Here’s my take: I don’t dislike people because of their beliefs. I dislike people when their beliefs are all they talk about to the point of being annoying and one-dimensional, and if you disagree with them you are literally hitler.
@pirey, “90%” vegans
@DrSin, freaking veterans. Every veteran can only talk about being a veteran all the time, wear a shirt that says what branch they were in etc. Jeez
@Sluggernot, Granted being a veteran at least implies they did something. People who parade around yelling about how fvcking gay they are are worse. They didn’t even do anything, they just like to fvck certain people.
@TheRatMan, still, as a veteran i say "get over yourself and chill with all that"
@Sluggernot, Being a veteran is a result of something you actually did, not something you believe, not something you identify as, not something you feel oppressed because of. Most (if not all) people like to tout their previous accomplishment, the things they did in their life, and that’s what being a veteran falls under. If it became something of a social class, where people just started identifying as it, and claiming to be oppressed, and what not, I’d agree with you.
@Sluggernot, But I do agree that some people can overly emphasis a particular part of their identity to the point that it just gets annoying as all hell. What makes humans interesting is our dynamic identities, we are more than the sum of our experiences and accomplishments.
@pirey, I judge people based on their merits
@Sluggernot, I agree it’s the same. It’s not as though you’re saying Veterans don’t deserve respect, but the people who go around flaunting that they’re a Veteran as though they’re asking for respect are a little much. Plus it’s just annoying when anybody talks about one subject constantly no matter what subject that is...
@Sluggernot, didn’t see this reply but, as stated they actually did something , don’t hate a veteran because you can’t comprehend how fück up a war made them, ptsd is horrid and destroys a lot of people from the inside, yes there is a hand full of bullshït people that ruin the term VET but that’s so tiny that it becomes a carpet stain on the house of awesome work they did for the country, but I kinda get where you are coming from but there is way more better vets than there is ass hole ones, as for vegans they just wanna feel superior to other no other reason for them to even talk about it, I don’t tell people about my eating habits unless it comes up
@DrSin, oh stfu.
@DrSin, did you not see the part where @Sluggernot said he was a veteran? You’re lecturing a veteran on ptsd and how veterans feel about it.
@I Are Lebo, I did not, but if you wanna get angry over text I’m not gonna stop you
@DrSin, I’m not angry in the slightest. Just pointing out why you annoyed Sluggernot the point of getting an “stfu” from them.
Tell me, what part of my response suggested anger to you? Is it simply that I was criticizing you for making an error?
How I live my life, I don’t give a fück as long as it legal, if you are a shïtty person I don’t like you and will call you a cunt for good measure
@DrSin, what is this? DrSin doesn’t like sh1tty people... but, that can’t be... they are the one who sin the most. They are the ones who feed your inner demon. I am appalled, sin is what keeps me going. I break commandment 7, especially 10... I go back to that one several times...haven’t broken number 6 yet but help me God I will soon enough if this one b1tch doesn’t shut the fu*k up at work
@seeUpee, I can’t give up all my secrets ok, I love sin, all 7 of them, but I can’t divulge the secrets to humans
Being gay doesn’t make you a good person.
Being straight doesn’t make you a bad person.
Thinking being gay makes you a part of an oppressed class and therefore are deserving of increased consideration makes you a bad person.
@I Are Lebo, because they have no idea what oppression means, much like the self proclaimed "modern feminists". They think oppression is not being ACKNOWLEDGED as special and unique at every given moment.
@Suicide Squad Sucks, these are the same people oftentimes who mistake criticism for harassment, and jokes for hatred. Hypocritical, self centred narcissistic snowflakes incapable of handling the slightest adversity.
@I Are Lebo, shining example: anyone who didn't act like Captain Marvel was not only the first movie to feature a strong female lead character, but was also the pinnacle of cinematic accomplishment. Say anything even remotely negative, you're a troll and promoting toxic masculinity.
Can't wait for the sequel to fall on its face, since it won't have Endgame to help boost its hype
@I Are Lebo, also the same people who get pissy that someone made fun of them, and go and start another AdPocalypse. Also the same people who bully a female pornstar into suicide and brag about it
@Suicide Squad Sucks, the people defending the extended scene kinda make me sick. A guy is condescending to a woman, and it justifies her assaulting and robbing him. “Give me your jacket, your helmet, and your motorcycle, and I’ll let you keep your hand.” That’s what a villain does, not what a hero does. Her being a woman doesn’t make that kind of behaviour acceptable.
@Kangaroo Jacked, man, fück Vox. That lispy queer can go jump in a lake. Piece of shït advocates for violence against his political opposition but thinks it’s unacceptable for people to make fun of him or criticize him back.
Marriage isn't a human right. Change my mind.
@That one lurker, Wont change your mind. Because marriage is a useless, archaic tradition that has no real place in a civilized modern society and belongs in antiquity. Marriage is a astronomically stupid concept and, as i said, has no real place in modern society especially as human life spans increase.
@That one lurker, I would argue that the ability to get married falls square under freedom of religion. That’s in the American constitution, and is therefore a human right (at least in the USA).
Furthermore, if some demographics of adults have the right to marry but others don’t, then it’s a denial of human rights.
@LaDarkProphet, that attitude is responsible for the downfall of multiple societies and will be the downfall of the current one. You are wholly and entirely incorrect.
@I Are Lebo, it's an interesting distinction between freedom of religion and expression. Which I've heard the most about the latter in these discussions. Under the idea of freedom of religion it's a two way street. Someone can be the worst theist another could be the best atheist, the government does not have right to intervene as long as it does not provoke violence through it's messaging. So even if two consenting adults were to use a religious practice that is forbidden by the religion, the government should have no say. Mostly it's atheist trying to force the marriage anyway. I'm not saying it's only atheist, there's help groups for gay Christians which is good, I'm saying some atheists think we're in a religious war or something.
If I as a heterosexual male ask a woman to marry me and she says no is that her denying me my human right to be married? If marriage is not a human right then it is her right to choose. Using force to destroy someone else's human rights is fascistic.
@I Are Lebo, good to hear from someone willing to argue the point, instead of just shouting at me or something.
@I Are Lebo, Interesting. Do please explain your position.
@That one lurker, and I appreciate you responding in kind.
Having said, you’re presenting a false equivalence. The law makes pronouncements regarding consent, but the law does not have any standing on morality. Letting gays marry is not a moral issue, primarily because there is no justification against it that doesn’t also nullify certain hereto marriages.
Someone denying you marriage to them is not equivalent to someone denying you marriage to your consenting partner.
@LaDarkProphet, the pushback against marriage has a clear causal connection to increased crime rates, increased depression and also suicide, decreased postsecondary attendance and graduation, and a general negative impact on society. We see in areas with reduced marriages a drastic increase in poverty, and this is a causal relationship. Case in point: Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles.
There’s also a crystal clear connection between the abandonment of the institution of marriage and drastic drops in reproduction rates. Japan is an excellent example of this.
@I Are Lebo, maybe I need to be slightly clear. The reason I say marriage is not a human right is because you cannot force someone to marry you. That is my original position and why I don't like the conflation.
To talk about your point more directly I think we may need to agree what marriage is for, and why the original consensus was it specifically for it to be a man and woman and why it's was about morality. Thinking that this will be fine with you I'll start...
@I Are Lebo, had to restart this three times because of a lack of brevity.
Marriage is a tool, as a stone is not a house, marriage is moral because it is a cornerstone of the house. The reason to call it moral is the show its importance to not only society but the community. Marriage tempers boys to become men, a society of boys is not more than a roving band lead their collective dîcks. Marriage refines girls into woman, a society of girls can not focus boys destructive capabilities into practical use. It is shown that single mothers use beatings to get children in line while their father's are off making them a brother or sister that he'll leave again. This is the fate of a society that takes light the communal contract of marriage. Marriage is a declaration to society that the two of you will create an asset to society. Marriage is a responsibility, it's morality comes from its weight, it's weight comes from societal pressures, marriage shouldn't be taken so lightly.
@I Are Lebo, yes this is what I considered brief, no you can't have the other thesis size rantings.
@That one lurker, the freedom to get married is a human right. Being married is not. Hopefully that clarifies my point.
As to your claim, what makes you think you have the right to define marriage? Who are you to put the terms on what marriage is for? It’s a subjective thing unless we’re talking about civil rewards, and that’s a different conversation.
@I Are Lebo, it does. The way you get married falls under the individuals beliefs of what that means. So is it their right to force a person of a different faith over see a religious ceremony? And does the state have the authority to force a religion into partaking in an act that it finds to be blasphemous?
I was less of defining it and more of describing it. It is a fundamental pillars of society.
I don't understand why your secound line looks like a question with no question mark? If that wasn't by accident then you're asking me for credentials, as if the people that advocates for this have innate authority. I'm a person with no degrees, spending all my time studying history, I'm capt a breath on social and political issues from here and overseas. My authority comes from watching the opposed activist sling ideas at one another as if it was a death match. Through it all I came to realize that gay marriage was a blunder by the democrats to gain points with gay voters...
@That one lurker, the state has no place forcing a person to perform a ceremony against their will. A gay couple forcing a priest to perform their marriage against his will are equally immoral and wrong as a priest forcing a gay couple to be unable to get married. Neither has the right to enforce their will over the other.
Marriage is a fundamental pillar of biology. What it means to us socially is subjective. This is why I argued to @LaDarkProphet that the anti marriage advocates are harming society.
That’s not a refutation of gay marriage. Marriage as an institution is a cooperative venture, but for any outsider to take a meddling hand in others marriages is unacceptable. Even if it could be conclusively proven that two gay dads provide a suboptimal child rearing environment, a crackhead single mom is far more so, and no one sane is proposing that level of governmental interference in our homes as to prevent crack addicts from getting married.
It’s morally & practically wrong.
@That one lurker, to try to force them to vote for them. This failed spectacular after gaining the right normal gays and activists went home leaving the vendictive gays to force and flaunt their ways through the courts trying to force any remaining holdouts into silence and obedience. This all while Obama threated to remove tax-exemption to churches speaking out against gay marriage. This has lead to the largest resurgence of conservatism since the 50s. I'm informed enough that I call myself an expert.
And yes there really should be discussion towards the marriage tax break. The "incentive" to start making a family. Ireland has a policy for starting parents to give first timers a starting kit. It's a nice gesture that takes the minds off of new parents.
@I Are Lebo, no, we previously agreed we have freedom of religion. The priest isn't depriving a human right from the gay people.
The cohabitation of a male and a female is the biological forces that rears the best children. The moment civilizations started coming about people needed an affirmation of par bonding. This is the same in every society throughout the ages.
I need to go out and find it again (legitimately not trying to politic here) there a chart by pew research maybe that goes over crimes by married couples. Gay men are the most adulteress, and high likely to molest their adoptive child. Gay woman on the other hand are overly abusive. It's been a hot second since I've last seen it, so take that with a grain of salt. If that was true would you consider rethinking your unfair comparison?
@That one lurker, there is always another church that the gay couple can go to or another cake shop they can go to. There’s no need to force an individual to capitulate to an ideology they disagree with as long as they are within the bounds of law and are not infringing the rights of others. I don’t think we are in conflict on that point.
I am already aware of the over representation of gay women as child abusers. It’s irrelevant. It is not the job of the government to ensure healthy relationships between people. By the same argument, sterile people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. It’s meddlesome and it’s anti freedom.
@I Are Lebo, I think we're in agreement. My main problem is how gay marriage is used like a kajol, you may be in agreement with that as well.
Child Protective Services would say otherwise. But the last regard it's a non-starter, the argumentation isn't about child rearing.
I don't know where you're from, but this last paragraph doesn't seem like you. Go to bed or eat a Snickers and come back for a mulligan.
@That one lurker, the word is cudgel, but yes.
The child angle to the anti gay marriage is indeed a non starter. There are countless examples of heteronormative households that are absolutely vile places for children to be growing up in, and it is not the governments job to mandate the specifics of how we raise our children. The situation is far more complicated than that.
I’m a Canadian. I’m not concerned with gay marriage. What worries me is the trans ideology. In the vast majority of cases, children outgrow these feelings. Speaking as someone who didn’t outgrow the discomfort in my own skin, the idea that parents of children as young as 3 are abusive for refusing to put their children on hormone replacement and puberty blockers is sickening.
This is the issue I’m most concerned with because this ideology is going to (and has already begun to) lead to the worst suicide epidemic in history.
On top of that, I’m already seeing lots of despicable pictures taken of this years pride parades showing children in sexually explicit situations. Whether it’s adults parading naked down the street around children, or children being dolled up like whores to prance down the street to the cheers of adults. Child sexuality is not something to be explored. It’s not empowering, it’s harmful. Pedophilia will not and must not ever be normalized and that’s one of the few topics I won’t really discuss.
Children cannot consent. They cannot consent to sex, and they cannot consent to elective surgery. It’s that simple. Their minds are not developed enough to understand the long term ramifications of their actions.
Please don’t be condescending. That Snickers jab is both unhelpful and uncalled for.
@I Are Lebo, I'll take the snikers comment first, I was trying to be generous, is roughly 12 where I am and I thought your posts was a little to off base. You're really well informed and I thought you was either tired or need to take a step back for a moment. If there was any insult taken then I hope you'll except it wasn't meant that way.
To your first point. As citizens in some governmental body we give up the right to compel by force. It's a "social contract" that is written between a government and its citizenry. There's very few incentives that this force can be applied, thus it takes different forms to fill those roles. One such role is CPS, a governmental office to protect the helpless from being abused. The reason why I bring up child protective services is the state that there is a place, a very small place, where the government can be in the home. This is also why we shouldn't treat words as if they have arbitrary definitions when it suits our needs.
@That one lurker, I fully agree with all of that. CPS serves a vital role in society buts it’s one that is very vulnerable to neglect or corruption. There’s a world of difference between a parent that sexually abuses their child, a parent that is emotionally neglectful to their child, and a parent that refuses to allow their child onto hormones just because their child claims to feel like the other gender.
Those three scenarios are very different. CPS is needed in the first, and the other two require therapy.
@That one lurker, in Canada a year ago so there was legislation to change the definition of abuse to include trying to teach a child your faith. This is one of the reasons why I hate the idea of definitions being subjective. I think it's the trap for intellectuals, but it's rather sophist.
@That one lurker, when the government can dictate to you how you are allowed to raise your children, that’s when you lose your freedom.
I’m not going to look for trouble in this regard, which is primarily why I’ll have these discussions on here but not on Twitter or Facebook. But if trouble comes to me, I won’t bend the knee. I will not refer to people by “zee” or “zir”. I will not treat some people as a protected class above criticism or mockery, I will hold true to my principles. I like how Jordan Peterson put it: “if they fine me I won’t pay it, and if they imprison me I’ll go on a hunger strike.” I don’t have kids but if someone dared dictate how I could raise them I’d fight them to my dying breath.
As anti theist as I am, as far as I’m concerned, the moment when the government dares to dictate what lessons you can teach your child is the moment to overthrow that government or abandon the country.
@I Are Lebo, wait, a Canadian quoting Jordan Peterson.
*pulls off maple syrup mask*
Sorry to have to do this eh. But I'm apart of Canada's Underground Network Tactical Surveillance. We had you under investigation for 3 years now as being a free thinker type eh. Will you be coming quietly nazi?
*c0cks milk bag.*
@I Are Lebo, look I agree. With you on a lot of this. In my books marriage was a bridge too far.
There's still no biological reason people think they're gay, or any of the other letters. There's no gene. They're no section of the brain that "causes gayness" If you want recognition for being entirely incorrect about yourself, then don't be surprised at disbelief and mockery.
@blueguy10168, Wait, are you trying to imply that homosexuals dont exist?
@LaDarkProphet, I'm saying there's no concrete reasoning for sexual orientation at all outside of being straight. They exist in their own minds, and wish everyone to accept them, but it's not like you can do an autopsy on a person and discover their sexual orientation. Race, age, sex/gender. Sure. Orientation? No evidence. Everyone is born straight. At some point, some people deceive themselves.
@blueguy10168, this is only partially true. There are some brain scans that seem to clearly indicate the existence of biological abnormalities that alter the brain functionality. However the cause is still unknown and there’s a good chance it’s environmentally caused.
@I Are Lebo, Yes, there may be section that might hold pieces to the puzzle so to speak. I've even heard where it might tell more about someone being trans. The problem I have is until it's entirely verifiable, I won't accept or cater to it, when there's hundreds of years of man and woman being together properly. You are still a human if you're gay, don't get me wrong, but you are...broken, somehow.
Well, you are what you eat.
Call it how it is