Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Draugr

Real Name Draugr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Draugr
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On May 5, 2006, 20:54
Total Comments 627 (Apprentice)
User ID 24786
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older >


News Comments > etc.
191. Re: etc. Feb 2, 2012, 01:03 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 22:44:
I should've clarified I was talking only about religion with regards to the 'argument'. My bad.

My comment about Majority similarly was about all religion, not just Christians, also more 'global' than just 'America'. Islam, for example, takes bit of a harsher view of homosexuals, as you are probably aware, but that was not my point. It was merely a comment of religion vs. no religion.

Sorry about that, when you said "democratic mantra" I took that to mean people living in democracies, specifically america. As you know the world as a whole isn't a democracy. and the majority doesn't always rule.
There are civil and human rights violations everywhere around the globe, to more than just homosexuals. It's almost a different discussion entirely due to all of the other factors concerned, religion only being one of them.

This comment was edited on Feb 2, 2012, 01:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
186. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 20:42 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 20:02:
Victory. =\

This argument is probably as old as time itself, and it has had no resolution before, and you expect we are going to find it here, on a video game site?

The only 'right' in these cases that has ever been found has been at the end of a sword, and since that is really no longer an option, it all does seem rather pointless. Yet the urge to try is just so tempting. Just remember to back away before it drains your sanity entirely.

At the same time, it is democratic mantra that majority rules, and the majority is religious by overwhelming measure. So live with it. You shall not pass.

Actually, 'right' isn't only decided by war, it's also decided by society.

Let's take alcohol prohibition. The government attempted to legislate the morality of the population, and it didn't work out like they had hoped...we know how that played out. It didn't require war to win the argument.
Now lets looks at child labor (it exists elsewhere, but has been virtually eradicated in America.) during the industrial revolution, children worked in factories for long hours, with basically no safety or labor regulation...the government took steps to put a stop to this, as it was unjust. Both of these changes in our society didn't require war to put a stop to it, and now when people get up and talk about putting kids to work for 12 hours in a factory, everyone looks at them like they are crazy. We didn't need to go to war to let homosexuals serve openly in the military, I don't think we'll be going to war over a marriage certificate.
Saying violence will be the only way to resolve issue's such as civil rights is incorrect, and is no refuge.

Your comment on the majority ruling also assumes that all christians feel the same way about gay rights, which is a mistake. While the majority of the nation consider themselves christians, the majority of the nation is not against gay marriage. Polls indicate this is not the case. Support for gay marriage is about as equal as the opposition to it (though in some polling it already holds a majority.) It didn't start equal, but over the years it has been trending up, and if things continue it will be a majority that is in favor of it in a couple years, as opposed to 50/50 (or close to it, depending on the poll) it is now. to use your words, 'So Live with it.'

This comment was edited on Feb 1, 2012, 20:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Skyrim Patch
15. Re: Skyrim Patch Feb 1, 2012, 19:02 Draugr
 
^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 18:53:
I'm assuming that the compiler and performance optimizastions means that the SESV Accelleratio Layer mod(s) are no longer needed(?) anyone that's home already verify this yet?

^D^

I just loaded it up to tell the difference, didn't really run around much, with Skyboost that particular area had me at around 42fps. its at 50 now with the new patch and Skyboost removed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
177. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 17:12 Draugr
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 17:00:
I agree.
But I think my biggest point of contention is exactly what Prez said: Don't subscribe to it? Don't follow it. But don't make everyone around you follow it. We're not all your religion and we shouldn't have to follow the irrational tenets of your religion. Jewish people don't stop McDonald's from serving hamburgers. Muslims don't stop them from serving baconburgers (yet Christians still freak out over "creeping sharia" when Campbells labels their soups halal, even though the process was identical to kosher and required absolutely no change other than an icon on the label), and when Muslims do get annoyed at something being counter to their religion everyone is against it.

You'll certainly get no argument from me on that point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
175. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 16:51 Draugr
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:40:
In fairness, most of that stuff is in the Old Testament... In fact, most christian religions don't buy into it and the teachings in the New Testament are very often contradictory.

Yet somehow this one line of Leviticus always pops up, coming from people that don't give a crap about anything else in Leviticus. Or any of the other crazy parts of the Old Testament.

Interestingly, divorce being an abomination is reaffirmed by Christ himself several times. And it certainly laughs in the face of the sanctity of marriage. But you don't really hear people telling the government to stop issuing them very often.

You're absolutely right, which ties into the point I was trying to make, which is they get to pick and choose, and if we're going to give people a pass for discrimination against homosexuals, then we should also allow Christian's to beat their wives.
I mean if, 'the bible said so' is good enough for discriminating against people, it would stand to reason that same argument would work for domestic abuse.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
170. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 16:37 Draugr
 
Prez wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:19:
So you don't subscribe to it? Don't follow it. Simple. Leave others to do so if they wish. I still can't see why this is so hard a concept for people.

Well, this is where it hangs for me, the bible also permits you to own slaves, beat them, and your wife.
If Christian's wanted to be able to participate in those things, (I'm sure they don't,) it's going to take more than a bible verse to let them get away with it. In that same vein, if (most) religions want to discriminate against a group of people, the corresponding scriptural reference isn't enough reason to let them discriminate.

They can speak out against it of course, it's their right. There would still be people against it if the bible doesn't exist, but because the bible exists, these people don't want to explain why it would ruin things, they just want a pass for their behavior, because the bible said so.

Also, they really should look into what else the bible tells them what to do, and why they get to pick and choose, even though they are in the bible, too. Despite god condoning them, or being a command by god.
The obvious answer is that 1900 year old books show us the morality and ethics of 1900 year old societies, they don't determine the morality of modern day societies, so why should we start letting them?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > PC PROTOTYPE 2 Delayed
9. Re: PC PROTOTYPE 2 Delayed Feb 1, 2012, 02:38 Draugr
 
entr0py wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 02:18:
Cutter wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:31:
Anyway, this will be another crappy console port to skip.

Maybe, but I don't see why it should be in principal. Take Arkham City, that was a multi-platform game, delayed on the PC, designed for gamepads, and one of the best PC releases of the year.

I guess that count's as long as we don't consider the issues it had running in DX11 at launch, and PhysX had to be patched in.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
163. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 00:56 Draugr
 
Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:22:
Also, you're making a mistake in assuming that pedophilia with same gendered victims, and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, when in fact, that's not always the case.

I actually wasn't. I used the specific case of Sandusky, who is in fact homosexual and a predator as it turns out. In any case I *think* we mostly agree given the rest of your post.

I am interested in, above all, fairness to everyone, which includes gays and particularly Christians, since they are being unfairly represented and maligned here. One could say I have not one but two dogs in this fight because my friend and sister are gay and my wife and children are Christian, and all of them are wonderful and loving people.

Apologies for my assumption.

Perhaps you might think that about this thread. But If you are saying in the US, I would disagree that Christians are a maligned group in America. Every Potus has been a Christian of one type or another. In 2007, 78.4% of people in american who are religious identify as Christian. of the 112th congress, 88% claim to practice some form of Christianity. They are certainly better represented than any other religious group in america.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
157. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 23:15 Draugr
 
Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:30:

And do I really need to point out how ridiculous it is mentioning that "all Americans did this to Muslims"? WTF???


I took care to make sure I didn't encompass all america in my description of some people, but I can clarify. No, it's not all Americans, if I gave that impression I do apologize, I never used the words 'all american's' I've said 'some american's' 'lots of american's' but never 'all american's.' I think it'd be silly not to agree that there is a portion of the population that acts in this fashion - and certainly not all of them, that'd be impossible.
Certainly not everyone is guilty of this. It was being used as an example about how people, I'll calrify and say SOME people, (particularly in america, since I can't comment on other nations) view these extremist elements of a religion as part of the religion, even if the majority of members would find their practices abhorrent, and certainly wouldn't condone them. Again, apologies if you feel like you were being pigeon-holed, I didn't mean to imply YOU were guilty of this, and I recognize not everyone is.

Most Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Pagans are like the rest of society. Mostly good people, with a couple bad apples (relatively speaking,) trying to ruin it for the rest of us, Generally speaking. People don't really let this get in the way of how they view the general groups, though there are certainly people who don't fit this description.

So what, because one group of people was wronged, we should make sure another gets wronged as well?

I wasn't advocating this, I was just explaining the reality of how it's viewed by people.

are you also prepared to say all gays are child predators like Sandusky, 'cos, ya know, he's gay?

No, in the same way that I'm not prepared to say that all heterosexuals are child molesters even though there has been been heterosexuals who have been guilty of such things.

Also, you're making a mistake in assuming that pedophilia with same gendered victims, and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, when in fact, that's not always the case.

what a fun read!

'Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.'
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Rovio Positive About Piracy
21. Re: Rovio Positive About Piracy Jan 31, 2012, 18:29 Draugr
 
DukeFNukem wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 16:44:
I guess you don't follow Steam news much. They have 48-hour weekend play-all-you-want events all the time. Wait for those and you have 48 hours to try out games you might want for free. No buyers remorse.

I love this about steam.
They should do it more, of course that's not necessarily up to them, heh.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
145. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 18:13 Draugr
 
Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 12:57:
Remember, while many christian churches will tell you "Hate the sin, love the sinner", WBC and it's ilk are carrying around signs of "God Hates Fags", "God Hates Jews", "Got Hates Obama", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", etc.

Right on cue, the the usual fall-back for Christian-bashers: Westboro Baptist Church. They are a fringe loon group of haters that no Christian would ever associate with, and to even categorize them as Christians is offensively ignorant. Saying that they or other loon groups like them are indicative of Christianity is exactly like saying that Jerry Sandusky and other gay child predators are indicative of all homosexuals. Utter nonsense.

When did it become fashionable to answer irrational intolerance and deliberate misrepresentation with more of the same? Everyone complains about it when Christians do it but that doesn't seem to stop them from doing the exact same thing back at them. It would seem to me it's far better to rise above such nonsense rather than lower oneself to that level by responding in kind.

Well, lots of Americans have been doing this very thing to Muslims for decades, so it's not surprising to see it happen with other religions. When 9/11 happened we(speaking for america) didn't say, 'Well, those weren't REAL Muslims,' we never made a distinction, we just call them extremist, but they are still Muslim.
Using this same reasoning, Organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Hutaree, or people like Timothy McVeigh are just as truly christian as the people who committed attacks on 9/11 are truly Muslim. If we make the distinction for the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, then we should stop considering Al-Qaeda a Muslim organization.
That doesn't stop some American's from painting all Muslims with the same brush though, and then getting upset when it happens to Christians. That it extends to other religions is only natural. I don't mean to imply you are one of the people guilty of this double standard, but this is a disconnect a lot of people tend to have.

These people do what they do in the name of their religion, which they get to decide, not others. I have no right to say you aren't Christian, just as I don't have the right to say you ARE christian; my input is irrelevant to your beliefs. The same reason some people blame Muslims for 9/11 is the same reason some people would still consider people like Timothy McVeigh Christian. It may be perverted to the point of you not considering them so (Just like there are Muslim who wouldn't consider members of Al-Qaeda to be Muslims,) but you can't stop them from acting in the name of their chosen god, and in turn tainting the 'brand.'
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
108. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 02:46 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 02:40:
What I have said stands on it's own merit.

I couldn't agree more.

And once again, you don't say HOW I conceded your points, just that I did, as if this somehow makes it true.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
106. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 02:28 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 01:50:
Draugr wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 01:24:
RailWizard wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 01:11:

Well since you asked so nicely, I shall answer. I have never, despite my humoring certain posts ITT, thought that gayness was a birth defect as a majority reason for why there are gay people. It is my opinion that most gay people are gay mostly because of life choices or conditions. This is why I dispise gay 'families' btw. This makes it no different than any other choice in life, and makes it no more inportant than any other choice in life. I have not yet seen any reason to suggest that being gay is somehow a desirable life choice, and as such I feel free to condemn it as I see fit. If you don't like that, well that's too bad for you.

To highlight a few studies that support that being gay has biological origins:

Birth order having older male siblings increases the odds that subsequent male children will be gay. This is thought to be due to maternal antibodies that feminize the brain.
Identical twins have a 50 to 70% chance of being gay. Side note some people argue this proves that being gay is not genetic. These people lack an advanced understanding of genetics and development. Being gay is not controlled by one simple gene. If it was, that mystery would have been solved.
There are correlations to being left handed.
Fruit flies can be made gay by changing a single gene. Note: Humans are not fruit flies.
Being gay occurs in many animals, most notably penguins in zoos that mate for life and will not convert to heterosexuality, no matter how many fabulous looking female penguins are presented.
Women with gay children have higher fertility rates.
If two brothers are gay, there is a higher rate of other family members being gay.
Pheromones straight women and gay men are attracted to a pheromone produced in the sweat of men. Gay women and straight men are attracted to a pheromone produced in the urine of women. This study was done using PET and MRI scans, looking at areas of the brain that reveal sexual arousal, not the opinions of the participants. It was also published in a very prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yeah, Take a look at the issue of global warming. You can find all sorts of groups of so called scientists willing to say whatever-the-fuck will make their largest donators happy.

Really though, I don't get what your point is here however, you seem to be agreeing with what I said. i.e. Not genetic, but a choice. Could've, should've, would've. Why do we give a fuck again? They are not born that way in any of those cases, it's merely a "likelihood", so wtf?

I don't get how you take my post of, 'studies that support that being gay has biological origins' as supporting your opinion that it is a choice. None of what I listed would indicate that choice has anything to do with it. If you read the list and think it supports the argument that being gay is a choice then you need to get some reading comprehension skills. Being Homosexual is as much of a choice as was your decision to be heterosexual, which is to say, you didn't have to decide at all, you just were heterosexual, unless you're secretly attracted to men and you have chosen to pretend your not, pretending is totally optional. I also think its a little silly to think that if homosexuality was a choice that someone would choose a lifestyle that could potentially end up getting them physically harmed, killed, ostracized from community, etc.

I get that you are mad. You are now making posts based on nothing but your emotions, that's ok.

Results from studies and responding to questions asked = angry emotions?

You say I have ignored your comments
I read the first paragraph of what you said, that was enough.

Exhibit A.

well how about you respond to mine?

I have, multiple times on multiple points, you just choose to ignore it because you either don't want to take the time for whatever reason(I read the first paragraph of what you said, that was enough.), or you're just a bad troll. Either way, if you're not willing to read or comprehend my posts before responding to them, then I guess there really isn't a need to follow up on your comments, is there?

This comment was edited on Jan 30, 2012, 02:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
102. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 01:24 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 01:11:

Well since you asked so nicely, I shall answer. I have never, despite my humoring certain posts ITT, thought that gayness was a birth defect as a majority reason for why there are gay people. It is my opinion that most gay people are gay mostly because of life choices or conditions. This is why I dispise gay 'families' btw. This makes it no different than any other choice in life, and makes it no more inportant than any other choice in life. I have not yet seen any reason to suggest that being gay is somehow a desirable life choice, and as such I feel free to condemn it as I see fit. If you don't like that, well that's too bad for you.

To highlight a few studies that support that being gay has biological origins:

Birth order having older male siblings increases the odds that subsequent male children will be gay. This is thought to be due to maternal antibodies that feminize the brain.
Identical twins have a 50 to 70% chance of being gay. Side note some people argue this proves that being gay is not genetic. These people lack an advanced understanding of genetics and development. Being gay is not controlled by one simple gene. If it was, that mystery would have been solved.
There are correlations to being left handed.
Fruit flies can be made gay by changing a single gene. Note: Humans are not fruit flies.
Being gay occurs in many animals, most notably penguins in zoos that mate for life and will not convert to heterosexuality, no matter how many fabulous looking female penguins are presented.
Women with gay children have higher fertility rates.
If two brothers are gay, there is a higher rate of other family members being gay.
Pheromones straight women and gay men are attracted to a pheromone produced in the sweat of men. Gay women and straight men are attracted to a pheromone produced in the urine of women. This study was done using PET and MRI scans, looking at areas of the brain that reveal sexual arousal, not the opinions of the participants. It was also published in a very prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
101. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 01:15 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 00:53:
I read the first paragraph of what you said, that was enough. I did not bring race into this, someone else did. Now go cry in your pillow like you do every night.

And once again, You can't respond with anything of value, just more insults.

"Hey, what about White People Appreciation Month!?
Ok then, explain this genius."


That was a quote, from a post you made, this was explained for your benefit because you seemed to think this was difficult to explain. after it was explained to you, i suggested us not being off topic, but you needed to say that black people contribute nothing to society, on top of asking me the question that was just answered. I'd also say your inability to read my post shows us why you hold the views you do, and that they are immutable to change, even in overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Id also argue you read my post, but you can't do anything but respond in insults, so you acted accordingly. You may not have a religion, but you certainly share the tendencies.

I'll be interested to see Railwizard's further contributions to the forums, beyond this thread. Provided we see him around.

This comment was edited on Jan 30, 2012, 01:24.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
91. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 00:48 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 23:41:
Mostly this means contributions to technology, but also religion is big factor as well. Remember, I am not religious despite this. When it comes down to it, black people have not contributed anything to society.

In any case, why shouldn't white people have a "White Pride" time set aside? Is there another, of course this encompasses a great many races, race that deserves it more? Others may have invented some of the tech we now hold for granted, but it was white people that put it to work and created the nations you now take for granted. I am not saying I want to see a "white pride day" happen, I am just saying I see the fallacy in "black pride day". If you do not, then once again, keep drinking that kool-aid.

You are no different than those who deny that we landed on the moon. Rabid narcissism, irrational stately obedience, reckless demonisation. These are your tools, not mine. Enjoy them while they last.


Wow. Getting off topic much? how did this become a discussion of black history month? Since you've shown your 'true colors' I'll indulge myself by responding, despite the fact that bigotry plays a major role in your life.
It's funny how you tried to set the bar of what 'contributions to society' means, and you still are wrong. Black people have contributed much to society(which you define contributions as either technology or religion), starting with...the dawn of mankind. Stone ax? That's technological advancement.
We can get closer to our time, since you might want to pretend that it doesn't count as technology. How about looking at Lewis Howard Latimer. You've seen an incandescent lightbulb; Edison invented it, What Latimer improved upon is what gives you the lightbulb in its current form, essentialy. We could get even more recent if we wanted to, but If you want to see them just follow the link, no reason to clutter this space with more off topic info. Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Here is a whole list of African/black people, in general and specific people, contributions to Science, Medicine, and Technology, From the past and present day.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/depts-c/mc-me/be-af-sc.pdf

I guess there isn't much more to say, this isn't really on topic and I don't feel like filling up this space with more off topic stuff. Someone might actually want to contribute something to the discussion instead of just insulting people who disagree with them, and thanks for pouring in your racism, it helps show how backwards your positions are.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
83. Re: etc. Jan 29, 2012, 23:01 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 22:30:
Draugr wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 21:24:
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 19:18:
Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 18:11:
RailWizard wrote on Jan 28, 2012, 22:41:
Ithen they should have NO PROBLEM with "straight only" groups, right? I won't even get into how they stir in all the anti-religion bullshit just to get their way. I will just say, they are all mental midgets with no clue what they really want, they just know they want more, and more, and more. This will not end well...


Oh my god, I did not just read this comment.


Hey, what about White People Appreciation Month!?




Have you ever noticed how dumb that argument is?

No, but I have noticed how dumb your argument is. I would also like to thank you for bringing race into this, as it has many parallel issues with this situation and I was debating bringing it up just for comparisons sake.



I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, as my race(which does happen to be a shade of white) was interned during the last world war, and yet we receive no compensation for it, nor has any been asked for. Yet we(sovereign nations) must bend over backwards for others who had the same happen to them, and it still doesn't seem to be enough because apparently it's a debt that can never be repaid. Of course if we speak out about it, we are labeled as racists/bigots or w/e other cop out labels what have you.

In short, you've been drinking the kool-aid of political correctness for far too long, and you don't want to go down this road with me...

You won't go down the road with anyone, you just pretend like people are too stupid to actually spell your opinions out to, because its easier to write it off as opposed to see your argument get ripped to shreds.

Every response you make is basically 'well your too dumb to get it so i won't explain, BUT I'M RIGHT.' There are few replies you've made that don't take this tack, and it speaks more to the weakness of your argument, and your inability to defend it, than other peoples.

First and foremost example being, only white people can be racist. When black/asian/arab or whoever else does it, it's 'ok' because they are somehow entitled to such racist opinions, purportedly because they are a minority, when in reality, on a global scale, nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't see this, well, I am likely wasting keystrokes on you.

Hahaha, who, at any point, said that non-white people can't be racist? No one made that claim -- You insist they are, but no one did. People of different races are also racist, and they can even be racist towards their own race, Just as white people could!
Stop putting words into peoples' mouths, once again you bring out the straw man because you can't actually support your arguments.


Hey, what about White People Appreciation Month!?
Ok then, explain this genius. That fact is, that you are too dumb to realize what's going on, either that or you do realize but you don't care/are intentionally being obtuse to further a devious agenda. You stink of leftist ideals. Let me guess, you'll be voting 'Obama' again, right? Cause reality makes no difference to you, only your ideals matter.

And once again, you just pretend like people are too stupid to actually spell your opinions out to, because its easier to write it off as opposed to see your argument get ripped to shreds.

But if you insist, lets BRIEFLY go down this road (though it is certainly off topic.) I won't even need to insult you, as you clearly feel is necessary to arguing, as opposed to actually supporting your views...

The simple answer to this is, White people haven't had to deal with any serious racial setbacks. (white people certainly suffer setbacks, but it's rarely if ever due to their race, it usually has to do with their socio-economic conditions.)

The longer answer is, the goal of black history month is to educate people about a relatively narrow period of African history, the time period when Africans dispersed (either willingly or against their will) to other continents. It's also to instill a sense of pride in African American's cultural heritage, because hundreds of years of relentless racism will tend to take that away from you.

In American schools, most of what we learn is 'white history.' Whites have also never been discriminated against as a whole on race. Many white people are able to trace back family trees hundreds of years. Is there any need to instill pride in white people about their heritage?

-
I know how much you love to bring out the straw man, but lets try to avoid such fallacies and finally, lets get back on topic.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
75. Re: etc. Jan 29, 2012, 21:24 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 19:18:
Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 18:11:
RailWizard wrote on Jan 28, 2012, 22:41:
Ithen they should have NO PROBLEM with "straight only" groups, right? I won't even get into how they stir in all the anti-religion bullshit just to get their way. I will just say, they are all mental midgets with no clue what they really want, they just know they want more, and more, and more. This will not end well...


Oh my god, I did not just read this comment.


Hey, what about White People Appreciation Month!?




Have you ever noticed how dumb that argument is?

No, but I have noticed how dumb your argument is. I would also like to thank you for bringing race into this, as it has many parallel issues with this situation and I was debating bringing it up just for comparisons sake.



I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, as my race(which does happen to be a shade of white) was interned during the last world war, and yet we receive no compensation for it, nor has any been asked for. Yet we(sovereign nations) must bend over backwards for others who had the same happen to them, and it still doesn't seem to be enough because apparently it's a debt that can never be repaid. Of course if we speak out about it, we are labeled as racists/bigots or w/e other cop out labels what have you.

In short, you've been drinking the kool-aid of political correctness for far too long, and you don't want to go down this road with me...

You won't go down the road with anyone, you just pretend like people are too stupid to actually spell your opinions out to, because its easier to write it off as opposed to see your argument get ripped to shreds.

Every response you make is basically 'well your too dumb to get it so i won't explain, BUT I'M RIGHT.' There are few replies you've made that don't take this tack, and it speaks more to the weakness of your argument, and your inability to defend it, than other peoples.

First and foremost example being, only white people can be racist. When black/asian/arab or whoever else does it, it's 'ok' because they are somehow entitled to such racist opinions, purportedly because they are a minority, when in reality, on a global scale, nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't see this, well, I am likely wasting keystrokes on you.

Hahaha, who, at any point, said that non-white people can't be racist? No one made that claim -- You insist they are, but no one did. People of different races are also racist, and they can even be racist towards their own race, Just as white people could!
Stop putting words into peoples' mouths, once again you bring out the straw man because you can't actually support your arguments.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
74. Re: they are all over the place Jan 29, 2012, 21:24 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 05:39:
Draugr wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 05:14:
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 04:13:

Family <-Hey look! It's an anti-gay smilely! lol...

I can see you are quite dense, or maybe my joke was just over your head, so I'll explain.

As you noted, that is the smiley for 'family' and you can see it's a male, a female, and a child. There are no 'gay family' smileys, so it was a sarcastic way of saying that this is something that gays would be upset about because they are clearly not being represented. Get it now?

Oh, I got the 'joke' but the real joke is that you think it would be offensive to homosexuals that nuclear families exist.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
38. Re: etc. Jan 29, 2012, 05:21 Draugr
 
RailWizard wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 04:17:
Bhruic wrote on Jan 29, 2012, 04:11:
What happens when everyone is gay? No more babies.

Yes, because no gay person in the history of the world has ever had kids.

Oh, wait.

Being hetero- or homosexual affects your preference. It doesn't make you unable to have sex with the gender you don't prefer.

So does this mean you advocate prostitution? Maybe you can send your kids to the first school for it.

How is he advocating prostitution? What he states is matter of fact, and prostitution is an example of it, but it doesn't mean he advocates it, nor is prostitution relevant to the conversation. The fact is that some people have sex with people they aren't attracted to for X, Y or Z reason, so let's pack up the straw man for another time.

Also, lots of people have children without actually having sex, they are called surrogate mothers and straight and homosexual people both use them, there is also this process called adoption. Just because you have a child doesn't mean you had to have sex with someone, though it can be presupposed it for obvious reasons.

This comment was edited on Jan 29, 2012, 05:29.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
627 Comments. 32 pages. Viewing page 16.
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo