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

Gatherings & Competitions

View
140 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 6.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >

40. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 20:32 yuastnav
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 20:20:
yuastnav wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 19:43:
Since being gay is not a question of taste but one of biology it would be advisable to drop the theories that have been falsified.
...
And don't forget: Humans are not born with a specific set of morals or ethics so no one is born a homophobe. You become one.

Actually, no human being is born gay (or straight), either. Sexual attraction is developed during puberty. There is no consensus on the origin of same-sex attraction... and there are certainly no peer reviewed studies that have identified a biological "cause" of same-sex attraction. While biology might very well play a role, you are channeling your beliefs here... not facts.

At least you admit that this is about changing other people's morals. I applaud your honesty. Why you feel qualified to impose your morality on others, I don't know...

In a world where no one cared about sexuality, we wouldn't have gaming groups dedicated to certain sexualities. But obviously some people do care.


It does not really matter when sexual attraction is developed. Every person is wired in a certain way and some of these things only take effect at a certain age. Some may be prone to fall to some illness easier than others, some are fated to develop a condition with a higher probability etc. and some are born gay, others straight, other asexual and what not.

And yes, it is about morals. There is no such thing as immorality, only morality that differs form the morality of a certain individual or a group (i.e. society).
Humans differ from animals slightly in the sense that they have reason and morals are a function of that reason. It is a credo and a curse.
Though homophobia is a result of morality. Without morals homophobia would not exist (for that see other animals).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 20:23 Eirikrautha
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 20:01:
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 19:08:
What do they teach in schools today? ... The Tienanmen Square uprising was put down brutally. The guy who stepped in front of the tanks was run over and crushed (that's the part they never show on the documentaries).

What do they teach in your school?


My mistake. He wasn't the guy that got run over. According to later reports, he was arrested and executed 14 days later... my point stands...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 20:20 Eirikrautha
 
yuastnav wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 19:43:
Since being gay is not a question of taste but one of biology it would be advisable to drop the theories that have been falsified.
...
And don't forget: Humans are not born with a specific set of morals or ethics so no one is born a homophobe. You become one.

Actually, no human being is born gay (or straight), either. Sexual attraction is developed during puberty. There is no consensus on the origin of same-sex attraction... and there are certainly no peer reviewed studies that have identified a biological "cause" of same-sex attraction. While biology might very well play a role, you are channeling your beliefs here... not facts.

At least you admit that this is about changing other people's morals. I applaud your honesty. Why you feel qualified to impose your morality on others, I don't know...

In a world where no one cared about sexuality, we wouldn't have gaming groups dedicated to certain sexualities. But obviously some people do care.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 20:01 Sepharo
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 19:08:
What do they teach in schools today? ... The Tienanmen Square uprising was put down brutally. The guy who stepped in front of the tanks was run over and crushed (that's the part they never show on the documentaries).

What do they teach in your school?

 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 19:46 WarpCrow
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 19:10:
WarpCrow wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 17:17:
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
As a response to others here: I love the smell of straw men in the morning! So because some nut says wacky things about gays, everyone who opposes flaunting sexuality in the public square (which was my original post) is suddenly guilty of bigotry? Hahahaha (so I suppose I can use Jerry Sandusky to paint all gay men with a broad brush...)!

Find me a major activist organization that opposes gays but does not say wacky, defamatory things about them. Go ahead, find one.

Find me one major gay activist organization that doesn't say hateful and derogatory things about those that disagree with them. Go ahead, find one.

So what? If you're actively trying to keep a group of people relegated to the status of second class citizens, you deserve to be called out on it. Stop with the false equivalence and changing the subject. You said it was a strawman, now back it up.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 19:43 yuastnav
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
[...]
But do those who believe that what they do is not normal have to be silenced? Do those who don't agree have to acknowledge and approve?
[...]

Since being gay is not a question of taste but one of biology it would be advisable to drop the theories that have been falsified.
It's not really about silencing those who believe otherwise but at such a point the belief that being gay is not normal just becomes irrational and is therefore probably ascribable to bigotry and hate.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
[...]
Would you agree that a person who feels that gay behavior is not normal has just as much right to speak about it in the public square? To create places where they feel able to gather and feel "safe" in their opinions? Of course, there would be consequences. Would you support someone being fired or their business being boycotted because they support gay marriage? So how about Chick-Fil-A?
[...]

Again, at this point it just begins to be irrational hatred. The problem is that such people would want to reduce the rights of those they do not like, in this case gay people. Since we probably should live in a society that procures equality to all people who are born with a number of specific traits (like gender, sex, sexuality etc.) such an opinion is misplaced. There is no such thing as "gay behaviour", it's "human behaviour".

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
[...]
My biggest problem with those who wish to show how much "better" they are than everyone else through their "tolerance" is that they are just hypocrites. Discussion of social issues (especially stuff having to do with gay issues) usually ends up being free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee.
[...]

There is nothing to discuss. You are a bigot who doesn't think all people are equal. Others do not agree with you.
My, my, that is very undemocratic of you.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
[...]
You can believe anything you want about the origin of human sexuality... but it's not race.
[...]

Thank you for this magnificent revelation.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
[...]
When a black man walks into a store, his race is evident.
[...]

Of course it is. A homo sapiens, just like every other human being.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
[...]
But a polygamist? A boy who loves his sister (in a carnal sense)? A heterosexual? How do you know that?
[...]

Uhm, what? Those are all things we as rational human beings should be able to control. Something like being black or gay is not something you can control. You are being rather illogical here.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
[...]
The fact is that this particular community wants special consideration.
[...]

They don't want special consideration. That special consideration actually comes not from their own doing but from people who hate gays. Homophobes are the ones who force that special consideration on them because if we lived in a world where no one cared about what sexuality you were such a special consideration would not exist.

Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
[...]
But if I say I'm an atheist, they might call me a godless commie that'll burn in hell. If I identify as a Christian, they might call me a Jesus freak. Should we deplore that kind of language (since some of you use that kind of insult all the time on Blues), especially since I self-identified? What if I said I was from West Virginia... should we ban the terms red-neck or sister-humper?
[...]

Yes, those are all things you chose to be. For whatever reason.


And don't forget: Humans are not born with a specific set of morals or ethics so no one is born a homophobe. You become one.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 19:27 PHJF
 
Yeah, it sure is tough being a heterosexual male. I can't go anywhere without all those gays making fun of me.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 19:10 Eirikrautha
 
WarpCrow wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 17:17:
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
As a response to others here: I love the smell of straw men in the morning! So because some nut says wacky things about gays, everyone who opposes flaunting sexuality in the public square (which was my original post) is suddenly guilty of bigotry? Hahahaha (so I suppose I can use Jerry Sandusky to paint all gay men with a broad brush...)!

Find me a major activist organization that opposes gays but does not say wacky, defamatory things about them. Go ahead, find one.

Find me one major gay activist organization that doesn't say hateful and derogatory things about those that disagree with them. Go ahead, find one.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 19:08 Eirikrautha
 
Bhruic wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 17:02:
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:50:
A minority cannot force a majority to agree with them.

And that's why countries have laws. So that the rights of minorities aren't trampled on by the majority.

As to the rest, you are wrong. Minority rights have historically been granted because people from the minority had enough, and decided to stand up for themselves. Rosa Parks being the best example if you want to talk about "Blacks in the US".

What do they teach in schools today? Rosa Parks could only do what she did because the average US citizen tries to be a moral person... and was ashamed of what they saw as a moral wrong. The people had already been convinced that racism was wrong. If not, the responding police would have just shot her and moved on.

There can be no "Rosa Parks" in nations that do not respect the validity of the arguments she makes. The Tienanmen Square uprising was put down brutally. The guy who stepped in front of the tanks was run over and crushed (that's the part they never show on the documentaries). If the vast majority of Americans weren't open to the idea of racial equality, Parks would have been beaten down and no change made. Instead, almost 100 years of abolitionists, racial advocates (the NAACP, the SCLC, W.E.B. Dubois, et al.) and others had made a strong case for equality... which had been accepted by a growing silent majority. The events of the Civil Rights Movement turned the silent majority into the vocal majority...

There's just no comparison between a genetic characteristic like race and a behavioral one.

P.S. Countries' laws only work when there is broad agreement to them. When the populace disagrees, you get mass disobedience (think speed limits) with a government effort that solves little. People can be free in America only because the majority of the populace believes in freedom. When they don't, no "laws" will stop anyone who seeks to take that freedom. We're always only one Supreme Court "interpretation" away from losing fundamental rights...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 18:53 Eirikrautha
 
Hey, that finger-in-the-ears thing is both a mature and effective method of argument, eh? La-la-la-la, I can't hear you... LOL!

Though I will give you this, you did spiral into direct defamation and ignoring all points you couldn't poke holes in. I was worried that you would quit before you hit rock bottom. Thanks for proving me wrong there....
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 17:17 WarpCrow
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:10:
As a response to others here: I love the smell of straw men in the morning! So because some nut says wacky things about gays, everyone who opposes flaunting sexuality in the public square (which was my original post) is suddenly guilty of bigotry? Hahahaha (so I suppose I can use Jerry Sandusky to paint all gay men with a broad brush...)!

Find me a major activist organization that opposes gays but does not say wacky, defamatory things about them. Go ahead, find one.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 17:02 Bhruic
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:50:
A minority cannot force a majority to agree with them.

And that's why countries have laws. So that the rights of minorities aren't trampled on by the majority.

As to the rest, you are wrong. Minority rights have historically been granted because people from the minority had enough, and decided to stand up for themselves. Rosa Parks being the best example if you want to talk about "Blacks in the US".
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 15:28 Cutter
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 14:50:
I'll explain it to you. First, read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." Then you'll see your mistake.

Tolerance means being accepting or non-oppositional to another person, idea, or behavior. This is why holding "tolerance" up as an ideal is so stupid... because everyone is intolerant of something. Are you tolerant of rapists, child molesters, or thieves? Corporate raiders, investment bankers, neo-Nazis?

Oh, I see. The problem is that you believe that homosexuals - who simply want the same fair and equal treatment heterosexuals get - are really the same as and/or no better than child molesters, thieves, nazis, etc.

Where you err is in assuming that the ideas you like are somehow exempt from scrutiny, and can therefore be labeled "tolerant" and that those who disagree with you are "intolerant." It's called avoiding argument by attempting to redefine the terms. I'm afraid you don't get to do that.

Where you err is that you obviously have zero grasp of the English language or logic in any way, shape, or form. Those who disagree with the reasonable assumption that all human beings are created equal and should be treated as such are the very definition of intolerant. Tolerance means you don't have to like it, or even agree with it, but you do have to tolerate it. See how that works? Tolerance does not, however, extend to bigots and racists. Why? Because the aforementioned groups aren't trying to deprive anyone else of anything - they merely strive for equality - where as the latter work toward depriving them of their fundamental human rights and treating them fairly. See how that works?

As for the rest of you deeply flawed diatribe it's not even worth addressing. You're a bigot - and most probably - a racist to boot. And you're the worst kind because you're not even honest about which also makes you a fucking coward. Anyway, I'm done with you. On ignore you go with the rest of the idiots around here. I may have to deal with assholes like you on a day to day basis at least we don't have to here.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 15:08 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Or, the argument at hand has nothing to do with broader concepts of tolerance, "tolerance" in this context obviously applies to the issue of whether or not one person treats another unfairly because of Reasons, and whether or not the same usage of tolerance mandates (it doesn't) that one be tolerant of another's intolerance.

If you have to get this pedantic to continue, there may just be a problem with your argument. Saying that nonacceptance of intolerance is invalid because I'm not tolerant of rapists is like the argument that Mass Effect 3 shouldn't have had gay romance options for reasons of inclusion because then pedophiles would have to be included, too.

What's so funny here is that real civil rights have always been protected and restored through persuasion. Blacks in the US convinced the majority of the population that they were morally and ethically wrong (often at great cost to themselves). They showed in both the military during WWII and elsewhere that they were equal... and the laws melted away because of the public disapproval (the actions of a racist rearguard only obscured the inevitability). A minority cannot force a majority to agree with them. They must convince. But this is the opposite of the tactic above. The majority of the populations in the 30+ states that have voted down gay marriage amendments are not going to be swayed by "your ideas are invalid, because I say so."

"Twilight" and "50 Shades of Gray" are good books because the majority of people who read them say so.
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 14:50 Eirikrautha
 
Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 12:52:
Why is this "you won't tolerate my intolerance so that makes you intolerant" argument so fucking popular these days?

Tolerance is not a two-way street. If you advocate discrimination against any group of people because the group's traits go against your religious beliefs or because you think it's gross and it's going to get on you if, heaven forbid, they aren't ashamed of themselves, you are intolerant. Period. It is not intolerant to call you on it, it is simply stating a fact.

I'll explain it to you. First, read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." Then you'll see your mistake.

Tolerance means being accepting or non-oppositional to another person, idea, or behavior. This is why holding "tolerance" up as an ideal is so stupid... because everyone is intolerant of something. Are you tolerant of rapists, child molesters, or thieves? Corporate raiders, investment bankers, neo-Nazis?

Where you err is in assuming that the ideas you like are somehow exempt from scrutiny, and can therefore be labeled "tolerant" and that those who disagree with you are "intolerant." It's called avoiding argument by attempting to redefine the terms. I'm afraid you don't get to do that.

In fact, your own post outs you as a bigot! A bigot is one who is narrowly devoted to his own ideas or prejudices. Basically, your argument (or lack thereof) is that your opinion can be heard and is correct, but the differing opinion is invalid on its face and must be discarded without even being heard. Bigot-town, population YOU, baby!

What's so funny here is that real civil rights have always been protected and restored through persuasion. Blacks in the US convinced the majority of the population that they were morally and ethically wrong (often at great cost to themselves). They showed in both the military during WWII and elsewhere that they were equal... and the laws melted away because of the public disapproval (the actions of a racist rearguard only obscured the inevitability). A minority cannot force a majority to agree with them. They must convince. But this is the opposite of the tactic above. The majority of the populations in the 30+ states that have voted down gay marriage amendments are not going to be swayed by "your ideas are invalid, because I say so."

"Shut up!" isn't an argument, nor does it win hearts and minds...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 14:10 Eirikrautha
 
Hahahaha! Oh, I love the pretzel logic here! You decry name-calling by name-calling. That's hysterical!

As a response to others here: I love the smell of straw men in the morning! So because some nut says wacky things about gays, everyone who opposes flaunting sexuality in the public square (which was my original post) is suddenly guilty of bigotry? Hahahaha (so I suppose I can use Jerry Sandusky to paint all gay men with a broad brush...)!

You can believe anything you want about the origin of human sexuality... but it's not race. When a black man walks into a store, his race is evident. But a polygamist? A boy who loves his sister (in a carnal sense)? A heterosexual? How do you know that?

The fact is that this particular community wants special consideration. If I play a game on XboxLive (God forbid!), I might have people call me gay, fat, a loser, a noob, etc. If you want to attack the juvenile behavior of gamers... be my guest.

But if I say I'm an atheist, they might call me a godless commie that'll burn in hell. If I identify as a Christian, they might call me a Jesus freak. Should we deplore that kind of language (since some of you use that kind of insult all the time on Blues), especially since I self-identified? What if I said I was from West Virginia... should we ban the terms red-neck or sister-humper?

What we have here is a group that is self-identifying for the purpose of stifling comments they don't like. But that's freedom of speech, baby! Call me whatever you want... you don't know me and it doesn't bother me a bit. But when you attempt to justify your own name-calling while deploring the name-calling of others... you guys are hysterical!

I don't care if the person I'm playing online is gay, straight, bi, polygamist, or a furry. The fact that they want me to know what they are says everything...

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 13:44 WarpCrow
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
I think it is hilarious that you would advocate for tolerance while being totally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

So... if somebody attacks me and I defend myself, does that make me guilty of assault? I'm not advocating that you should be stripped of your right to be a bigot, but if you're going to go around slandering, defaming, and belittling a portion of the population just for peacefully living their lives in a way that you disapprove of, don't be surprised when people call you out on that behavior.

How is it slander and defamation, you ask? Well, when anti-gay activists say that homosexuality leads to things like child molestation, spousal abuse, substance addiction, the downfall of society, and basically everything negative that they can possibly think of, and that's not true, then slander and defamation is exactly what it is. If it's against your religion then fine, don't be gay. You don't even have to be friends with gays, just stay away. But when you lie to and mislead the rest of the population in an attempt to ruin the lives of the people you don't like, I've got a big fucking problem with you.

As for the equal rights thing, I suppose you don't see anti-miscegenation laws as discriminatory in any way, huh?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 13:29 Sepharo
 
netnerd85 wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 13:23:
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
My biggest problem with those who wish to show how much "better" they are than everyone else through their "tolerance" is that they are just hypocrites. Discussion of social issues (especially stuff having to do with gay issues) usually ends up being free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee.
You are missing the point. Being black is normal. Being gay is normal. They happen naturally through no control of the human being. Following a religion is your choice. Being gay is not a choice. Once you realise that the rest falls into place. In modern society we don't discriminate against those that are different, especially when it's not their choice.

So saying "I don't like gay people" is the same as saying "I don't like black people". You don't have to like black people or gay people or black gay people but it is "wrong" to publically attack people for something they can't help.

No, you gotta respect my intolerance!
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 13:23 netnerd85
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 11:37:
My biggest problem with those who wish to show how much "better" they are than everyone else through their "tolerance" is that they are just hypocrites. Discussion of social issues (especially stuff having to do with gay issues) usually ends up being free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee.
You are missing the point. Being black is normal. Being gay is normal. They happen naturally through no control of the human being. Following a religion is your choice. Being gay is not a choice. Once you realise that the rest falls into place. In modern society we don't discriminate against those that are different, especially when it's not their choice.

So saying "I don't like gay people" is the same as saying "I don't like black people". You don't have to like black people or gay people or black gay people but it is "wrong" to publically attack people for something they can't help.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Aug 11, 2012, 12:52 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Why is this "you won't tolerate my intolerance so that makes you intolerant" argument so fucking popular these days?

Tolerance is not a two-way street. If you advocate discrimination against any group of people because the group's traits go against your religious beliefs or because you think it's gross and it's going to get on you if, heaven forbid, they aren't ashamed of themselves, you are intolerant. Period. It is not intolerant to call you on it, it is simply stating a fact.
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
140 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 6.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo