Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on October 28, 2005, 02:41:01 pm
-
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=33070&type=0
[q]George Takei, best known as Capt. Hikaru Sulu in the Star Trek movies, has told the Los Angeles gay/lesbian magazine Frontiers that he is gay. Takei, a Los Angeles-based actor who is also a community activist, made the revelation in an interview published this week. [/q]
What the **** is it with Hollywood?
-
He's gay. So what?
-
Meh, I've met the guy. He seemed like a perfectly normal, friendly actor. Gay or not, it's really his choice.
-
Eh. Not news.
-
You mean you hadn't guessed? I thought it was pretty much obvious?
Accomplished Actor, Nice person to talk to in my experience also, end of story as far as I'm concerned :)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
He's gay. So what?
Indeed. My question is why Hollywood seems to give a rat's ass anyway.
-
Would have been better if he was gay on the show... *runs*
(Has visions of Will & Grace cast as the leads on Voyager)...
Hahaha!
-
Eh, who cares. He's still a great guy, and still one of the best actors/Star Trek characters around :D
-
Indeed. Nuclear, I would think something like that is only reported because they're desperate for material to put in the news. That's what I hate about Hollywood and American news in general. All they want to report is BS 90% of the time.
As for Takei, like everyone else is saying here, who the hell cares? (Besides the insane religious right..... :nervous: )
-
I care, and I'm anything but an insane religious type (perhaps insane, but certainly not religious or especially right-wing).
It may be incredibly homophobic of me, but every time this happens I'm disappointed if it's an actor I've liked in something.
Ooh I can see this getting a good response...
-
Marge: Didn't John seem a little...festive to you?
Homer: Couldn't agree more, happy as a clam.
Marge: He prefers the company of men!
Homer: Who doesn't!
Marge: Homer... listen carefully. John is a Ho-mo
Homer: ..Right...
Marge: Sexual! [homer screams]
-
Originally posted by vyper
It may be incredibly homophobic of me,
Yeah, it pretty much is.
-
He's gay. Whoopde-doo. Alot of us are. Get over it.
-
After I got over the "ooookaaaaay..." reaction, I thought that this really explains the outfits I've seen him wear in past public appearances. I then thought that Kirk's space-pimpage has a pretty strong effect of people, no matter what their gender. :p
aldo, I don't see that as being homophobic. It's certainly not a sign of any hatred of the person; I think it's more of a natural human reaction. Most people probably like a particular actor because they see their own character as being like that of one of the roles they've played; in this case, someone who's a George Takei fan probably sees him as being a lot like Sulu. Finding out that the real person is very different than the way you've always thought of them can be a shock. I know that, when I first heard the news, a part of me had a similar reaction to vyper's; a part of me was a little bit disappointed that it was someone who I was a fan of, and another part of me wondered why he felt the need to share this with the world. I still have a huge amount of respect for George Takei, both as an actor and as a human being; I just don't agree with his personal lifestyle choice. If you think that makes me homophobic, then so be it, but that's not the way I see myself. At least in my mind, it's very possible to separate the lifestyle that someone leads from who they are as a person.
-
Magneto was gay, and Gandalf too...;)
-
Oh noes! (http://warpstorm.com/community/Smileys/warpstorm/runaway.gif)
-
Originally posted by Clave
Magneto was gay, and Gandalf too...;)
That is true. Ian McKellan could be a dendrophiliac for all I care; he still kicks ass. :D As a side note, I always thought it was a little odd how he mentioned it during the DVD commentary for Fellowship of the Ring in reference to a scene where Sam embraces Frodo; that can't do anything but fuel the stereotype that some people have about hobbits. :p
-
He's gay? That's so.... gay. :rolleyes: :p ;)
It doesn't give much of an indication as to when he became gay, tho, aside from his being with a "Brad" for the past 18 years...
-
Mongoose:
Hehe, yep..
But I agree, he is one of the greatest..:yes:
-
What Mongoose said. Both posts.
better responses so far than what I expected btw
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
He's gay? That's so.... gay. :rolleyes: :p ;)
It doesn't give much of an indication as to when he became gay, tho, aside from his being with a "Brad" for the past 18 years...
Point of order: How does someone "become" gay?
-
They realise that they're not attracted by the opposite sex, but by members of the same sex? While it's never happened to me.. I doubt it's a process that happens over night.
-
EDIT: What Thunder said
For all of yall who know who Sherryl Swoopes is she just came out of the closet the other day, big deal on ESPN
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
They realise that they're not attracted by the opposite sex, but by members of the same sex? While it's never happened to me.. I doubt it's a process that happens over night.
From what I've heard that's usually more of a realisation that you've been gay all along though.
-
Which is why I was asking what Sandwich meant. It's a tad ambiguous.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
From what I've heard that's usually more of a realisation that you've been gay all along though.
Aye. I don't think I've ever heard it described (by any homosexual) as a 'learned' behaviour, just one that takes time for a person to accept - usually because of societal biases and prejudice.
-
You don't "become" gay. You either are or you aren't. It's the accepting and realization that is the transformation.
And I'm tired of hearing people call it a 'Lifestyle choice'. Stop making it sound like a decision to be deviant... :doubt:
-
I think when I spoke about becoming gay, I was saying it with realisation in mind.
At least I like to think I was. I can't say I've much experience in it.
Either way, it doesn't make Takei any worse a man for it. It's rather unfortunate for him that because he's famous, his act of realisation will have more of a "big thing" made about it than your average guy who isn't famous.
-
i think the act of calling it "a lifestyle choice" is in and of itself inherently homophobia
homophobia is the new racism
-
Kind of spoils all the Sulu/Chekov slash. Slash is only fun if its otherwise straight people going gay for each other.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
homophobia is the new racism
Does that mean gay is the new black?
(Sorry, too easy :D)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Kind of spoils all the Sulu/Chekov slash. Slash is only fun if its otherwise straight people going gay for each other.
**** you for bringing those memories back. I'd almost supressed them!
-
Originally posted by Raa
You don't "become" gay. You either are or you aren't. It's the accepting and realization that is the transformation.
Ok, so what are your thoughts on this guy's story (http://www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp)? Not to bring religion into this topic, but I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Does that mean gay is the new black?
(Sorry, too easy :D)
If so, does that mean the next generation of teenagers are all going to start acting gay? :p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i think the act of calling it "a lifestyle choice" is in and of itself inherently homophobia
homophobia is the new racism
You would, wouldn't you? :rolleyes: I wasn't referring to the state of being a homosexual; I was referring to actually performing actions, such as having sex with a member of your own gender or doing the whole "drag-queen" thing. Those are specific actions that a person chooses to do. There's an inherent difference between performing an action and having a certain mental state, although I'm sure you'll disagree with this point and attempt to explain it away by accusing me of rampant homophobia. While I may personally not approve of the actions I listed above, I have never hated someone because of their homosexual orientation.
-
the debate as to weather or not being gay is a choice or just something youre born with seems to be dependant on the idea that humans actually have a choice in the first place. am i the only one who thinks that free will is a myth? i should use this as an opritunity to pimp my nhilistic views. part of nihilisim is the denouncment of free will and the ability to choose. it is my opinion that choices pretty much make themselves. chain reactions in the brain will execute according to the laws of physics and are not governed my any other force. having elimenated free will from the equasion i have come to the conclusion that the later part of the debate is more accurate. i conclude that if you spend more time looking at a mans jock than you do staring at chicks' breasts. then youre probibly gay (unless your a chick then the oppisite works, or something). of course me being a nihilist also means i dont really give a **** :D
-
Mongoose: they are that way, the do not choose to be that way
I trust scientists before i trust you
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You would, wouldn't you? :rolleyes: I wasn't referring to the state of being a homosexual; I was referring to actually performing actions, such as having sex with a member of your own gender or doing the whole "drag-queen" thing. Those are specific actions that a person chooses to do. There's an inherent difference between performing an action and having a certain mental state, although I'm sure you'll disagree with this point and attempt to explain it away by accusing me of rampant homophobia. While I may personally not approve of the actions I listed above, I have never hated someone because of their homosexual orientation.
First off, being homosexual, and being a "drag-queen," as you so eloquently put it, are two seperate things. Men who dress as women (and vice versa) are often transexuals, people who believe that they are the opposite sex but born in the improper body, and that is a different case all together. Please don't try to gather all of your information on homosexuals from 'Will & Grace.'
Second off, let's do a little role reversal, shall we? Say that you are still you, but this society favours homosexuality. Would you deny a major peice of who you are, a largely defining chunk of it, just to fit into society? Tell me that, if the situation were in reverse, you would 'control your impulses' and stick with what it is society thinks is best for you.
-
All hands, brace for flamewar. :nervous: :shaking: :warp:
-
George Takei's own nature and personality does not in any way change the way he potrayed the Hikaru Sulu character.
The respect in this case is for the character's nature, and way he played it, which was nothing short of excellence.
His personal lifestyle and way of living however, is his own choice. To connect that with a fictional character (as written, and in essence 'controlled' by someone else) is not very revelant at all, and is a pathetic excuse to hate what was once a very good memory and TV show.
-
Originally posted by Trayus
All hands, brace for flamewar. :nervous: :shaking: :warp:
Don't bother panicking; I've said my piece. I won't even bother responding to Kazan's one-liner. Raa, I'd like to respond to the second point of what you wrote, but I don't think this is the place to do it. And I would rather be shot than be forced to sit through Will and Grace. :p
-
Mongoose: yep, because you know you cannot refute the fact that you have nothing to say on this subject that isn't based upon what you have been taught by ignorami
-
Originally posted by Raa
Men who dress as women (and vice versa) are often transexuals
...but usually are just tranvestites-- straight men who like dressing up as women.
Meh, this whole thread is ghey.
-
How did we get to three pages on this topic?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, so what are your thoughts on this guy's story (http://www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp)? Not to bring religion into this topic, but I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
Honestly? I think he's full of ****. He's got fear of God, and he's writing this as a propaganda page for others that he thinks he can 'scare straight.' If the church wasn't so hypocritical, and truly accepted everyone as they are as 'God's children' there wouldn't have been a problem. Why is it hard to assume that God made some people homosexual? (If you do in fact believe in God...) And don't point me to the bible, please. Man wrote that book, it was editted by other men in a comitee. Watch Penn & Teller.
Lack of love from one's father will not make a man turn to other men. Nor will love from your father prevent it. He's trying to rationalize his past in a way that lets him believe that God had a master plan for him. Some people need that in their lives.
I have a loving family, a little too nosey, but loving all the same. My failures are my own, and not the fault of my parents, and my sexual orientation is not me being devient, nor me trying to make up for lost affection from my father. It is just part of who I am. Plain and simple.
Now to see how many people read this and ask me stuff that should be obvious...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Mongoose: yep, because you know you cannot refute the fact that you have nothing to say on this subject that isn't based upon what you have been taught by ignorami
No; it's because I know that you never have anything of any value to contribute to an intelligent discussion. Just about every post you make in this forum is full of ad-hominem attacks against those who don't see eye-to-eye with you, just like what you just directed at me. Frankly, I'd be getting sick of it even if it hadn't ever been directed at myself; as it is, I'm starting to get pissed off. What right do you have to call anyone who may have contributed to my beliefs an "ignoramus"? What gives you the right of automatically denouncing anyone who doesn't hold the same belief system that you do? You've accused me of being arrogant in the past; try taking a good, long look in a mirror. As much as you may not comprehend it, what I have to say about this subject is every bit as important as what you yourself have to say about it, or anyone at all, for that matter. Last time I checked, having a free exchange of ideas implies being open to a wide range of viewpoints, including many of those that you yourself might not agree with. You don't seem willing, or even able, to accept anyone's opinion unless you share it, and this leads to you completely destroying any intelligent discussion that you try to partake in. Until you come to the table like an adult and show respect for those whose opinions are opposite yours, I will in turn have no respect for anything that you say.
To the mods: I'm really, really sorry about this. If you choose to split/delete my posts in here, I completely understand why. I have just become sick and tired of my character/intelligence being defamed by Kazan, and I know I'm not the only one. My only intention for posting in this thread was to give my own viewpoint, not to start any sort of flamewar, and yet one was started. Maybe no one else shares this opinion, but I think this forum would be a much better place if discussions like this were able to proceed intelligently and with a healthy respect for the opinions of other people instead of always degrading into flamefests. I've been to other forums where that type of discussion occurs, and I'd like to see HLP have that same sort of atmosphere. From where I'm standing, though, it doesn't look like there's much hope of that.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Mongoose: yep, because you know you cannot refute the fact that you have nothing to say on this subject that isn't based upon what you have been taught by ignorami
Let me put it to you this way: What you said is completely irrevelant to what he said. Therefore what you said is also not worthy of response.
-
It IS pretty strange when you think about it - Why would you want to criticise someone for what they do in private? It seems... petty...
-
Then the majority of western civilisation are petty. We criticise the private lives of pop stars and actors and footballers etc. every day. Technically, it's really none of my business what these people do. However I still have an opinion about it that I've voiced in the past and probably will do again.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Second off, let's do a little role reversal, shall we? Say that you are still you, but this society favours homosexuality. Would you deny a major peice of who you are, a largely defining chunk of it, just to fit into society? Tell me that, if the situation were in reverse, you would 'control your impulses' and stick with what it is society thinks is best for you.
The problem with that example of such a role reversal is that the species would die off within a generation (which is the main reason many people view being homosexual as unnatural). Reproduction is as ingrained a survival instinct as avoidance of pain, except it's not on a personal level, but on a species-wide level.
And let's not even bring into this silly ideas such as organized reproduction. Any significant decrease in the rate of a species' reproduction will have detrimental effects on the species as a whole. Look at China, for example. They are limited by law (IIRC) to a maximum of one child per family. Think about that. If that law is completely adhered to, even to the maximum (i.e. every single set of parents does have that one child; no one goes childless), the next generation will have no aunts and uncles, no nieces or nephews... and of far greater import than that, the population will be reduced by fully 50% for every generation (not taking into account the overlapping generations thing that happens when parents don't die the moment their child is born; that muddles the waters, but the end result is the same).
Anyway, I apologize for getting onto such a tangent, but that's simply how I see it; for me, the "what if things were the other way around" is species-level suicide.
Originally posted by Raa
Honestly? I think he's full of ****. He's got fear of God, and he's writing this as a propaganda page for others that he thinks he can 'scare straight.' If the church wasn't so hypocritical, and truly accepted everyone as they are as 'God's children' there wouldn't have been a problem. Why is it hard to assume that God made some people homosexual? (If you do in fact believe in God...) And don't point me to the bible, please. Man wrote that book, it was editted by other men in a comitee. Watch Penn & Teller.
Lack of love from one's father will not make a man turn to other men. Nor will love from your father prevent it. He's trying to rationalize his past in a way that lets him believe that God had a master plan for him. Some people need that in their lives.
I have a loving family, a little too nosey, but loving all the same. My failures are my own, and not the fault of my parents, and my sexual orientation is not me being devient, nor me trying to make up for lost affection from my father. It is just part of who I am. Plain and simple.
A couple of points. First and foremost, I do appreciate your reading that... as I was going over it to see if it had those parts relevant to the discussion at hand (I saw Dennis when he came to Israel to visit a friend of his who lives here and to have a concert, therefore I heard his testimony myself and didn't read it somewhere), I kinda cringed in anticipation of the reaction from HLPeople reading this, which is from such an overt Christian POV.
Secondly, I do refer to the Bible, because without the Bible, there's no church, no reason to believe in Jesus over Mohammed over Buddha. The Bible is (should be? :doubt: ) the core of every Christian; asking for an explanation of a Christian's beliefs without regarding the Bible isn't logical.
Anyway, the Bible clearly states what we all know it states about homosexuality; the humanistic demand on the church to compromise their beliefs in the name of "peace" and "love" is wildly accepted precisely because the church has already compromised its beliefs: too many Christians hate homosexuals "in the name of God". This is not only un-Biblical (no basis in the Bible), but it is anti-Biblical (directly opposed to the Bible). Did Jesus not commune with the sinners when He came down? Did He not love them so much that He gave His life for their salvation? Far too prevelant is the false belief that the Bible teaches that God hates the sinner. What the Bible truly teaches is that God loves everyone; what He does hate is the sin itself, not the sinner. If your son or daughter lies to you, if they rebel against you, do you hate them for it? No, of course not. You may hate that they lied, or rebelled, but you don't hate them.
THIS is the message of tolerance the church should be preaching. Instead, they go two different directions, neither of which are Biblical. Some hate the sinner and the sin, others accept both sinner and sin.
No wonder why the world thinks we're a bunch of nutcakes.
Why the British spelling of "color"?
-
After I got over the "ooookaaaaay..." reaction,.........
Then again you are a Republican, so we expect you to hate everything that is different. :p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
homophobia is the new racism
What's wrong with the old racism?
-
Alright, hold up!! This is getting ugly. I think this thread should be locked. Anyone care to oblige?
-
Originally posted by Trayus
Alright, hold up!! This is getting ugly. I think this thread should be locked. Anyone care to oblige?
:wtf: You're weird. This is perfectly civilized so far.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: You're weird. This is perfectly civilized so far.
Yes, yes I am. I just have different perceptions about what entails a civilized discussion than most people do. Sorry about that, its one of my autistic like quirks. By all means then, carry on if you wish.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, so what are your thoughts on this guy's story (http://www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp)? Not to bring religion into this topic, but I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
It doesn't really mean anything.
It's a single case; we don't know if it's even true, if it's a case of coercion into a particular sexual orientation (akin to brainwashing yourself), or a very confused person who didn't know what their sexuality actually was at any point. Perhaps he's bisexual.
But even if we take it at face value, it doesn't mean it's a universal rule. People make decisions for all sorts of reasons, after all.
Personally, IMO the (Christian) church should only comment on the issue of homosexuals who are also christian, not the general population.
-
Mongoose: to tolerate your intolerance would be to allow bigotry to spread.
you have the right to HAVE your opinion, you have the right to VOICE your opinion - that doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion RESPECTED
This is what i say to bigots: GO TO ****ING HELL
-
Dude... chill.
[no I don't talk like that :p]
-
Hold on... since when did Mongoose ever show any "intolerance"?
He said in one of his posts:
I have never hated someone because of their homosexual orientation.
How is he "bigoted"? Just because he's a Republican, and therefore must be inherently evil by your stereotypical views?
The only place that I can find that he said anything that you could determine as remotely offensive would be this:
I just don't agree with his personal lifestyle choice.
Just because he disagrees in the way someone acts in his own personal life, does that mean he hates that person? No. It just means he disapproves of the action. He's not "homophobic" in the least. If I disapprove of the fact that my friend smokes because I believe that it's wrong, does that make me a bigot towards people that smoke? No; he's still my friend, but I don't like that he smokes.
The only person showing intolerance here is you, Kazan. Just about every single post you've made here in reply to Mongoose's posts have been inflammatory, and I applaud Mongoose for cooling it off before you too really went at it. Learn how to participate in a civil discussion, and I think we'll all be better off.
Just because a person is a Republican, it doesn't mean that he instantly has a problem with gays. I'm Republican, but I'm moderate on a lot of issues; gay rights being one of them. I see gays as humans too, and I see that they should be allowed to exist in America as other humans should.
you have the right to HAVE your opinion, you have the right to VOICE your opinion - that doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion RESPECTED
Turned right around back at you, sir. Look at the way other members discuss things there, and use that example...
...for the love of God.
-
Black Wolf quote - "What's wrong with the old racism?"
Nuff said: ;) Made my day though
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Mongoose: to tolerate your intolerance would be to allow bigotry to spread.
you have the right to HAVE your opinion, you have the right to VOICE your opinion - that doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion RESPECTED
So you're ok if he doesn't RESPECT your _opinion_?
-
nuclear1: supporting politicians who push forward bigoted laws is equally bigoted
-
Originally posted by Kazan
nuclear1: supporting politicians who push forward bigoted laws is equally bigoted
No, that's reality. Unless you specifically mold your own beliefs for the purpose, you'll have a hell of a time finding someone to vote for who agrees with you on every issue.
-
Here's my official opinion on this subject.
Do whatever you want in your home as long as:
A. I'm not forced to sit and listen to it.
B. You don't hurt anyone.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
nuclear1: supporting politicians who push forward bigoted laws is equally bigoted
I agree with Republicans on some social issues, others I disagree on. I don't vote for the extreme right (i.e. the religious right), as I don't agree with their positions on stem cell research, abortion, and gay rights. I agree with Republican fiscal and foreign policies, but not on many social policies.
I vote for politicians that can fight the war on terror wherever it goes, and I vote for politicians that can help build the economy. I don't vote for politicians because of their social positions.
Note to Kazan: assuming that one side of an argument has no valid points is just about as bigoted as what you accuse Republicans of. You're acting no better than those who oppose gay rights; the religious right refuse to hear out gay right activists, and you simply refuse to hear out anyone who has a differing opinion than yourself.
EDIT: I'm in agreement with Grey Wolf on this. If you choose to do so in your own home and don't force it on me or harm anyone else in the process, for the most part, I'm perfectly alright with it. :nod:
-
Yes republicans has GREAT fiscal policies - huge deficit spending and tax cuts for those who don't need them are GREAT for the economy
Supporting a bigot in office is being a bigot.
I don't HAVE to hear out bigots. Bigots can go to hell, I do not give ground to bigots - they are anathema to democracy. They have no business in this country. If people want to be bigots they can go to some lesser country and rot.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, so what are your thoughts on this guy's story (http://www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp)? Not to bring religion into this topic, but I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
I think, from what I've heard, it's a perfectly realistic story; but I don't think it's necessarily b/c of God, or that all homosexuals are the same.
To me, it sounds like he suffered from low self-esteem/depression as a child, so when the guy exposed himself he started wondering what was wrong with him. He felt isolated and so ended up with the other guy, because he was reaching out to other males, including that guy; Possibly he also suspected it. Then he mentions giving himself up to 'perversion'.
My interpretation of that is that he felt something was wrong with him, and he rationalized it by creating the idea that he was a homosexual, because of the very bizarre situation with the guy in a restroom. Every time he chose to participate in a later encounter, he reinforced that belief within himself. When he finally went to the concert, he finally gave it up, and stopped trying to be a homosexual.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I don't HAVE to hear out bigots.
Therefore, nobody has to hear you out. You seem bigoted against Republicans, and therefore, you seem to be your own anathema to democracy.
Supporting a bigot in office is being a bigot.
Excuse me, did you read my post? I don't support the politicians for their anti-gay policies; I support them because of their foreign policies and fiscal policies. If you're looking a politician with my kind of beliefs, try Schwarzeneggar. He's the first example that comes to mind.
No matter what you say, I'm not a bigot. I don't have a problem with gays, blacks, hispanics, Asians, or any race. I do have a problem with people who believe in absolutism, which means I have more than a right to have a problem with you.
You can hate Republicans if you want. It's your right, after all, as an American to choose your political party. I'll just say that at one point I was a lot like you, but in my case I hated Democrats, simply because I was raised by a religious family and lived in red states (Indiana and North Carolina), but now I have a much more fair and balanced view of the issues. Sadly, it seems that you don't. Anytime that someone disagrees with you, they instantly seem to you as a bigot or going to hell for their beliefs.
That's all I have to say. Now, can we turn this back into a civilized discussion about homosexuality, and not a bigot witchhunt?
-
I don't care one wit why you support them - they put forward bigoted legislation - you support them, you are therefore supporting a bigot and are as bad as them
FURTHERMORE your pathetic excuse for a reasion to support them is laughable "fiscal policies" WHAT fiscal policy other than "more money into the hands of our cronies" - look at the history of the budget deficit, republicans don't know what they're doing when it comes to the economy. They know jack **** about economics.
"Foreign policy" the foriegn policy of "we know best and if you disagree **** you, we're going to start wars and then mismanage them!"
GREAT foreign policy.
I don't consider it bigotry to call someone an idiot when they're being an idiot nuclear1. The republican party was once upon a time not controlled by fundamentalist bigots and i could debate with a republican without them putting their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala" or asserting that they're right when the real world application of what they're talking about has been PROVEN to be disasterous. I once could debate with a republica without them saying "you're unamerican!" for disagring with the president.
If anyone is bigoted it is the entirety of the republican party and the majority of their remaining supporters. I do not tolerate bigotry, it is not bigoted to be intolerant of a bigot.
If my position of refusing to tolerate bigotry and corruption is extremist compared to yours than perhaps you should look upon yourself to see who is actually extremist
How is that administration of "ending corruption and scandals" you got in washington going? didn't one of them just get indicted or
something?
Originally posted by nuclear1
Sadly, it seems that you don't. Anytime that someone disagrees with you, they instantly seem to you as a bigot or going to hell for their beliefs.
So you assert - but you are being dishonest in doing so. You've seen people disagree with me before without me calling them a bigot.
However I'm going to call someone a bigot IF THEY ARE ONE (mongoose, liberator), or I'm going to say they are AS BAD AS ONE if they SUPPORT ONE.
Perhaps you should take a long hard look at the policies of those you are supporting - ESPECIALLY the policies you profess to support
-
If you (and that is all of you) can't calm down then you know what's going to happen. Lockage and bannage from the main forum. You've had enough warning about this before. Last chance.
-
The concept of smaller government and decreased expenditures is not a bad idea. Trick-down theory is.
-
Grey Wolf
I agree - smaller government and decreased expenditures is a good idea - but the republican party doesn't stand for either anymore.
I think government needs to be smaller, but there are certain things that are also it's responsibility. These tasks should be taken on in the most efficient manner possible.
The budget needs to be balanced, we need to be running surplusses and paying off the national debt. The taxing system is currently unbalanced - too much of the tax burdeon is on the lower tiers, repealing the bush tax cuts would greatly solve this problem. After that adjustments to the tax system can be considered as we pay down the debt and get inefficient expenditures under control. We need a strong military, but the spending associated with it is grossly inefficient - the taxpayers are being fleeced and our soldiers aren't getting the equipment they need.
It is in everyone's interest to have good, affordable health care. It is in everyone's interest to help out the poor when they need it - everyone may be poor at one time or another, and helping them out reduces the crime rate. (preventing crime is cheaper than prosecuting it).
Gun control is required for safety, but it has to be sane often those on my side of the political spectrum have very knee-jerk reactions about guns so they pass ineffective laws "to protect the children." Gun control must be effective and reasonable.
The education system needs to be a lot better funded, the funding model of being tied to the local taxes is very bad - a better alternative. Perhaps all state taxes marked for education being pooled into one pool and dished out would work. This would end the problem of underfunded intercity schools. However for schools to be effective the family has to be supportive.
I could go on.. bring up a specific issue and I will state my piece.
-
As long an actor acts good and I like the movie (like LOTR) I'll respect the actor and watch the movies... Alltough I must admitt a certain degree of dissapointment when I found out about Gandalf..
so what? -- he's gay. Big deal.
Abnormal behavior is becoming the norm these days, but unlike most other things, homosexualism isn't really a choice so how can you actually blame someone for being gay?
-
TrashMan: exactly
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I don't care one wit why you support them - they put forward bigoted legislation - you support them, you are therefore supporting a bigot and are as bad as them
FURTHERMORE your pathetic excuse for a reasion to support them is laughable "fiscal policies" WHAT fiscal policy other than "more money into the hands of our cronies" - look at the history of the budget deficit, republicans don't know what they're doing when it comes to the economy. They know jack **** about economics.
"Foreign policy" the foriegn policy of "we know best and if you disagree **** you, we're going to start wars and then mismanage them!"
GREAT foreign policy.
I don't consider it bigotry to call someone an idiot when they're being an idiot nuclear1. The republican party was once upon a time not controlled by fundamentalist bigots and i could debate with a republican without them putting their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala" or asserting that they're right when the real world application of what they're talking about has been PROVEN to be disasterous. I once could debate with a republica without them saying "you're unamerican!" for disagring with the president.
If anyone is bigoted it is the entirety of the republican party and the majority of their remaining supporters. I do not tolerate bigotry, it is not bigoted to be intolerant of a bigot.
If my position of refusing to tolerate bigotry and corruption is extremist compared to yours than perhaps you should look upon yourself to see who is actually extremist
How is that administration of "ending corruption and scandals" you got in washington going? didn't one of them just get indicted or
something?
So you assert - but you are being dishonest in doing so. You've seen people disagree with me before without me calling them a bigot.
However I'm going to call someone a bigot IF THEY ARE ONE (mongoose, liberator), or I'm going to say they are AS BAD AS ONE if they SUPPORT ONE.
Perhaps you should take a long hard look at the policies of those you are supporting - ESPECIALLY the policies you profess to support
Whatever happened to respecting peoples opinions?
-
That is a point, aldo. A very good point indeed. By ignoring peoples rights to opinions, you are approaching totalitarianism.
-
Christ man, you even attack Liberator when you know he's not here, AND it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. What the hell's wrong with you?
-
aldo_14: the concept of respecting an opinion no matter what is foolish
an opinion should only be respected if it is deserving of respect.
-
You don't need to respect the opinion, but you must respect their right to have that opinion unless you want to remove democracy entirely.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: the concept of respecting an opinion no matter what is foolish
an opinion should only be respected if it is deserving of respect.
What gives you any right to decide who and what should be respected? If you're going to expect anyone to listen to you, you might as well give them the illusion of civility, rather than launching into a long diatribe that ends with effectively calling nuclear1 either a) a bigot, b) an idiot (who supports bigots), c) an extremist or d) all of the above. Replete with CAPITALS YOU MAKE YOU SOUND LIKE YOU MUST BE RIGHT even when they don't have any contextual or grammatical value.
Christ, you know I agree with you on a fair number of things (not all, but a fair number). But that's not the way to respond unless you want to start a shouting match. And frankly, I'd rather have a nice, peaceful, discussion.
-
No opinion is deserving of respect. They are all equally meaningless attempts to light the void of nothingess that is existence. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
This has been a public service announcement. You may resume.
-
Nihilism is a fallacy.
-
In practice, yes. I wouldn't advocate living life as though nothing has meaning, as this would lead to profound unhappiness. That doesn't mean it isn't the truth, though.
-
Ford Prefect: Nihilism is pointless
-
Isn't that the whole idea?
-
Yes, yes that actually sums it up quite well.
-
[q]The Dude: Well, they finally did it. They killed my ****ing car.
Nihilist: Ve vant ze money, Lebowski.
Nihilist #2: Ja, uzzervize ve kill ze girl.
Nihilist #3: Ja, it seems you have forgotten our little deal, Lebowski.
The Dude: You don't HAVE the ****ing girl, dip****s! We know you never did!
[the Nihilists, stunned, confer amongst themselves in German]
Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.
Nihilist: Ve don't care. Ve still vant ze money, Lebowski, or ve **** you up.
Walter Sobchak: **** you. **** the three of you.
The Dude: Hey, cool it Walter.
Walter Sobchak: No, without a hostage, there is no ransom. That's what ransom is. Those are the ****ing rules.
Nihilist #2: His girlfriend gave up her toe!
Nihilist #3: She though we'd be getting million dollars!
Nihilist #2: Iss not fair!
Walter Sobchak: Fair! WHO'S THE ****ING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF ****ING CRYBABIES?
The Dude: Hey, cool it Walter. Look, pal, there never was any money. The big Lebowski gave me an empty briefcase, so take it up with him, man.
Walter Sobchak: And, I would like my undies back.
[Stunned, the Germans confer amongst themselves again]
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
Nihilist: Okay. So we take ze money you haf on you, und ve calls it eefen.
Walter Sobchak: **** you. [/q]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
THIS is the message of tolerance the church should be preaching. Instead, they go two different directions, neither of which are Biblical. Some hate the sinner and the sin, others accept both sinner and sin.
By labeling homosexuals as sinners you're already being intolerant.
BTW: Nihilism can't be true because it undermines any attempt to postulate itself. It's like the liar's paradox.
-
Thread locked. I'll post the reasons why in a minute...
EDIT:
[q]Bigot (http://www.answers.com/bigot&r=67):
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.[/q]
[q]Bigot (http://www.answers.com/library/WordNet-cid-1691593834)
The noun bigot has one meaning:
Meaning #1: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own[/q]
Originally posted by Kazan
you have the right to HAVE your opinion, you have the right to VOICE your opinion - that doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion RESPECTED
This is what i say to bigots: GO TO ****ING HELL
Originally posted by Kazan
Yes republicans has GREAT fiscal policies - huge deficit spending and tax cuts for those who don't need them are GREAT for the economy
Supporting a bigot in office is being a bigot.
I don't HAVE to hear out bigots. Bigots can go to hell, I do not give ground to bigots - they are anathema to democracy. They have no business in this country. If people want to be bigots they can go to some lesser country and rot.
Draw your own conclusions as to why I locked this.