion-selling products that have made my employers lots and lots of money.
Granted, I don't get high and drive, or get high on the job, or let my drug use impact my work performance. That's because I'm responsible. The same sort of responsibility, performace, and contribution I would expect from my own employees if I ran a company, as I stated earlier. New example from you, same response from me.
When are you going to stop speaking for the masses and speak for yourself? Been to California lately?
P.S. Didn't your God give us all the seed bearing herbs and plants to use? I just love that line. :)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:23:45 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Also: Thanks for stepping in and letting me know you're the arbiter of what the vast majority thinks.
Such an offensive photo... TO YOU. I think it's cute. :)
Besides, that's a JPG of a painting of a man using drugs. It's not a photo. There are no actual drugs involved. There is no actual man involved, only a likeness of Van Gogh, in the style of Van Gogh. Regardless, images of drug use and consensual sex, as long as it's not explicit, are A-OK on the DPC.
Nice try, do you research anything before making a statement? |
I am simply stating fact. Check the statistics and polls. A vast majority find the lifestyle offensive. Why do you think the marraige ban was just passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot? Because the majority was offended by it.
As for the signature, It is offensive. I doubt I am the only one who thinks so. As for research, yes I do.
4.2 ...(iv) contains explicitly sexual content.
I guess explicit is subjective. But I find the depiction of any deviant behavior to be explicit.
(viii) encourages the use of drugs...
Your painting definately encourages the use of drugs. This is clearly a TOS violation.
(ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:25:26 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
your missing the point spazmo. Hate has nothing to do with it. The VAST majority doesn't agree with you. They see this lifestyle as deviant behavior. If they have a right to live that way, then a business owner has a right not be forced to hire people their customers might be offended by. True, not all customers would be offended as many people are not bothered by it. But most people are. |
Interesting position... Let me ask you this. Many people in New York don't like Texans... If someone in New York was married to a Texan, would a company have the right to deny that person health benefits? Could a Texan be fired because customers might be offended?
I work for a large company with international customers throughout the world. Many of our customers find Texans to be offensive. But luckily, management is open minded enough not to care that some of our workers have choosen to be Texans, or who those Texans have decided to marry.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was given the same chance? Even in New York? :) |
bad comparison. Being a Texan is not concidered devaint anti-social behavior by a majority of our population. Your comparing apples and oranges.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 00:25:38.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:26:40 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
An example to show you how those offended by it feel: Many people concider drug use a deviant behavior. Would you want a drug user working for you? No you would not. |
Sorry, I just had to chime in one more time, because drug use is another topic I just looooove to talk about!
"No you would not." How presumptuous! I've smoked pot with three of my last four EMPLOYERS. You know... while sucessfully coding and publishing multimillion-selling products that have made my employers lots and lots of money.
Granted, I don't get high and drive, or get high on the job, or let my drug use impact my work performance. That's because I'm responsible. The same sort of responsibility, performace, and contribution I would expect from my own employees if I ran a company, as I stated earlier. New example from you, same response from me.
When are you going to stop speaking for the masses and speak for yourself? Been to California lately?
P.S. Didn't your God give us all the seed bearing herbs and plants to use? I just love that line. :) |
well the question wasn't directed to you. I already know you smoke pot... lol it's in your signature.
as for California, only a few counties voted for your side. The rest of the state voted the other way. Which is exactally the reason TJ and co. gave us the electoral system. To keep one state or urban area where people were clustered in one spot from having too much power.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 00:29:19.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:10:21 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I am simply stating fact. Check the statistics and polls. A vast majority find the lifestyle offensive. Why do you think the marraige ban was just passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot? Because the majority was offended by it. |
Slavery used to be approved of by the "vast majority", yet that's not the case anymore, is it?
What about Blacks rights? Women's rights? The "vast majority" used to think they weren't entitled to equal rights.
It's called discrimination.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste. |
I'm not offended by it, but the use of "Bush" in your's is quite offensive. Would you please remove it?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:12:24 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Also: Thanks for stepping in and letting me know you're the arbiter of what the vast majority thinks.
Such an offensive photo... TO YOU. I think it's cute. :)
Besides, that's a JPG of a painting of a man using drugs. It's not a photo. There are no actual drugs involved. There is no actual man involved, only a likeness of Van Gogh, in the style of Van Gogh. Regardless, images of drug use and consensual sex, as long as it's not explicit, are A-OK on the DPC.
Nice try, do you research anything before making a statement? |
I am simply stating fact. Check the statistics and polls. A vast majority find the lifestyle offensive. Why do you think the marraige ban was just passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot? Because the majority was offended by it.
As for the signature, It is offensive. I doubt I am the only one who thinks so. As for research, yes I do.
4.2 ...(iv) contains explicitly sexual content.
I guess explicit is subjective. But I find the depiction of any deviant behavior to be explicit.
(viii) encourages the use of drugs...
Your painting definately encourages the use of drugs. This is clearly a TOS violation.
(ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste. |
Displays of affection, i.e. kissing, are not sexually explicit. It really doesn't matter if someone finds them personally offensive or "deviant". I can guarantee you that many gays, and quite a number of heterosexual people I know, find public displays of affection of *ANY* type to be personally offensive. DPC allows displays of affection. Look through the galleries sometime, you'll see plenty of examples. Forbidding one form of affection simply because of the gender involved, isn't exactly DPC's "way".
Mousie's signature in no way *encourages* drug use.. it simply states that he is a personal user. (and in a pretty vague way, I might add.) He's not telling anyone else to go be a stoner.
I suppose you're fully in your right to wonder why DPC allows his signature, but it just confuses me as to why you'd bring it up, as you must know -- intellectually -- that mousie's signature is fully within DPC's TOS, all personal feelings aside.
I just.. I just really don't understand where this animosity about gays in the workplace is coming from. If you can supply me with hard figures that support your claims of a signifcant loss of customers and capital due to hiring gay employees, I'd love to see them. If you can provide one solid reason why paying out benefits to a gay employee's spouse or civil partner would cause you to lose any more money than paying out the same benefits to a heterosexually married couple (that probably have dependants that could conceivably cost more money), then I'd love to hear it.
I just feel that something other than the regular "I can do what I want" rhetoric is needed here.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 01:17:48.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:16:42 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I am simply stating fact. Check the statistics and polls. A vast majority find the lifestyle offensive. Why do you think the marraige ban was just passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot? Because the majority was offended by it. |
Slavery used to be approved of by the "vast majority", yet that's not the case anymore, is it?
What about Blacks rights? Women's rights? The "vast majority" used to think they weren't entitled to equal rights.
It's called discrimination.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste. |
I'm not offended by it, but the use of "Bush" in your's is quite offensive. Would you please remove it? |
again someone comparing race and gender with deviant behavior. That holds no water.
and your offended by someones name? LOL. Now your reaching...
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 01:17:37.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:26:46 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
again someone comparing race and gender with deviant behavior. That holds no water.
and your offended by someones name? LOL. Now your reaching... |
So, in other words, you're right, and everyone else is wrong. You know what, many other people felt that exact same way.
Comparing inter-racial marriage and gay marriage *is* relevant. When inter-racial marriage was outlawed, it was, *then*, viewed as deviant behavior. White men and women that would "lay with a colored person", were seen as mentally ill. People simply couldn't understand why a perfectly "normal" white man or woman would do such a thing.
Today, it's very commonplace. So you see, the relevance is there.
Your simple refusal to accept the argument doesn't make it disappear.
As to being offended by a person's name, you must realize that it's not just the name. (And while I believe cbeller *was* just being sarcastic.. this is still also relevant). George W. Bush has done things that have offended a *great* number of people, all over the world. His integration of personal religious beliefs into national policy.. the war in iraq.. his foreign policies.. have all at some point offended and infuriated people. So I can certainly see a "name" being offensive to some.
cbeller, of course, was just using it as an example of how silly a request to remove a signature can be, simply because of a personal offense.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:27:33 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Hate has nothing to do with it. The VAST majority doesn't agree with you. They see this lifestyle as deviant behavior. If they have a right to live that way, then a business owner has a right not be forced to hire people their customers might be offended by. True, not all customers would be offended as many people are not bothered by it. But most people are.
An example to show you how those offended by it feel: Many people concider drug use a deviant behavior. Would you want a drug user working for you? No you would not. Now don't go thinking I am saying being gay is akin to using drugs. I'm not. But it is an example of a behavior people find offensive. People are offended by the gay lifestyle. They see it as anti-social and deviant. Forcing it on them is not fair. Your free to be gay. I don't care. Just don't force me to accept your lifestyle choice by having to hire you and provide insurance for your gay lover. It's my business and I can hire who I want to, just as you have the right to go work somewhere else if you don't like where your at. For the record, there are gay people working in our company. However because of the way they chose to live, it's 100% completely obvious that they are gay. Because of this we don't put them in positions where they have contact with the customers, as we have customers that find their lifestyle offensive. |
Maybe you are offended, maybe the VAST majority of people you know are offended, that by no means makes them right. Exclusion and bias are ALWAYS hateful.
Personally, I don't care if a drug user works for me. As long as they are responsible and they perform their job.
Maybe we shouldn't force companies to hire anyone they don't agree with. Maybe they should not have to hire qualified women because some customers might feel threatened by a woman in a position of power or not want to do business with a woman. What about hiring African-Americans, hispanics, Indians, any immigrants? I'm sure some companies have racist and sexist customers, so maybe they should be allowed to only hire caucasians males. How about the handicapped? Maybe some customers would feel offended by dealing with a person in a wheelchair, who is blind or walks with crutches, so should we exclude the handicapped as well?
At one time, not too long ago, in the south, the VAST majority of people were offended by the thought of integrated schools, not having separate drinking fountains, entrances, or even being in the same room with African-Americans. The fact that they were in the majority hardly made them right.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:37:29 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Displays of affection, i.e. kissing, are not sexually explicit. It really doesn't matter if someone finds them personally offensive or "deviant". I can guarantee you that many gays, and quite a number of heterosexual people I know, find public displays of affection of *ANY* type to be personally offensive. DPC allows displays of affection. Look through the galleries sometime, you'll see plenty of examples. Forbidding one form of affection simply because of the gender involved, isn't exactly DPC's "way". |
Hello? did you miss the part where I acknowledged that the term "explicit" was subjective? you definately have an arguement there.
Originally posted by Artyste:
Mousie's signature in no way *encourages* drug use.. it simply states that he is a personal user. (and in a pretty vague way, I might add.) He's not telling anyone else to go be a stoner.". |
Depicting it's use while openly admitting the use of it certainly is encouraging it's use. He makes it seem "ok".
Originally posted by Artyste:
I suppose you're fully in your right to wonder why DPC allows his signature, but it just confuses me as to why you'd bring it up, as you must know -- intellectually -- that mousie's signature is fully within DPC's TOS, all personal feelings aside. |
Actually it is a violation. Willfully posting a picture in your signature that you know some people will be offended by is an act of bad taste. Which is a violation of the TOS. I brought it up because I noticed it. It's nothing against Mousie. But rather an indicment on the double standard I have noticed when it comes to which pics and posts get deleted by the moderators. There is not equal an application of the rules that is applied here. They delete pics on their own whim. If they don't like it, poof. But if they do like it, the pic stays even if others are offended. Just the typical double standard that is applied here, granted only by a specific moderator I will not name for fear of retribution.
Originally posted by Artyste:
I just.. I just really don't understand where this animosity about gays in the workplace is coming from. If you can supply me with hard figures that support your claims of a signifcant loss of customers and capital due to hiring gay employees, I'd love to see them. If you can provide one solid reason why paying out benefits to a gay employee's spouse or civil partner would cause you to lose any more money than paying out the same benefits to a heterosexually married couple (that probably have dependants that could conceivably cost more money), then I'd love to hear it.
I just feel that something other than the regular "I can do what I want" rhetoric is needed here. |
I don't understand why people keep using words like animosity and hate. I have no animosity or hate. Just a disagreement with their choice. Hate has nothing to do with it man. People on your side seem to like to use that word to make my side look bad. But I am telling you plainly, hate has nothing to do with it.
As for hard figures I doubt you'll find those as people don't directly complain all the time. They just go elsewhere. As for losing money because I paid benefits to someone I never said that. I only said it wasn't fair to force me to give them special treament and benefits by accept what I believe is a deviant lifestyle choice.
As I said in my first post tonight, it's a hot button issue for sure. It affects people other than the gay partners. The only fair solution is a democratic solution. Put it to a vote. I think your only goign to be against that because of the outcome of the votes that have happened thus far. But isn't that democracy in action? Majority rules? Not minority rules?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:39:58 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Hate has nothing to do with it. The VAST majority doesn't agree with you. They see this lifestyle as deviant behavior. If they have a right to live that way, then a business owner has a right not be forced to hire people their customers might be offended by. True, not all customers would be offended as many people are not bothered by it. But most people are.
An example to show you how those offended by it feel: Many people concider drug use a deviant behavior. Would you want a drug user working for you? No you would not. Now don't go thinking I am saying being gay is akin to using drugs. I'm not. But it is an example of a behavior people find offensive. People are offended by the gay lifestyle. They see it as anti-social and deviant. Forcing it on them is not fair. Your free to be gay. I don't care. Just don't force me to accept your lifestyle choice by having to hire you and provide insurance for your gay lover. It's my business and I can hire who I want to, just as you have the right to go work somewhere else if you don't like where your at. For the record, there are gay people working in our company. However because of the way they chose to live, it's 100% completely obvious that they are gay. Because of this we don't put them in positions where they have contact with the customers, as we have customers that find their lifestyle offensive. |
Maybe you are offended, maybe the VAST majority of people you know are offended, that by no means makes them right. Exclusion and bias are ALWAYS hateful.
Personally, I don't care if a drug user works for me. As long as they are responsible and they perform their job.
Maybe we shouldn't force companies to hire anyone they don't agree with. Maybe they should not have to hire qualified women because some customers might feel threatened by a woman in a position of power or not want to do business with a woman. What about hiring African-Americans, hispanics, Indians, any immigrants? I'm sure some companies have racist and sexist customers, so maybe they should be allowed to only hire caucasians males. How about the handicapped? Maybe some customers would feel offended by dealing with a person in a wheelchair, who is blind or walks with crutches, so should we exclude the handicapped as well?
At one time, not too long ago, in the south, the VAST majority of people were offended by the thought of integrated schools, not having separate drinking fountains, entrances, or even being in the same room with African-Americans. The fact that they were in the majority hardly made them right. |
It's obvious you can't understand anything I have said. Please stop comparing race and or gender to a persons individual lifestyle choice. Your comparing two subjects that can't be compared fairly. Until you can get that straight man, there's no reason to continue talking to you spazmo.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:40:50 AM · #188 |
I think gay bashing is popular because its easy. And its fun! You just have to sit around and express your vitriol and high dudgeon. Who doesn't enjoy that?
And how are you supposed to feel righteous if you can't point to someone unfavored by God? Let's take a quick browse through Deuteronomy and see what other choices we have to be righteous. Let's see, stone to death women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Not just stone them, drag them all across town to their daddy's house and stone them to death at his front door. Now that seems like a lot of trouble; what else we got.
Don't take all the grain from the field or all the grapes from the vine, leave some for the poor. Well, I'm sorry, I pretty much need all I take and the poor deserve to be poor for votin' for John Kerry.
Stone to death people who don't worship God the way you do. Again with the stones. I'm tired after working all day and them stones is heavy.
I say, let's stick to gay bashing.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:50:51 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
again someone comparing race and gender with deviant behavior. That holds no water. |
No, it's comparing people's rights. Someone being gay, straight, black, white, purple, green, doesn't make a difference, they are all people. Discrimination is discrimination and the comment is just plain ignorant*.
*Ignorant meaning uninformed, not a personal attack. (don't want my post whacked )
Personally, if I had a customer that didn't want to use my services because I had a gay person working for me, I don't want them as a customer. There is nothing worse than an ignorant person, and I don't need their money.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
and your offended by someones name? LOL. Now your reaching... |
Oh, so there are only certain things someone can be offended by? The comment was meant to be facetious anyways, to show how silly it is to start picking on someone's signature because you have a problem with their beliefs.
Edit: I'm a slow typer, and Artyste obviously got what I was saying. :)
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 01:55:05.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:57:12 AM · #190 |
Sorry Anachronite, but history shows that majority rules for only so long, and majority is always subject to change.
I'll have to concede this arguement, because I've had it before, and I know the outcome. Your beliefs are your beliefs, that's fine. Mousie's signature is a violation of TOS in your eyes. Fine. (good luck having it taken off though).
I agree that the U.S. isn't ready for gays to be true human beings in the eyes of many. So, enjoy your satisfaction while that lasts.
The world, however, beyond your country, is changing.
At least I can take solace in the fact that I live in one of the countries that leads the world in that change.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 01:58:54 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
It's obvious you can't understand anything I have said. Please stop comparing race and or gender to a persons individual lifestyle choice. Your comparing two subjects that can't be compared fairly. Until you can get that straight man, there's no reason to continue talking to you spazmo. |
You are assuming homosexuality is a choice. A black or a gay, a person is a person. Who are you to decide who is superior to the other?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:01:51 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste. |
I'm fairly sure at least some people would be offended by the portrait of Robert G. Ingersoll that I stuck in there if they could make him out and knew who he was. There's no pleasing everyone.
If you like, feel free to notify the administrators that you are offended and I will abide by whatever they want me to do.
Considering the inescapable nature of heterosexual displays of affection if you read newspapers, magazines, or web pages, shop for groceries, watch TV, go to movies, or drive by billboards... and seeing how we're now debating whether or not people who feel the way you do should have to even look at people like me...
I hope you can understand why I'm here now and why I feel that this goes WAY beyond gay marriage. I feel it's absolutely necessary to be here to put a human face on your abstract assertions, and a good portion of that is driven by fear.
P.S. I prefer the word provacative.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 02:07:12.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:05:51 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
It's obvious you can't understand anything I have said. Please stop comparing race and or gender to a persons individual lifestyle choice. Your comparing two subjects that can't be compared fairly. Until you can get that straight man, there's no reason to continue talking to you spazmo. |
You are assuming homosexuality is a choice. A black or a gay, a person is a person. Who are you to decide who is superior to the other? |
superior? I never said such a thing. As for the choice issue we talked about the other options in some previous posts if you care to read them, we can discuss it.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:17:02 AM · #194 |
I hope you'll notice that I, one of the gay ones, have stayed remarkably clear of saying anything about hate or homophobia either way compared to the lot of you. :)
Like I touched on before, if there's anyone here who's afraid it's me.
Thankfully, I feel my very existence is a direct refutation of Anachronite's worldview. That helps a lot.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:19:34 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I'd bet money many people on DPC find the entire signature offensive and in bad taste. Simply because before posting it you already know people are offended by images like this yet you chose to post it anyway.
It may not be offensive to everyone but it is to some of us, and knowing this makes posting it bad taste. |
I'm fairly sure at least some people would be offended by the portrait of Robert G. Ingersoll if they could make him out and knew who he was. There's no pleasing everyone.
If you like, feel free to notify the administrators that you are offended and I will abide by whatever they want me to do.
Considering the inescapable nature of heterosexual displays of affection if you read newspapers, magazines, or web pages, shop for groceries, watch TV, go to movies, or drive by billboards... and seeing how we're now debating whether or not people who feel the way you do should have to even look at people like me...
I hope you can understand why I'm here now and why I feel that this goes WAY beyond gay marriage. I feel it's absolutely necessary to be here to put a human face on your abstract assertions, and a good portion of that is driven by fear.
P.S. I prefer the word provacative. |
Well his picture didn't pop up with the link.
I do understand why your here discussing this. At least I think I do. You have a belief you feel passionate about. Like me you stand up for what you believe in. And I respect that. I'm just glad we live in a country where we have the freedom to stand up for our beliefs and say what we think regardless if someone else doesn't like what we say and think.
From what I hear there are places in Europe now where you can be arrested for saying things people concider hateful. We may not like what they say, but they should have the right to say it. On the other hand, just because they can say it, doesn't give them the right to act on it. Too many times people mistake free speech for literal actions that affect others, and they are roasted for it. That is wrong.
I have also heard that somewhere here in the USA they are trying to pass a law making it illegal for a priest to teach his church that homosexuality is a sin. Regardless of whether you believe it is a sin or not, this is a violation of freedom of speech and religeon. What will be outlawed next?
We may not agree with what everyone says, but we can't take away their right to say it. How are we supposed to pick and chose which speech we are free to say? we have to defend our right to free speech. If we ever give it up, we are in big trouble.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:22:29 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
It's obvious you can't understand anything I have said. Please stop comparing race and or gender to a persons individual lifestyle choice. Your comparing two subjects that can't be compared fairly. Until you can get that straight man, there's no reason to continue talking to you spazmo. |
You are assuming homosexuality is a choice. A black or a gay, a person is a person. Who are you to decide who is superior to the other? |
superior? I never said such a thing. As for the choice issue we talked about the other options in some previous posts if you care to read them, we can discuss it. |
Superior...better... You don't think that gays/homosexuals rate lower than say a white heterosexual?
And I've already read your other "options" to choice. Not real intelligent in my opinion, but that's just me.
I'm done with the discussion now, because it is futile.
Edit: Last sentence not meant negatively, btw. Just that neither will change the other's mind. :)
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 02:25:48.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:30:49 AM · #197 |
yea no doubt man. It's that whole solipsism thing again remember?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:37:58 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
yea no doubt man. It's that whole solipsism thing again remember? |
sol·ip·sism (P) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1 The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2 The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
You are so far off it's not even funny. Do you apply that word to everyone who doesn't agree with you?
In my mind, I acknowledge that your viewpoint exists, I acknowledge that your reality exists. That's the problem.
Maybe you were thinking of the Matrix. :)
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 02:42:06.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:50:00 AM · #199 |
no I don't mousie.. he said we would never change the others mind. The dictionary definition barely scatches the surface of the full meaning of it. go read the link I posted it will explain it better. Solipsism is why we will never change the others persons mind. We might be able to acknowledge the existance each other's viewpoints, but we don't understand the other view and never will. Then again maybe you do. I don't see how though. You have shown nothing to indicate so.
Even so then, it may not be a solipsism for you. But for me it is. I cannot comprehend how in the world people with your viewpoint think the way you do. It makes absolute no sense to me. That doesn't make me stupid. It just means my reality is so different from yours that I cannot and never will understand how people can possibly think the way you do.
Think of it like this. Have you ever read a new report about a heinous crime that was so horrifying that you said, "I don't get it, how can someone do something like that?" You'll never understand how they can do something like that becuase your realities are so far apart that you cannot comprehend how their thought process works. That is because of solipsism. It is a philosophy subject taught in college. Go read the link I posted. Then tell me you disagree with me.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 03:20:12 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Think of it like this. Have you ever read a new report about a heinous crime that was so horrifying that you said, "I don't get it, how can someone do something like that?" You'll never understand how they can do something like that becuase your realities are so far apart that you cannot comprehend how their thought process works. That is because of solipsism. It is a philosophy subject taught in college. Go read the link I posted. Then tell me you disagree with me. |
Typically, I chalk that sort of behavior up to insanity. You aren't suggesting I apply that standard to your own position, are you?
From the article:
For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own.
Solipsism is about the actual existence (or not, at it were) of the world outside of your mind. The old brain in a jar dilemma. How do I know if I'm just plugged in, does it really matter, and how does that effect morality? What this has to do with your inability to understand my worldview I have no idea.
Frankly, I'm not asking for your understanding. I'm asking to marry my partner. It would also be nice if you didn't use language that implied my having not read the essay, understood what solipsism is, or known that they teach philosopy in college, while I'm asking for favors.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:28:47 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:28:47 PM EDT.
|
