Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day thing made me give on my country

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

Oh I forgot, only you get to say who has free speach.

This to-do is in absolutely no way a "free speech" issue. Try again.

It is completely a free speech issue. Elcarsh was saying that only those who agreed with his few should have the right to free speech. Two mayors, senior representitives of local government, said they would surpess legal business interested because they disagreed with his personal feelings.

There is no issue here except free speech.

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Pedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different things.

Do you know what you're talking about? Pedophiles are humans, and as such they poses sexuality. They can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, ect. Children are male and female, not some third type of human.

When a man molests a boy, it is not homosexuality, it is pedophilia.

When a man molests a girl, it is not heterosexuality, it is pedophilia.

No, that makes no sense.

When a man molests a boy, it IS homosexuality, AND it is pedophilia.

When a man molests a girl, it IS heterosexuality, AND it is pedophilia.

Helmholtz Watson:
So you don't like that they are pointing out the obvious? They're correct, men who sexually abuse boys are homosexual child molesters.

No, not necessarily.

Firstly, paedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing. A person can molest a child without having any kind of sexual fantasies or conscious desire towards children. There are a whole range of factors which can cause a person to molest a child, being attracted to the child is only one.

On a more general level, performing a homosexual act does not make a person homosexual. Homosexuality implies a routine preference or predisposition to same-sex attraction. Just as a person who has no sexual experience can identify as and be socially regarded as gay despite never having performed a homosexual sex act, it's also possible for a person to perform such an act without suddenly becoming gay.

There are people who can be recognized to be (or recognize themselves to be) exclusively attracted to male or female children, while possessing no attraction to adults whatosever. In those cases, it would be technically accurate to describe them as a homosexual or heterosexual paedophile. However, it's not correct to simply assume that a child molester is such a person, or even that the kinds of children they have targeted are even indicative of any kind of "sexuality".

"Sexuality" is not biological. It may contain a core of predetermined meaning to the extent that it purports to describe debatably "hardwired" behaviours, but even then the vast majority of it is the result of social processes.

And the PDF you're defending is the most manipulative, intellectually dishonest, insulting piece of bullshit I think I have read in years. Defending it makes you look just as bad, I really wouldn't go there.

Katatori-kun:
*snip*

GunsmithKitten:
*snip*

poiumty:
*snip*

What you all fail to understand is that not everyone thinks the same way you do. This may be a gay rights issue to you, but to some it is freedom of speech issue. The topic of the post is about the people who showed up for Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Its their motives, not yours, that determine the purpose of the event. They didn't show up because they hate gays and want homosexuality outlawed. They showed up to support a company they liked that had come under attack for expressing a controversial opinion.

The same sex kiss in is a gay rights issue, the appreciation day is not.

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:
Do you know what you're talking about? Pedophiles are humans, and as such they poses sexuality. They can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, ect. Children are male and female, not some third type of human.

When a man molests a boy, it is not homosexuality, it is pedophilia.

When a man molests a girl, it is not heterosexuality, it is pedophilia.

They choose a little boy or girl because they are homosexual or heterosexual.

*Citation needed*

C'mon, I'm sure with your apparent knowledge of behavioral sciences and psychology, that shouldn't be a difficult thing to illustrate for all of us.

Evilthecat summed it up perfectly. For many child molesters, just like with many rapists, it's not the sex that gets them off. It's the power they are able to exert.

Wolverine18:

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

Oh I forgot, only you get to say who has free speach.

This to-do is in absolutely no way a "free speech" issue. Try again.

It is completely a free speech issue. Elcarsh was saying that only those who agreed with his few should have the right to free speech. Two mayors, senior representitives of local government, said they would surpess legal business interested because they disagreed with his personal feelings.

There is no issue here except free speech.

Wrong.

Now, if any government official were to take steps to negatively affect Chick-Fil-A's business, absent any evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, THAT would be a First Amendment issue. However, both Boston's mayor and the Chicago alderman walked back their comments. Emanuel, for what it's worth, never once said he planned on doing anything in the legal realm.

Elcarsh didn't say that people who protested the gay Oreo should be fucking jailed or have their speech legally sanctioned. That's a free speech issue. He just said it was wrong for them to do it.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions of that speech.

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

Donuthole:

This to-do is in absolutely no way a "free speech" issue. Try again.

It is completely a free speech issue. Elcarsh was saying that only those who agreed with his few should have the right to free speech. Two mayors, senior representitives of local government, said they would surpess legal business interested because they disagreed with his personal feelings.

There is no issue here except free speech.

Wrong.

Now, if any government official were to take steps to negatively affect Chick-Fil-A's business, absent any evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, THAT would be a First Amendment issue. However, both Boston's mayor and the Chicago alderman walked back their comments.

Yes, after they made their statements as government officials that clearly violated the first ammendment rights some lawyers (or maybe they just watched the news) must have told them to retract, which they did. That doesn't change the fact that people were reacting to a very real attemp by government officials to violate the first ammendment. This is most certainly a free speech issues. Heck, if the Daily Show backed Chick-Fil-A by pointing out its a first ammendment issue then surely you could understand the same thing.

Emanuel, for what it's worth, never once said he planned on doing anything in the legal realm.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions of that speech.

It means that the government and its officers can't persecute, or threaten to pursecute, someone who has broken no laws based on those beliefs, which is what happened here.

Wolverine18:

It means that the government and its officers can't persecute, or threaten to pursecute, someone who has broken no laws based on those beliefs, which is what happened here.

Which has barely been mentioned in this thread.

1. It's "prosecute."
2. If the government had gone ahead and taken legal action, THEN IT WOULD BE A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Some idiot alderman and a hotheaded mayor saying (and almost immediately retracting) something stupid is not. It had the potential to be. But I'll admit, we're splitting hairs here.

And the Chick-Fil-A protests and "appreciation day," which is, yanno, the actual subject of the thread, IS DEFINITELY NOT.

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

It means that the government and its officers can't persecute, or threaten to pursecute, someone who has broken no laws based on those beliefs, which is what happened here.

Which has barely been mentioned in this thread.

I've mentioned it repeatedly.

1. It's "prosecute."

No, I meant persecute:

per·se·cute/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/
Verb:1.Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

2. If the government had gone ahead and taken legal action, THEN IT WOULD BE A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Some idiot alderman and a hotheaded mayor saying (and almost immediately retracting) something stupid is not. It had the potential to be. But I'll admit, we're splitting hairs here.

It IS a first ammendment issue, they just realized it and retracted.

And the Chick-Fil-A protests and "appreciation day," which is, yanno, the actual subject of the thread, IS DEFINITELY NOT.

Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

cthulhuspawn82:

Katatori-kun:
*snip*

GunsmithKitten:
*snip*

poiumty:
*snip*

What you all fail to understand is that not everyone thinks the same way you do. This may be a gay rights issue to you, but to some it is freedom of speech issue. The topic of the post is about the people who showed up for Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Its their motives, not yours, that determine the purpose of the event. They didn't show up because they hate gays and want homosexuality outlawed. They showed up to support a company they liked that had come under attack for expressing a controversial opinion.

The same sex kiss in is a gay rights issue, the appreciation day is not.

You can't say it's 'just' a freedom of speech issue. It becomes a gay rights issue when that money is directly funneled into lobbying to remove gay people's rights.

Trying to divorce it like that, like it's only one or the other is horseshit. That's the crux of the problem. Cathy FORCED it to be a gay rights issue when he chose where to spend his company's money.

Not only that but there's an inherent dishonesty and hypocrisy involved in saying that the free speech issue only extends to Cathy in the first place, even if you remove gay rights from it. Cathy's free to have whatever bigoted views he wants, and I'm free to not spend my money to praise him for it. But nobody seems to care about gay people's free speech or freedom to choose where they shop.

They're just like "If you don't turn into an open wallet so Cathy can plunder your wealth and use it against you, you're economically coercing him to your side!" without a hint of irony that if I give him that money he's using the economy to coerce me. And I'm sorry, Cathy, it's your book that says turn the other cheek, not mine.

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

When a man molests a boy, it is not homosexuality, it is pedophilia.

When a man molests a girl, it is not heterosexuality, it is pedophilia.

They choose a little boy or girl because they are homosexual or heterosexual.

*Citation needed*

C'mon, I'm sure with your apparent knowledge of behavioral sciences and psychology, that shouldn't be a difficult thing to illustrate for all of us.

Evilthecat summed it up perfectly. For many child molesters, just like with many rapists, it's not the sex that gets them off. It's the power they are able to exert.

Watson, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about on the subject of sexual abuse, so do yourself a favor and stop then educate yourself on the issue before moving onto this further.

If somebody abuses sexually, it's an act of violence that happens to have a sexual vector. Heterosexual males are completely capable of sexually abusing other males. If anything it makes perfect sense if you even think about it for a second. They're not doing it so much for sexual gratification, they're doing it to abuse that person, to hold power over that person.

When you imagine a rapist doing things solely based on being horny you're projecting your mind onto them. Their mind set is a lot different than your own (hopefully and shit). You have to think of their motivations.

If you're sick in the head and trying to hurt or humiliate somebody through sexual violence, then that person isn't always going to be an object of your affection, now would it be? It'd stand to reason that it might be somebody you wouldn't otherwise be interested in, because you're doing this not so much to get off, but to harm another human being.

Wolverine18:

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

Uh, news flash. The government cannot PROSECUTE someone for having unpopular feelings. THAT is a First Amendment violation. A government official making a stupid statement (your apparent definition of "threatening to persecute") is not.

Wolverine18:
Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

Taking a fully legal action to show support for another, as well as the protests, is an EXERCISE in free speech. You seem smart enough to know the difference between someone exercising their free speech and the phrase "free speech issue" in the context in which it was used earlier, regarding your response to Elcarsh's post.

Your shitty attitude is duly noted.

Wolverine18:

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

It means that the government and its officers can't persecute, or threaten to pursecute, someone who has broken no laws based on those beliefs, which is what happened here.

Which has barely been mentioned in this thread.

I've mentioned it repeatedly.

1. It's "prosecute."

No, I meant persecute:

per·se·cute/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/
Verb:1.Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

2. If the government had gone ahead and taken legal action, THEN IT WOULD BE A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Some idiot alderman and a hotheaded mayor saying (and almost immediately retracting) something stupid is not. It had the potential to be. But I'll admit, we're splitting hairs here.

It IS a first ammendment issue, they just realized it and retracted.

And the Chick-Fil-A protests and "appreciation day," which is, yanno, the actual subject of the thread, IS DEFINITELY NOT.

Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

Again, using the economy or lobbying to remove my rights isn't persecuting me? Demanding I don't boycott somebody using their money to hurt me, doesn't remove my rights?

Think about the alternative you're asking of somebody like me. You're telling me that I have no right to refuse to shop at this store, that Cathy's entitled to my money. That shopping at Cathy's store has basically become a civic duty like some sort of anti-gay tax that I'm obligated to purchase from.

I wasn't spending my money to hurt Cathy's business. I was refusing to spend my money to help it. And you're telling me, not good enough. That if I don't HELP Cathy fuck me, that I'm persecuting HIM?

I'm being told that if the local homeowner's association wants to make it harder for me to enter a community for being gay, that economic pressure by their banks to change my lifestyle, that's their dollar's right to free speech.

But a mayor saying that a store who's steeped itself in 2 million dollars worth of discrimination doesn't fit in with the tolerant atmosphere of the city he wishes, as a mayor, to create, that's against Cathy's free speech rights?

You guys are out of your collective fucking minds if you think I can accept that.

I'm sick to death of this notion that economically bullying or physically bullying me is a protected religious freedom.

cthulhuspawn82:
What you all fail to understand is that not everyone thinks the same way you do.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It doesn't matter how you or I or anyone else thinks. You are wrong. This is not a free speech issue. The issue from the beginning hasn't been the Chick-Fil-a CEO's opinions, his speech, or his thoughts. It has always been his actions, using customer revenue at Chick-fil-a to donate to anti-gay organizations. The fact that he donated isn't a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

If you were a supporter of Chick-fil-a appreciation day, you support preventing LGBT people from having the same rights as straights. There's no two ways about it. You can hide behind a benign claim that this was about free speech, but that won't change the facts. And the fact is a lot of bigots gloated about stuffing their gobs and denying equal rights to gays.

America: Combining bigotry with obesity since 1776!

For the purposes of this thread, when I use the term "Free Speech Issue," I mean that the free speech of the CFA CEO isn't being abridged by people protesting his restaurant.

I'm just gonna respond to the original OP, since I don't want to get into the cluster-fuck of an argument currently going on.

Anyways, I'm neither angry or cheerful about this, mainly because I've always been confused by some of the reaction to this story anyways. I live in Canada so I can't even make the choice of going to Chick-fil-A or not, but seeing as I'm pro-gay marriage I probably wouldn't go. At the same time just as I have my own right to not go to Chick-fil-A (assuming I could), others also have the right to go. If they are alright with how Chick-fil-A spends the profits, then I'm fine with them going. I may not approve but I respect the decision. Same goes to you. You as an American have every right to not go to a restaurant because you disagree what the CEO is spending the profits on, but give the same benefit of the doubt to the people still going to Chick-fil-A, as they have every right to go if they don't mind or agree with what the CEO says. Sure, you now know that there are indeed people in your country that don't approve of gay marriage, but isn't it better you know that then them hiding it and never knowing what the actual belief of your citizens is? At least if you want to improve things you can figure out where the resistances may lay.

And frankly if some people, not all, decide to go to a restaurant who's CEO, not even all the store managers, believes that gays shouldn't get married, I'd say you have it pretty easy that this is what breaks your faith in your country.

Wolverine18:
Oh I forgot, only you get to say who has free speach. Oh wait, no, that isn't the case.

Never said a word about free speech, nor did I say anything about banning anyone from saying things. I don't know where you got that from.

The bigots should be opposed, though.

Wolverine18:
Also anti-gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays, no matter how many times you might repeat that lie.

I don't suppose you had a look at that organisation they're sponsoring? It's a whole lot more than just being against gay marriage.

Wolverine18:
I agree, but you aren't banned from this board because of those whole freedom to say stupid and offensive stuff laws.

So, my posts are stupid and offensive, eh? Would you say such a statement is perfectly allowable by the rules of the CoC of this forum?

Wolverine18:
And this whole mess has probably done a great job of giving him tens of millions in free advertising and a huge sales boost. Well done!

Only because of bigots who think denying homosexuals their human rights is a good thing.

Wolverine18:
It is completely a free speech issue. Elcarsh was saying that only those who agreed with his few should have the right to free speech.

Please don't lie about what I have and have not said. I never said a word to the effect of that anyone should be forbidden from voicing their opinions. Don't be dishonest by misrepresenting my statements.

cthulhuspawn82:

Katatori-kun:
*snip*

GunsmithKitten:
*snip*

poiumty:
*snip*

What you all fail to understand is that not everyone thinks the same way you do. This may be a gay rights issue to you, but to some it is freedom of speech issue. The topic of the post is about the people who showed up for Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Its their motives, not yours, that determine the purpose of the event. They didn't show up because they hate gays and want homosexuality outlawed. They showed up to support a company they liked that had come under attack for expressing a controversial opinion.

The same sex kiss in is a gay rights issue, the appreciation day is not.

What part of "chik-fil-a did not only express an opinion, but acted on that opinion by directly funneling money to anti-gay groups" did you not understand? Because you're acting like that didn't happen, as if hiding behind a finger would completely obscure the person behind it.

I would not say anything at all in this entire thread if it was just a matter of expressing your opinion. But it clearly, blatantly isn't. They. Acted. It's like you're trying to defend a pedophile by saying "oh, thinking little girls are attractive is only his opinion, this is a free speech issue, nevermind the little girls he's stalking for the purpose of abduction for sexual relations".

And yes the topic is about the so-called "appreciation day", which is as ignorant as holding a "Hitler day" in memory of the poor misunderstood dictator who everyone hated. It's not free speech. It's stupidity. Sorry for the Godwin.

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

When a man molests a boy, it is not homosexuality, it is pedophilia.

When a man molests a girl, it is not heterosexuality, it is pedophilia.

They choose a little boy or girl because they are homosexual or heterosexual.

*Citation needed*

C'mon, I'm sure with your apparent knowledge of behavioral sciences and psychology, that shouldn't be a difficult thing to illustrate for all of us.

Evilthecat summed it up perfectly. For many child molesters, just like with many rapists, it's not the sex that gets them off. It's the power they are able to exert.

I didn't say that is was the sex that got them off, just that they have sexual orientation just like everybody else. As such, there are gay and straight child molesters.

EDIT:

evilthecat:

No, not necessarily.

Firstly, paedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing. A person can molest a child without having any kind of sexual fantasies or conscious desire towards children. There are a whole range of factors which can cause a person to molest a child, being attracted to the child is only one.

Agreed. Perhaps I was being too narrow minded, there are other possible reasons why a person is a C.M..

evilthecat:

On a more general level, performing a homosexual act does not make a person homosexual. Homosexuality implies a routine preference or predisposition to same-sex attraction. Just as a person who has no sexual experience can identify as and be socially regarded as gay despite never having performed a homosexual sex act, it's also possible for a person to perform such an act without suddenly becoming gay.

ok......

evilthecat:

There are people who can be recognized to be (or recognize themselves to be) exclusively attracted to male or female children, while possessing no attraction to adults whatosever. In those cases, it would be technically accurate to describe them as a homosexual or heterosexual paedophile. However, it's not correct to simply assume that a child molester is such a person, or even that the kinds of children they have targeted are even indicative of any kind of "sexuality".

I guess this goes up to what I said before about being narrow minded, I realize that people commit these terrible acts for reasons other than attraction, but I'm just saying attraction is one of the possible motivations.

evilthecat:

"Sexuality" is not biological. It may contain a core of predetermined meaning to the extent that it purports to describe debatably "hardwired" behaviours, but even then the vast majority of it is the result of social processes.

Debate semantics all you want, I know what I'm referring to.

evilthecat:

And the PDF you're defending is the most manipulative, intellectually dishonest, insulting piece of bullshit I think I have read in years. Defending it makes you look just as bad, I really wouldn't go there.

lol defending? No, I'm not defending anything. I'm calling a person out on not reading their own source. They claimed the pdf said being gay was equivalent to being a C.M., but when I read what he was talking about, it actually openly said that it wasn't equating the two.

Donuthole:

Wolverine18:

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

Uh, news flash. The government cannot PROSECUTE someone for having unpopular feelings. THAT is a First Amendment violation. A government official making a stupid statement (your apparent definition of "threatening to persecute") is not.

Wolverine18:
Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

Taking a fully legal action to show support for another, as well as the protests, is an EXERCISE in free speech. You seem smart enough to know the difference between someone exercising their free speech and the phrase "free speech issue" in the context in which it was used earlier, regarding your response to Elcarsh's post.

Your shitty attitude is duly noted.

Its an issue because people seem to object to the free speach being exercised. You seem smart enough to discuss a topic without resporting to picking on word choice anyway.

And what exactly about my attitude is shitty? The part where I think its important to defend people's rights to express their stupidity as long as they aren't violating laws or recommend people violate laws?

Damien Granz:

Wolverine18:

Donuthole:

Which has barely been mentioned in this thread.

I've mentioned it repeatedly.

1. It's "prosecute."

No, I meant persecute:

per·se·cute/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/
Verb:1.Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

2. If the government had gone ahead and taken legal action, THEN IT WOULD BE A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Some idiot alderman and a hotheaded mayor saying (and almost immediately retracting) something stupid is not. It had the potential to be. But I'll admit, we're splitting hairs here.

It IS a first ammendment issue, they just realized it and retracted.

And the Chick-Fil-A protests and "appreciation day," which is, yanno, the actual subject of the thread, IS DEFINITELY NOT.

Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

Again, using the economy or lobbying to remove my rights isn't persecuting me?

No, it isn't. As long as they work within the law its fine.

Demanding I don't boycott somebody using their money to hurt me, doesn't remove my rights?

I never demanded any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I suggested that it was stupid to do so, but never told you not to. My problem, from my first post in this thread, was government agents threating to take actions against a company that had violated no laws. Well, and I have a problem with the many people in this thread saying they should be able to protest by withholding their business but are somehow offended by others protesting by providing additional business.

You guys are out of your collective fucking minds if you think I can accept that.

Who are "you guys"?

I'm sick to death of this notion that economically bullying or physically bullying me is a protected religious freedom.

Most of your post is just you making shit up that I never said and that is unrelated to this case.

Elcarsh:

Wolverine18:
Oh I forgot, only you get to say who has free speach. Oh wait, no, that isn't the case.

Never said a word about free speech, nor did I say anything about banning anyone from saying things. I don't know where you got that from.

I got it from the words that were in my quote of you that you conviniently decided to trim. Trimming away your words doesn't make them go away and is very dishonest on your part. Here, let me remind you:

Elcarsh:

...and that's perfectly fucking fine, because they are OPPOSING bigotry! Why is that so hard to understand?

Sponsoring pro-gay events and organisations? Perfectly fine.

Sponsoring gay-hating events and organisations? Not fucking okay.

So there you go, you most certainly said that only speech you agree with is ok and those opposing your view is wrong.

Wolverine18:
Also anti-gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays, no matter how many times you might repeat that lie.

I don't suppose you had a look at that organisation they're sponsoring? It's a whole lot more than just being against gay marriage.[/quote]

Wolverine18:
I agree, but you aren't banned from this board because of those whole freedom to say stupid and offensive stuff laws.

So, my posts are stupid and offensive, eh? Would you say such a statement is perfectly allowable by the rules of the CoC of this forum?

Not all of them, but you definately have demonstrated bigotry. I believe some of your posts do violate the CoC as well. We do know however that the mods fall on the free speech side of anti-religious hate speech.

Wolverine18:
And this whole mess has probably done a great job of giving him tens of millions in free advertising and a huge sales boost. Well done!

Only because of bigots who think denying homosexuals their human rights is a good thing.

Mostly true (although some did go to the protest just to support the Frist Ammendment issue). Still doesn't change the fact that this has backfired bigtime in his favor lol

Our system REQUIRES us to allow those we disagree with to speak. It's only by saying offensive things that change occurs (for good or bad)

Wolverine18:
I got it from the words that were in my quote of you that you conviniently decided to trim. Trimming away your words doesn't make them go away and is very dishonest on your part. Here, let me remind you:

So there you go, you most certainly said that only speech you agree with is ok and those opposing your view is wrong.

You're quite right. Also, you're woefully wrong.

You're right in that I think the bigots are wrong and that being a bigot is not okay.

You're woefully wrong in your assumption that it means that they should be banned from expressing their opinions. You're just building a strawman because that's all you can argue against.

Wolverine18:
Not all of them, but you definately have demonstrated bigotry. I believe some of your posts do violate the CoC as well. We do know however that the mods fall on the free speech side of anti-religious hate speech.

Oh really? Well, please do tell! I'd like to hear where I've demonstrated bigotry.

cthulhuspawn82:

Katatori-kun:
*snip*

GunsmithKitten:
*snip*

poiumty:
*snip*

What you all fail to understand is that not everyone thinks the same way you do. This may be a gay rights issue to you, but to some it is freedom of speech issue. The topic of the post is about the people who showed up for Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Its their motives, not yours, that determine the purpose of the event. They didn't show up because they hate gays and want homosexuality outlawed. They showed up to support a company they liked that had come under attack for expressing a controversial opinion.

The same sex kiss in is a gay rights issue, the appreciation day is not.

If you do it and you know about the agendas they help fund, then yes, I'm fully in my rights to say you're funding an anti gay effort. Nothing changes that.

GunsmithKitten:
If you do it and you know about the agendas they help fund, then yes, I'm fully in my rights to say you're funding an anti gay effort. Nothing changes that.

You can't say that, that's somehow denying them free speech or something!

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't say that is was the sex that got them off, just that they have sexual orientation just like everybody else. As such, there are gay and straight child molesters.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Wolverine18:
Its an issue because people seem to object to the free speach being exercised. You seem smart enough to discuss a topic without resporting to picking on word choice anyway.

Bullshit. Not a single person has said the CEO of CFA can't express his opinion.

Wolverine18:
And what exactly about my attitude is shitty? The part where I think its important to defend people's rights to express their stupidity as long as they aren't violating laws or recommend people violate laws?

No, the part where you decided to talk to me like a dick because you didn't like what you thought you saw me post.

Wolverine18:

Damien Granz:

Wolverine18:

I
I've mentioned it repeatedly.

No, I meant persecute:

per·se·cute/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/
Verb:1.Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

I love it when someone tries to make someone else look stupid with "a correction" and all they do is make themselves look silly. But don't worry, your vocabulary will likely improve over time.

It IS a first ammendment issue, they just realized it and retracted.

Taking a fully legal action to show your support for another isn't free speech to you? You want to think about that a little more? Or are you suggesting the right of the same-sex marriage supporters to protest Chick-Fil-A was also not free speech?

Again, using the economy or lobbying to remove my rights isn't persecuting me?

No, it isn't. As long as they work within the law its fine.

Demanding I don't boycott somebody using their money to hurt me, doesn't remove my rights?

I never demanded any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I suggested that it was stupid to do so, but never told you not to. My problem, from my first post in this thread, was government agents threating to take actions against a company that had violated no laws. Well, and I have a problem with the many people in this thread saying they should be able to protest by withholding their business but are somehow offended by others protesting by providing additional business.

You guys are out of your collective fucking minds if you think I can accept that.

Who are "you guys"?

I'm sick to death of this notion that economically bullying or physically bullying me is a protected religious freedom.

Most of your post is just you making shit up that I never said and that is unrelated to this case.

Oh well if you make it legal to persecute me that makes it totally different and ok! I'm glad I know that now and have no other reason to reply.

poiumty:
*snip*

GunsmithKitten:
*snip*

The misunderstanding here is because when you say "this is a gay rights issue", you don't know what "this" we are referring to. The topic of this thread is "Chick-Fil-A appreciation day". The people who celebrated that were not doing so to support an anti-gay initiative. They did so because they like Chick-Fil-A and believed the backlash the company received for its beliefs was too harsh.

Political donations do count as free speech. That's an opinion shared by the Supreme Court and (according to GALLUP poles) a majority of Americans across all party lines.

Damien Granz:

Oh well if you make it legal to persecute me that makes it totally different and ok! I'm glad I know that now and have no other reason to reply.

That's slanderous. I most certainly never said that, I said just the opposit actually.

cthulhuspawn82:
The people who celebrated that were not doing so to support an anti-gay initiative. They did so because they like Chick-Fil-A and believed the backlash the company received for its beliefs was too harsh.

Like it or not, they willingly involved themselves in a conflict which very much has to do with gay rights. Saying this "does not have anything to do with gay rights" is very silly for that reason alone.

There's a war. You fight for the side you like best. That side also happens to favor fascism, and the war itself started because of it. Would you claim that your actions have nothing to do with fascism then, even if you're directly helping the fascist side?

By simply fighting for that side, you are making a statement that you accept fascism. Just like by fighting for this company, the people who participated here are making a statement that they accept homophobia. So how is this still about opinions and freedom of speech?

Look, here's a quote from the article itself.

Langley said he and 14 friends and supporters drove the two hours and "happily" waited a "very very long time" to "demonstrate their support for what they believe was very important values in our society."

What do you think they reffered to when they mentioned "Very important values"? Here's a hint: it wasn't the value of tasty chicken.

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't say that is was the sex that got them off, just that they have sexual orientation just like everybody else. As such, there are gay and straight child molesters.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I know what I'm talking about, there are C.M. that are sexually attracted to children and said C.M. can be straight, gay, bi, ect.

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't say that is was the sex that got them off, just that they have sexual orientation just like everybody else. As such, there are gay and straight child molesters.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I've been watching you two go back and forth and I don't see what there is to be confused about, Donuthole. Pedophiles are attracted to children, by definition. Some prefer boys, and some prefer girls.

I feel like this started with you pointing out that anti-gay people love to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, which Heimholtz pointed out and has continued to point out is irrelevant because there are pedophiles who go after children who are their same sex, and there are pedophiles who go after children who aren't their same sex. And I feel like you know this to be true as well, because you used the false logic as a way to mock the anti-gay people.

So what exactly are you arguing about? What specifically are you disagreeing with? Because unless you're going to try and sit here and argue that pedophiles can't be gay or can't be straight, I don't think you two actually disagree with each other.

EDIT: Actually. I really don't care to respond further. What this post was lies in the following.

Helmholtz, in his rush to point out logical fallacies, has lost sight of the big picture. That the FRC is a bunch of maniacs, and if you don't believe me, then arbane gave a great point way back after mine.

So forgive me for not reading that piece of propaganda literally. I don't think it's worth it.

Lilani:

Donuthole:

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't say that is was the sex that got them off, just that they have sexual orientation just like everybody else. As such, there are gay and straight child molesters.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I've been watching you two go back and forth and I don't see what there is to be confused about, Donuthole. Pedophiles are attracted to children, by definition. Some prefer boys, and some prefer girls.

I feel like this started with you pointing out that anti-gay people love to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, which Heimholtz pointed out and has continued to point out is irrelevant because there are pedophiles who go after children who are their same sex, and there are pedophiles who go after children who aren't their same sex. And I feel like you know this to be true as well, because you used the false logic as a way to mock the anti-gay people.

So what exactly are you arguing about? What specifically are you disagreeing with? Because unless you're going to try and sit here and argue that pedophiles can't be gay or can't be straight, I don't think you two actually disagree with each other.

Saying that a person that rapes somebody has a sexual orientation is pointless and gives you nothing in the way of understanding their violent actions. That's like saying "Rapists have kidneys and pituitary glands". Yes, that's true, but that's not what Donuthole is arguing. He's not saying that all rapists lack sexual orientations, which would imply I guess they're all asexual? He's saying that a rapist's choice of victim doesn't always correlate at all to their sexual orientation.

That doesn't mean that no homosexual person could abuse a child. It just means that his or her sexual orientation wouldn't necessarily play much of a factor in who they abuse, how or why, and that trying to work backwards to correlate the identity of the victim to the sexuality of the perpetrator is going isn't always going to work out.

Therefor, as I said, being like "Rapists sometimes have sexual orientations!" is about as stupid to say like "Rapists commonly are warm blooded!", and using it to sort of slander any one or another sexual orientation is dishonest.

Zaleznikel:

Lilani:

Donuthole:

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I've been watching you two go back and forth and I don't see what there is to be confused about, Donuthole. Pedophiles are attracted to children, by definition. Some prefer boys, and some prefer girls.

I feel like this started with you pointing out that anti-gay people love to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, which Heimholtz pointed out and has continued to point out is irrelevant because there are pedophiles who go after children who are their same sex, and there are pedophiles who go after children who aren't their same sex. And I feel like you know this to be true as well, because you used the false logic as a way to mock the anti-gay people.

So what exactly are you arguing about? What specifically are you disagreeing with? Because unless you're going to try and sit here and argue that pedophiles can't be gay or can't be straight, I don't think you two actually disagree with each other.

Lil, it seems to come down to a fundamental disagreement on how child abuse is defined. My understanding is that calling male-male child abuse a homosexual orientation is wrong. As others have pointed out, child molestation is defined by actions, whereas homosexuality is an orientation. The researchers whose sources the FRC uses in their pamphlets make a distinction between adult orientation and attraction to children, the FRC does not.

I also believe it is disingenuous to say "gay and straight child molesters" because of historic context. No one has ever said "He's straight, we can't let him near our kids." That's a ridiculous thing to say. On the other hand, there were popular national campaigns saying exactly the inverse about ALL homosexuals. Helmholtz can defend the FRC all he wants against what I said, which is: The FRC calls homosexuals pedophiles (which I admit, I misused that term, would properly replace it with child molesters). But even so, I maintain that there was no reason for them to place Myth No. 8 in their pamphlet, other than trying to hark back to the time of the above links, scare up old paranoia.

Why do I say this? I found this article, on a UCDavis site. It covers exactly the topic of Myth No. 8, and it appears to be well researched. It takes exception with the FRCs claims at some points. It talks about a different FRC article, but the claims and sources are much the same. In fact, the first source they talk about is where the FRC gets the claim that "1/3 of abuses are male-male." The original study cited by the FRC towards "homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals comes to the conclusion that "Adult male homosexuals who prefer adult partners are no more likely to be attracted to boys than adult male heterosexuals to girls."

This says to me that the FRC does not give a flying fuck about what science actually says, they just twist research, opinion, speech, writing around to come to the conclusions they want to hear. Although I give them credit for not appearing to do it as much as NARTH, FRI, etc. But it remains that the sources used to support their statements in that pamphlet are completely ignoring the original sources methods and conclusions.

Exactly. Saying that a person who abuses a male child has to be homosexual as some sort of defense against giving gay people rights is just ridiculous.

If you think that your child will be more safe because you put them in the hands of a straight caretaker, you would be wrong. That isn't to say that all straight people molest children, or anything like that, but just your kid isn't any real safer in that scenario, because child abuse and rape don't always take into consideration sexual orientation.

But people want to use this tenuous nonsense link to presume that children are automatically at a higher risk for molestation if given to caretakers that are homosexual, which is bullshit. They can try to rationalize it like "I'm not bigoted, I swear, I'm not even saying most homosexuals abuse children, but wouldn't it be better if he had a heterosexual father who had 0% chance of abusing him rather than a homosexual father that has a .01% chance?" as a method of basically attempting to discredit homosexual parents and what not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked