Live and let live or bug off I say [Archive]

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 08:51 AM

If there is one thing I can't stand it is when people can't live and let live when it comes to lifestyle.

These selfish, hateful, narrow minded, bigoted so-called Christians (in this case) need to just go sit in a cave and withdraw from the real world.

It pains me to no end to see "Christian" groups protest, raise hell, boycott and fight aspects of secular life within the community.

Here in Dallas / Fort Worth some try to hurt the business of Hooters (http://www.hooters.com/) ohh say they petition to pull the ability of the establishment to sell beer or what have you. The bottom line is that they can't live and let live. These Christian totalitarians, thugs, prudes just can't leave well enough alone in our pluralistic and diverse society. I often wonder what these small brained prudes would think if the majority of the population were Christian haters and demanded that all Churches be shut down because "we just don't like Churches". If society in general was hostile to the idea of Church and petitioned to have them be shut then how would these small brained bigots feel?

Why then the need to do just that to aspects of secular society at large. Why the need to make a big production and fuss and fight to "war" against aspects of secular life.

The American Family Association needs to bug off.

This is America, not a totalitarian theocracy.

Liberty and justice for ALL not just small brained prudes.

Link 1 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8047423/) is the story to give you perspective on what this thread is about.

Link 2 (http://boycottford.com/) is one of AFA's websites of small brained lunacy.

From link 2 this is found within the site:

"A print ad with a winding road carries the text, "Life is full of twists and turns. Care for a partner?" A smiling man is featured, along with a close-up of a grill from a silver Jaguar X-Type. The ad ran in OUT, The Advocate and Metrosource magazines.

In the months after the ad debuted, the brand says it has sold over 20 cars as a direct result of the ad, earning more than the cost of the campaign.

Saab was the first car to ever seek the gay dollar, in 1994, but ad spending in the auto category for the gay market is most dominated by Subaru, which in 1996 initiated a gay-specific campaign and has had a consistent presence in gay media and events ever since. General Motors' Saturn began a campaign for the gay dollar in 1999 using general market ads with no specially created gay message, as did Volkswagen in 2002.

Before embarking on its campaign, Ford hired Witeck-Combs Communications, Washington DC, to create substantial proprietary market research about how the company's brands perform with lesbians and gays. With Harris Interactive, Witeck-Combs surveyed 1,000 in the gay community and 1,000 heterosexuals to compare tastes."

Gasp! :wow: The auto industry sells cars that gays like to gays along with the rest of straight society...

These people need to find something productive to do and learn to live and let live.

Fellowship

trumptman

06-01-2005, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Fellowship
If there is one thing I can't stand it is when people can't live and let live when it comes to lifestyle.

You mean like telling people what type of car they should own?:devil:

These selfish, hateful, narrow minded, bigoted so-called Christians (in this case) need to just go sit in a cave and withdraw from the real world.

Perhaps their secular brethren could join them in that cave.

It pains me to no end to see "Christian" groups protest, raise hell, boycott and fight aspects of secular life within the community.

The reality is that most people who see these folks driving around their heavily painted cars with slogans all over them see them as the freaks they are but then give credence to the freaks who want to go burn down housing tracts, spray paint fur and what have you.

Here in Dallas / Fort Worth some try to hurt the business of Hooters ohh say they petition to pull the ability of the establishment to sell beer or what have you. The bottom line is that they can't live and let live. These Christian totalitarians, thugs, prudes just can't leave well enough alone in our pluralistic and diverse society. I often wonder what these small brained prudes would think if the majority of the population were Christian haters and demanded that all Churches be shut down because "we just don't like Churches". If society in general was hostile to the idea of Church and petitioned to have them be shut then how would these small brained bigots feel?

I hope you feel the same way about the radical feminists who declare Hooters is just as evil because it allows women to earn money by objectifying themselves.

Why then the need to do just that to aspects of secular society at large. Why the need to make a big production and fuss and fight to "war" against aspects of secular life.

I suspect they feel the way they do because there are secular forces at work as well and some of them in fighting back simply are misguided or miss the mark.

The American Family Association needs to bug off.

This is America, not a totalitarian theocracy.

Liberty and justice for ALL not just small brained prudes.

Link 1 is the story to give you perspective on what this thread is about.

Link 2 is one of AFA's websites of small brained lunacy.

From link 2 this is found within the site:

You are right that it is America and that America is not a totalitarian theocracy. However all I see those links doing is matching words and actions. Disney benefits from promoting themselves as family friendly and kid safe. If the reality is that the dollars you give them for that advertised image are not actually being put towards that, you should have the right to be made aware and put your dollars elsewhere. The same thing is true for Ford. If they are advertising that their trucks are big, macho, manly and come with a side of apple pie in the glove-box and it turns out that isn't what the company actually is promoting, then they can send their dollars elsewhere. To me it is nothing more than truth in advertising.

Gasp! The auto industry sells cars that gays like to gays along with the rest of straight society...

These people need to find something productive to do and learn to live and let live.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going after the dollars of any particular group of people. However what you do has to be authentic. I would consider this no different than the NAACP pointing out that Ford might be targeting say the Focus in urban markets but then had no black people design, build, market, etc. the car. I can fully agree that you don't attempt to shut down a place, or force them to stop doing business. However people pointing out truth in advertising and motives behind such ads have nothing but goodwill from me.

Ford and other companies spend plenty of dollars cultivating an image and if their corporate actions do not match their advertised image, it should be pointed out, no matter what the agenda of those actions happens to be. I would expect this to be true if they were advertising themselves as being pro-gay and having say, no domestic partner policies or guidelines as well.

If you really are live and let live, let all the information get out there and let people vote with their dollars.

Nick

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
"You mean like telling people what type of car they should own?:devil: "

I do believe people should conserve energy yet I tell nobody what to drive Nick. The AFA tells their following what cars (along with everythign else) to avoid based on the fact that the manufacturer runs an ad tuned for a gay audience. There is a diffference between my suggesting that people conserve energy and them being bigots however I do not suspect that you can be intellectually honest about this.

"The same thing is true for Ford. If they are advertising that their trucks are big, macho, manly and come with a side of apple pie in the glove-box and it turns out that isn't what the company actually is promoting, then they can send their dollars elsewhere. To me it is nothing more than truth in advertising."

Wrong, Truth in advertising is not what we are looking at here Nick as you know full well. What we are seeing is bigotry directed in this case against a car manufacturer who (also serves the gay market) and suggests that people boycott a car company because they run ads which are tuned for the gay audience within gay magazines etc.

Who is to say that Ford does not Both serve the "macho" "apple pie"
market as well as the "gay" market?

You are glossing over a very disturbing truth that this is raw bigotry from this group. But I expect nothing less then for you to "confuse" the matter as it is your style de jour lately.

"Ford and other companies spend plenty of dollars cultivating an image and if their corporate actions do not match their advertised image, it should be pointed out, no matter what the agenda of those actions happens to be."
Nick

Again you seem to be suggesting that Ford in this case can only have one "image". A bit narrow minded and small brained no?

Ford has more than one nameplate for several reasons just as does General Motors in case you are unaware. It is well known for example that the Chevrolet Cobalt is geared for a younger audience while many Buick models are geared for senior citizens.

Welcome to life Nick.

Maybe one day you can grow some honesty and or integrity.

Fellows

trumptman

06-01-2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Fellowship [B]
I do believe people should conserve energy yet I tell nobody what to drive Nick. The AFA tells their following what cars (along with everythign else) to avoid based on the fact that the manufacturer runs an ad tuned for a gay audience. There is a diffference between my suggesting that people conserve energy and them being bigots however I do not suspect that you can be intellectually honest about this.

You do pass a judgment on what people drive even if you claim this is not "telling" them what to drive. You are no different than the people you claim to hate.

If you were intellectually honest, you would realize that you cannot be both for and against something at the same time. You cannot serve two masters or hold two positions that are in conflict with each other. You call opposing the homosexual lifestyle bigoted because you agree with it. If you don't agree with genetic traits I believe genetic and not societally endorsed can I declare you to be a hateful bigot? Likewise can I suggest that if you advertise in a manner that promotes two opposing viewpoints and have corporate actions that only follow one of those viewpoints, is it intellectually honest to not point that out?

Wrong, Truth in advertising is not what we are looking at here Nick as you know full well. What we are seeing is bigotry directed in this case against a car manufacturer who (also serves the gay market) and suggests that people boycott a car company because they run ads which are tuned for the gay audience within gay magazines etc.

Nonsense. They advertise themselves as supporting one set of values and then their actions endorse another. People have the right to know and make decisions based on that information. It doesn't matter whether I like the conclusions or endorse the actions. That is a true live and let live attitude which is why your attempt to portray people doing this as being the opposite of that is so dishonest. As I noted the reverse would be just as true. If Ford were advertising in a pro-gay manner and yet wouldn't hire someone because they were homosexual, or wouldn't grant domestic partner benefits, and a group made homosexuals aware so that they didn't give Ford their dollars, it would be just as right and justified in my book. You present information, you let people vote with their dollars and that is live and let live.

Who is to say that Ford does not Both serve the "macho" "apple pie"
market as well as the "gay" market?

Because you really can't be all things to all people all the time and anyone with a speck of honesty understands that. The reality is that their actions follow one market even if they advertise to both.

You are glossing over a very disturbing truth that this is raw bigotry from this group. But I expect nothing less then for you to "confuse" the matter as it is your style de jour lately.

The only thing confusing is how you exempt actions by certain individuals while condemning them from others based on their politics or intentions. That is the worst type of intellectual dishonesty because it gets into thought control instead of action control. If you found out your Volkswagen while, being advertised as fuel efficient and socially conscious, were in fact being put together by children in China, you should have the right to have such hypocrisy revealed and insure your dollars don't support it. Claiming that it might be okay because, hey they might be advertising to families in China too wouldn't excuse the fact that they would have misrepresented themselves to you.

Live and let live means people have a right to their opinions, to express them and to use their dollars to promote them. They don't have to be judged or endorsed by you.

Again you seem to be suggesting that Ford in this case can only have one "image". A bit narrow minded and small brained no?

Only to someone who can't comprehend that you can advertise to whomever you want but eventually cannot have messages in direct contradiction to each other. Eventually words and actions do have to to match up.

ord has more than one nameplate for several reasons just as does General Motors in case you are unaware. It is well known for example that the Chevrolet Cobalt is geared for a younger audience while many Buick models are geared for senior citizens.

Welcome to life Nick.

Welcome indeed and if the Buick division were laying off higher paid older workers to hire younger non-union scabs, the UAW would have every right to make mention of such hypocrisy and call for a boycott against Buick. I endorse their right to do that and live and let live with the results. Welcome to life Fellowship, you can't be all things to all people, all the time.

Maybe one day you can grow some honesty and or integrity.

Perhaps one day you will be honest and say, live and let live as long as you agree with me is a line of hypocritical bullshit.

Nick

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
You do pass a judgment on what people drive even if you claim this is not "telling" them what to drive. You are no different than the people you claim to hate.

Nick

Nick you twist all words :no: I am not further going to discuss with you as you are just unable to keep from distorting what I post.

In this case I "hate" nobody as you claim I do.

What I hate is bigotry not people.

You gloss over this and you have the right to and you can live your life that way. Wink at bigotry and believe it is all ok. Good for you Nick

I will live my life and suggest that bigotry be it against blacks, women or gays is wrong.

Yes I pass judgement and yes I believe I am correct or I would not believe what I believe. You are correct there.

As for a further discussion with you I will pass as you are unable to use the English language correctly. Either that or you are being a dishonest asshole.

Fellows

trumptman

06-01-2005, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Fellowship
Nick you twist all words :no: I am not further going to discuss with you as you are just unable to keep from distorting what I post.

You can be upset all you want Fellows. The reality is that you are frustrated because you cannot dismiss the truth of what I say. You cannot be all things to all people all the time. That isn't a distortion, it is reality.

In this case I "hate" nobody as you claim I do.

What I hate is bigotry not people.

I didn't read any link you posted that said somebody "hated" Ford, Saab, or even homosexuals. They, just like you, do not endorse certain actions. When you hate the sin and not the sinner, it is okay. When someone else practices this, it is not. Again, there is hypocrisy.

You gloss over this and you have the right to and you can live your life that way. Wink at bigotry and believe it is all ok. Good for you Nick

I don't wink at bigotry. I'm not the one suggesting that Ford should be able to have it both ways and that it is logical. You are the one suggesting that Ford should be able to advertise and seek the dollars of what you term "selfish, hateful, narrow minded, bigoted so-called Christians" while also pursuing the dollars of homosexuals. What else is that but a wink at bigotry?

If their actions are as harmful as you claim, Ford should not be seeking their money. Instead they should be socially conscious and decide to do without the dollars of people who think and act in a manner harmful to their business values. Again you are the one who suggests it is okay to do business with them, and wink at the anti-gay advertising that obviously makes them feel accepted in making a purchase from Ford. I have stated clearly that such winking hypocrisy is not acceptable. You suggest it is and that is why you are wrong.

I will live my life and suggest that bigotry be it against blacks, women or gays is wrong.

Yet is it acceptable to give your dollars to companies that advertise or seek dollars from companies that practice what you think is bigotry against blacks, women or gays? IS that not wrong as well? How can both be right? That is all I have said all along. If Ford refuses to hire women in executive positions and you are a woman who buys a Ford, are you not endorsing their bigotry? Are you not in fact promoting and allowing the continuation of such actions?

Yes I pass judgement and yes I believe I am correct or I would not believe what I believe. You are correct there.

All you have to do now is remember that everone else reserves this right as well.

As for a further discussion with you I will pass as you are unable to use the English language correctly. Either that or you are being a dishonest asshole.

There isn't much to discuss. If you live and let live, then there is nothing wrong with the actions of the American Family Association. They are simply making people aware of the corporate policies of companies. Let them do what they want. If you can't live and let live, and feel you must stop their actions, then they have the same right to stop actions they disagree with as well including your right to stop them.

Either way it is clear you presented this whole thing as a ploy or as an associative logical fallacy. Obviously most people would endorse being granted the maximum freedom they desire. So they will agree with you there. However you cannot use that claim to attempt to limit the freedom of a group to broadcast information and attempt to bring about action on a cause with which you disagree. That isn't maximum freedom. You can't say, I endorse free speech, but not for these guys. You can't say live and let live, but not for these guys.

The reality Fellowship, is that you enjoy platitudes that make people happy. This is well understood because platitudes don't require much critical thinking. However whenever we get into the meat of the matter and you realize that some of your actions, or even some of your own views don't match those platitudes, it ticks you off. I really can't help that. If you can't understand how a true pro-gay view would never wink at bigoted groups and seek their business and dollars, then that is your shortcoming. If you can't see how you can't please both at the same time, that is again, your shortcoming. A little critical thinking can quickly show you that Ford should not be seeking the dollars of bigots and hatemongers in the first place. Doing so is exactly the "winking" at bigotry you claim to loathe.

Nick

MarcUK

06-01-2005, 12:50 PM

didn't we have a topic once called should I tolerate intolerance?

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
A little critical thinking can quickly show you that Ford should not be seeking the dollars of bigots and hatemongers in the first place. Doing so is exactly the "winking" at bigotry you claim to loathe.

Nick

Yes I said I was done with you but this was just rich.

Ford is not seeking dollars from bigots.

The AFA is peddling bigotry.

You once again twist and distort what has been said in these posts Nick.

You can continue to twist, distort and lie Nick but you will do so for no good reason.

Fellows

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 01:06 PM

Edited out of respect to everyone.

Fellows

Aurora

06-01-2005, 01:21 PM

Live in Let live use to be our motto in America until we had to start playing world police. Face it every religion thinks they know the truth and whats best for you! please send us your donation or check :rolleyes: :lol: Every single one was created by Man and no one else so they are all B.S. and flawed. They all want your $$$. Its sad that the weak minded need these control freaks to tell them how to live and again please send us your check. Live and let live or screw off is what i say.

MarcUK

06-01-2005, 01:27 PM

I would delete your last post Fellows and cool off a bit, before you get into trouble.

rageous

06-01-2005, 01:32 PM

Okay enough of the little spat.

Nick, please try and address what he's talking about and not go off on a tangent. I'm sure you could point out limitless instances of where people have been seemingly hypocritical but let's address subjects and not the people making light of them, or bring up perceived parallel scenarios, please. Contrary to some points of view, one can have and has the right to be of the opinion that Hooters might be acceptable but 8 mile per gallon SUVs might not be.

(note: in the interest not appearing to take sides, I've got no beef with people having the option to buy gas guzzlers, and I certainly am not anti-Hooters!)

Fellows, come on buddy! You've got mod blood. You know that even though that last post is funny it probably ought not be there ;) I'll give you the chance to edit it...

trumptman

06-01-2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by rageous
Okay enough of the little spat.

Nick, please try and address what he's talking about and not go off on a tangent. I'm sure you could point out limitless instances of where people have been seemingly hypocritical (as seems to be your fortée) but let's address subjects and not the people making light of them please. Contrary to your belief system, one can be of the opinion that Hooters might be acceptable but 8 mile per gallon SUVs might not be

I addressed it head on. You can't say live and let live, but not these guys.

You can be of the belief system that Hooters is acceptable and SUV's not. You can choose to say that you are going to purchase wings at Hooters and not the SUV, but the second you say those folks ought not be able to buy that SUV, that is not live and let live and to portray it as such is dishonest.

Fellowship tells the AFA to live and let live but that is already what they are doing. All they presented was information about Ford's actions and asked people who don't support those actions not buy their vehicles. They are not denying them the right to do business or pursuing litigation. If they were, then I would condemn those actions.

However Fellowship condemns the very actions that show they are living and let living. That to me shows that he really means, live and let live, but only if you agree with me which is hypocrisy.

Nick

rageous

06-01-2005, 02:44 PM

I'd just like to note that I edited my post because it was unecessarily harsh towards you and unfortunately made it look like I have some beef with you. You quoted me before the edit, so I'd just like to clear that up.

My apologies.

trumptman

06-01-2005, 02:52 PM

No problem.

Nick

BRussell

06-01-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I addressed it head on. You can't say live and let live, but not these guys. Is it ever possible to criticize bigotry? It doesn't seem so, with your logic. You're suggesting that Fellowship's criticism of bigots is no better than being a bigot, right? That's some wicked moral relativism there.

segovius

06-01-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
but the second you say those folks ought not be able to buy that SUV, that is not live and let live and to portray it as such is dishonest.

This is not necessarily the case.

If the fundamental premise is live and let live then that cannot mean that everything should be tolerated because demonstrably some things in the totality of all that exists lead to a negation of that principle.

In fact, to really say 'live and let live' and not be a hypocrite one must absolutely oppose some things - things which militate against the principle.

Similarly, with free speech and democracy, one must speak up against people who oppose free speech because if they were to gain control there would be no free speech.

In Fellowship's case, he possibly believes that SUVs are contributing to the creation of a situation where it would not be possible to live and let live because we would all be dead. He is therefore, imo, not being hypocritical in the way in which he would if he opposed a car on the basis of, say, colour or style.

rageous

06-01-2005, 04:26 PM

Very well said, and basically the way I see it as well.

There are certain global repercussions from consuming mass amounts of non renewable resources that also pollute our environment in many, many harmful ways because of how we use them. I think people should be able to buy gas guzzling SUVs if they want to, I just wish they didn't want to, that's all.

But either way, I'm having trouble seeing the negative global impact that exists from eating burgers at a restaurant with attractive waitresses knowingly and willingly emphasizing their tits and ass.

Originally posted by segovius
This is not necessarily the case.

If the fundamental premise is live and let live then that cannot mean that everything should be tolerated because demonstrably some things in the totality of all that exists lead to a negation of that principle.

In fact, to really say 'live and let live' and not be a hypocrite one must absolutely oppose some things - things which militate against the principle.

Similarly, with free speech and democracy, one must speak up against people who oppose free speech because if they were to gain control there would be no free speech.

In Fellowship's case, he possibly believes that SUVs are contributing to the creation of a situation where it would not be possible to live and let live because we would all be dead. He is therefore, imo, not being hypocritical in the way in which he would if he opposed a car on the basis of, say, colour or style.

segovius

06-01-2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by rageous
But either way, I'm having trouble seeing the negative global impact that exists from eating burgers at a restaurant with attractive waitresses knowingly and willingly emphasizing their tits and ass.

Heart attack from cholesterol/tits double whammy ?

trumptman

06-01-2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Is it ever possible to criticize bigotry? It doesn't seem so, with your logic. You're suggesting that Fellowship's criticism of bigots is no better than being a bigot, right? That's some wicked moral relativism there.

It is possible to criticize, however you don't use two wrongs to make a right nor should you suggest that wrong actions can only be taken by one group because you consider the motivations of another group to be noble.

I've not suggested that Fellowship is only engaging in criticism. He claims these groups, in exercising their basic rights, and in not attempting to deny a business those rights, are doing something wrong.

Here is the claim...

It pains me to no end to see "Christian" groups protest, raise hell, boycott and fight aspects of secular life within the community.

What about any of these things is above our basic rights? Again you cannot say, free speech, but not for them.

Originally posted by segovius
This is not necessarily the case.

If the fundamental premise is live and let live then that cannot mean that everything should be tolerated because demonstrably some things in the totality of all that exists lead to a negation of that principle.

In fact, to really say 'live and let live' and not be a hypocrite one must absolutely oppose some things - things which militate against the principle.

Obviously the rights of one end at the nose of another. Fellowship has not demonstrated that this group is infringing on the rights of others to utilize or secure their own rights. They are simply stating what the corporate values of Ford and others happen to be so that people may vote to support or not support them with their dollars. This is akin to claiming that publishing a voting guide denies some the right to vote because they might be informed.

Similarly, with free speech and democracy, one must speak up against people who oppose free speech because if they were to gain control there would be no free speech.

Again none of the groups Fellowship posted about were attempting to deny any business the right to freely operate or even promote the values they saw fit. This is why I decry the attempts of him and others to focus on the intent of groups instead of their actions. Also freedom comes with a price. We must tolerate the speech even of those who would advocate against the very freedoms we hold dear because the alternative is selective rights as determined by some secondary source. Our rights are inalienable. They do not need to be determined for us or granted to us.

In Fellowship's case, he possibly believes that SUVs are contributing to the creation of a situation where it would not be possible to live and let live because we would all be dead. He is therefore, imo, not being hypocritical in the way in which he would if he opposed a car on the basis of, say, colour or style.

The shortcoming with that view is that of course ALL vehicles contribute to the end result contended, which is death for all. It would be like claiming you still are killing a man by hanging him, but used less rope. Washing your hands and judging others in that instance would still not be acceptable as there would still be blood on your own hands. Also I have said that it isn't just car use, but total per capita energy use that should be most important when considering conservation. If someone gets 40 mpg and goes home to a 3000 sq ft home with the AC on, and another person gets 20 mpg and goes home to a 1500 sq ft house with an evaporative cooler, who has the shorter rope and is killing the planet less?:rolleyes:

Nick

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 05:08 PM

I wanted to close by saying Nick was right.

I have no point. I don't have any idea what I was thinking to find bigotry wrong. It is perfectly ok particularly because I can't believe otherwise due to the home I live in.

Nick you are right again.

Fellows

MarcUK

06-01-2005, 05:13 PM

Fellows 1 - 0 Trumpt ;)

trumptman

06-01-2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Fellowship
I wanted to close by saying Nick was right.

I have no point. I don't have any idea what I was thinking to find bigotry wrong. It is perfectly ok particularly because I can't believe otherwise due to the home I live in.

Nick you are right again.

Fellows

How about you shouldn't deny others the rights you are claiming to advocate for all?

Nick

trumptman

06-01-2005, 05:26 PM

Better still, we don't have to go around talking about what you own or what you live in when you stop pointing fingers and acting like a self-righteous ass who believes that it makes you better than other people.

Nick

MarcUK

06-01-2005, 05:29 PM

Fellows 2 - 0 Trumpt

BRussell

06-01-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
It is possible to criticize, however you don't use two wrongs to make a right nor should you suggest that wrong actions can only be taken by one group because you consider the motivations of another group to be noble.

I've not suggested that Fellowship is only engaging in criticism. He claims these groups, in exercising their basic rights, and in not attempting to deny a business those rights, are doing something wrong.

Here is the claim...

What about any of these things is above our basic rights? Again you cannot say, free speech, but not for them. As far as I can tell, Fellowship isn't trying to take away anyone's rights. He's not trying to pass any laws or make anyone's speech or actions illegal. He said "it pains me" to see their anti-gay attitudes.

trumptman

06-01-2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by MarcUK
Fellows 2 - 0 Trumpt

Yes let the court jester judge who is most right and don't be surprised when he chooses who is most laughable.

Nick

MarcUK

06-01-2005, 06:09 PM

Marc 1 - 0 Trumpt

Fellowship

06-01-2005, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by MarcUK
Marc 1 - 0 Trumpt

Marc 2 - 0 Trumpt

And on a side note since this thread has become derailed by the house I live in and the realization that Nick is 100% right that AFA and their phobia of those who support gays is perfectly the expectation of what a"Good American" is as Sean Hannity would name it we can shut this thread and move on.

Bigotry in America continues because Nick says it is wrong to be pained by it if you live in a median sized home in Dallas Texas. Not only is it wrong to be pained by bigotry but those who fuel bigotry are doing nothing wrong as Nick correctly points out to all us silly "liberals"

What were we thinking.....

All bow to Lord Trumpt...

Fellows

trumptman

06-01-2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I can tell, Fellowship isn't trying to take away anyone's rights. He's not trying to pass any laws or make anyone's speech or actions illegal. He said "it pains me" to see their anti-gay attitudes.

He characterizes their speech as that which is unlawful. He doesn't have pass laws against hate speech. We already have those. He links them with causes and actions that are also unlawful. However it doesn't really matter what he claims because his view, that being unwilling to support homosexual marriage is akin to hate speech, is an extreme and rare view that is not likely to find support.

Nick

trumptman

06-01-2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Fellowship
Marc 2 - 0 Trumpt

And on a side note since this thread has become derailed by the house I live in and the realization that Nick is 100% right that AFA and their phobia of those who support gays is perfectly the expectation of what a"Good American" is as Sean Hannity would name it we can shut this thread and move on.

Bigotry in America continues because Nick says it is wrong to be pained by it if you live in a median sized home in Dallas Texas. Not only is it wrong to be pained by bigotry but those who fuel bigotry are doing nothing wrong as Nick correctly points out to all us silly "liberals"

What were we thinking.....

All bow to Lord Trumpt...

Fellows

Um... your head is still too high and you didn't keep your knees straight.

You show how full of contradictions you happen to be. You "support" the right causes so your own actions, and the implications of them, are now above reproach. You can attempt to shut up groups that you disagree with for no other reason than your heart is in the right place.

Pardon me if I don't care to enjoy your brand of fascism hiding under a cloak of supposed civil rights. You are not the arbiter of who is a bigot. When you start calling people such, you get called on your own credentials which are profoundly lacking. If you don't want to get told that you have no right to tell other people to shut up and get a life, then don't go around appointing yourself judge and jury. Lastly you should point your finger at yourself and engage in a little critical thought before you start blasting other groups with your ill-thought out judgements that would toss yourself in the same boat if you gave it any consideration.

In conclusion don't point a finger and the gasp when someone holds up a mirror and you notice someone pointing at you accusingly.

Nick

BRussell

06-01-2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
He characterizes their speech as that which is unlawful. He doesn't have pass laws against hate speech. We already have those. He links them with causes and actions that are also unlawful. However it doesn't really matter what he claims because his view, that being unwilling to support homosexual marriage is akin to hate speech, is an extreme and rare view that is not likely to find support.

Nick Can you show me where Fellowship characterizes these anti-gay groups as unlawful in any way? Maybe I just missed it. These groups think it's wrong to even do marketing to gays - to try to sell things to them. That was the quote Fellowship provided, not about simply being unwilling to support gay marriage.

Also - we have laws against hate speech? I know they do in other countries, but not as far as I know in the US.

FormerLurker

06-01-2005, 06:51 PM

one of the quickest thread derailments I've ever seen....
Originally posted by trumptman
Originally posted by Fellowship

If there is one thing I can't stand it is when people can't live and let live when it comes to lifestyle.
You mean like telling people what type of car they should own? :devil:
Yep. This thread was doomed from the first sentence of the first reply.
Death by multiple strawmen.

EDIT To attempt to actually address the topic:
I believe I agree with Fellows in saying what troubles me the most about these actions is that they are being undertaken in the name of God and Christianity. Absolutely none of the strawmen brought up so far fall into this category

pfflam

06-01-2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I addressed it head on. Nick HAHAHA

the self-delsions are killing me . . .!!

what a . .

rageous

06-01-2005, 10:41 PM

I didn't want to have to lock this, but you guys can't let the personal shit go. You can star out F-bombs all you want, but we all get it, and it has no business being used that way.

F this, F that: fine.

F you, F off: not fine.

So in the end it's just another subject shifting, personal attack laden, pile on, dodge the topic thread. Just like 5416546 others that have come and gone before it.

Locked.

[edit: on second thought, I'm not going to let one person losing their cool lock the thread. The post will be deleted, the offender PMed, and the thread left open. But get back on track folks. Enough of the personal digs. It's up to you guys to see that I'm not a jag for unlocking it.]

tonton

06-01-2005, 11:48 PM

I'l pick out just one idiotic statement at random out of the myriad to respond to.

Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not the one suggesting that Ford should be able to have it both ways and that it is logical.

The two ways are bigoted and not bigoted. There should not be "two ways". By saying that there being "two ways" is acceptable, you are merely confirming that you, yourself are a bigot.

tonton

06-02-2005, 12:02 AM

Nick. Buddy. Please.

Bigotry is never acceptable. The actions of AFA are clearly bigoted. They are going far beyond making a point about how they feel on the subjects of homosexuality and gay marriage. They are making a concerted effort to:

1: Punish Ford for supporting homosexual equality.
2: Warn other companies not to support homosexual equality.
3: Prevent gays from being recognized in the marketing industry.

This is a clear infringement on other peoples rights.

If you don't support gay sex don't have it.
If you don't support gay marriage, don't get one or administer one.
If you don't support marketing to gays, don't market to gays.

There is no "right" to be a bigot.

You claim that you support gay rights. You are a liar. Gays have a right to be marketed to. Gays have a right not to be targets of bigotry. You support taking away those rights.

trumptman

06-02-2005, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
Can you show me where Fellowship characterizes these anti-gay groups as unlawful in any way? Maybe I just missed it. These groups think it's wrong to even do marketing to gays - to try to sell things to them. That was the quote Fellowship provided, not about simply being unwilling to support gay marriage.

Also - we have laws against hate speech? I know they do in other countries, but not as far as I know in the US.

We do have laws on a state by state basis thought they are often being fought in court. The Supreme Court issued a ruling quite a while a go that speech that amounts to "fighting words" can be outlawed. For now most hate speech laws have been able to be struck down as too narrow because the fighting words precedent stated basically that the speech cannot provoke fighting in only one group. However they are working to find a way around that.

I will admit that he may not have directly said they are unlawful, just associated them with enough unlawful and hateful groups and actions that I made the connection.

Nick

trumptman

06-02-2005, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by tonton
I'l pick out just one idiotic statement at random out of the myriad to respond to.

The two ways are bigoted and not bigoted. There should not be "two ways". By saying that there being "two ways" is acceptable, you are merely confirming that you, yourself are a bigot.

Let me respond to your own idiotic assertion. I did not say Ford should support the position of the AFA, merely that they cannot claim both positions equally. You are correct that if they consider the AFA bigoted, and consider their values to be at odds with their own, they shouldn't seek their dollars and business. I stated that much earlier in this thread. Perhaps you should read all the posts.

Nick

tonton

06-02-2005, 01:25 AM

Wait... so Ford cannot market to the macho "mom an apple pie" hetero white SUV or F150 driving man, at the same time the'yre marketing to gays and lesbians? To do so is somehow "hypocritical"?

WTF?

You honestly argue for argument's sake, don't you? When is it time to just stand up like a man and admit you're wrong? You're so afraid of being wrong that you wimp out and try to defend your failed arguments with more failed arguments.

edit: save the slurs. you can make your point without them. - rageous

trumptman

06-02-2005, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by tonton
Nick. Buddy. Please.

Bigotry is never acceptable. The actions of AFA are clearly bigoted. They are going far beyond making a point about how they feel on the subjects of homosexuality and gay marriage. They are making a concerted effort to:

1: Punish Ford for supporting homosexual equality.
2: Warn other companies not to support homosexual equality.
3: Prevent gays from being recognized in the marketing industry.

This is a clear infringement on other peoples rights.

If you don't support gay sex don't have it.
If you don't support gay marriage, don't get one or administer one.
If you don't support marketing to gays, don't market to gays.

There is no "right" to be a bigot.

You claim that you support gay rights. You are a liar. Gays have a right to be marketed to. Gays have a right not to be targets of bigotry. You support taking away those rights.

You call me a liar. You can kiss my ass. If I support a Nazi's right to have a parade and march because I support free speech, that doesn't mean I support Nazi's or their outcomes.

Some principles go above group identity political bullshit.

Their website mentions nothing about sodomy so you are lying about that.
Their website objects, as do the majority of Americans and the majority of BOTH political parties to the redefinition of the word marriage. That isn't a bigoted position regardless of how you portray it unless you want to throw the definition so wide as to make it meaningless.

You claim that they are trying to punish Ford. You assume that Ford is somehow entitled to their dollars. The only punishment they seek to inflict is withholding their own business from Ford. Since they consider Ford to be spending those dollars towards organizations that then, work against the universally understood definition of marriage, there is nothing wrong withholding them.

We've gone through the homosexual marriage nonsense before. A clear infringement of rights is when you hold a group to a different standard than everyone else. Homosexuals are held to the same standards for marriage as every other person. There are no forms seeking to define and use their sexual orientation against them. There are forms that ask you your race, your age, your sex, etc and those can be used against you and so we have laws to prevent that. My marriage license never asked me if I was homo or heterosexual.

Nick

pfflam

06-02-2005, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by trumptman

Nick Not universally understood

trumptman

06-02-2005, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by pfflam
Not universally understood

If it were not universally understood, why does it need to be changed? Oh, that's right because it was universally understood and written into law as that was universally understood.

Really though, why argue with someone who doesn't believe words have definitions anymore.

Nick

pfflam

06-02-2005, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
If it were not universally understood, why does it need to be changed? Oh, that's right because it was universally understood and written into law as that was universally understood.

Really though, why argue with someone who doesn't believe words have definitions anymore.

Nick Are you being as simple minded as the surface of you post above would indicate?

Universally understood is not equivalet to being written into Law.

And what is this silly thing about definitions?

what is the meaning of a definition for you?

segovius

06-02-2005, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
You call me a liar. You can kiss my ass. If I support a Nazi's right to have a parade and march because I support free speech, that doesn't mean I support Nazi's or their outcomes.

Yes it does. That was my earlier point.

If you support the right for a Nazi to have a parade and that parade leads to increased membership which leads to increased power which leads to total power which leads to the death of someone or many people then you are supporting it.

You may not agree with the outcome but your actions are underpinning it and enabling it - and that is support.

trumptman

06-02-2005, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Yes it does. That was my earlier point.

If you support the right for a Nazi to have a parade and that parade leads to increased membership which leads to increased power which leads to total power which leads to the death of someone or many people then you are supporting it.

You may not agree with the outcome but your actions are underpinning it and enabling it - and that is support.

You cannot selectively deny people their rights just because you disagree with them. You practice some very dangerous, toletarian, slippery-slope thinking.

Nick

segovius

06-02-2005, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
You cannot selectively deny people their rights just because you disagree with them. You practice some very dangerous, toletarian, slippery-slope thinking.

Nick

No-one has the right to take away someone else's rights.

So effectively your analogy of the Nazis is flawed as the removal of others' rights was a key Nazi platform.

It is not about disagreeing - it is about prevention. Presumably you would not support a paedophile's right to hang around outside schools (or maybe you would - I don't know). We all draw the line somewhere. We're just drawing it in different places though maybe for similar reasons.

In relation to the topic at hand, live and letting live involves supporting someone's rights sure - but if that support leads to removal of their rights (either by allowing the growth of a totalitarian system or hastening their death) then it is hypocrisy.

Hence Fellowship's position - which we all admit is the opposite of this - is not.

Gene Clean

06-02-2005, 04:28 AM

seg, why are you so 'toletarian' ? Bad, bad Karma.

trumptman

06-02-2005, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by segovius
No-one has the right to take away someone else's rights.

So effectively your analogy of the Nazis is flawed as the removal of others' rights was a key Nazi platform.

It isn't flawed because even if Nazi's advocate for something in their speech, until they cross the threshold of action, they retain their rights. You desire to persecute thought or even the ability to assign a motive.

Think about how dangerous your reasoning happens to be. Because men rape women, I could claim that your intent to approach one amounts to the same crime. That is lunacy!

It is not about disagreeing - it is about prevention.

Prevention is tolerated when one has been convicted of a crime. You convict because you think someone might commit a crime, think about a criminal act, or tolerate those who do. That is a drastically and dangerously different standard.

Presumably you would not support a paedophile's right to hang around outside schools (or maybe you would - I don't know). We all draw the line somewhere. We're just drawing it in different places though maybe for similar reasons.

If someone is convicted of being a pedophile, then prevention against future crimes might be warranted. However what you advocate is very different. You advocate keeping people away from schools who you think might be pedophiles, or people permissive enough to tolerate a books or movies that have a Lolita theme for example.

In relation to the topic at hand, live and letting live involves supporting someone's rights sure - but if that support leads to removal of their rights (either by allowing the growth of a totalitarian system or hastening their death) then it is hypocrisy.

Except there is not removal of a gay marriage right because no one, even homosexual rights groups thought of advocating such a right until recently. The links and groups Fellowship cited in no way supported the death or hastening of it (read murder) of homosexuals in any manner. In your view, even permissiveness with regard to their speech is a crime since it, in slippery-slope logic, allows the creation of a totalitarian system.

In your view, even tolerating certain thoughts is a crime. Truly scary.

Hence Fellowship's position - which we all admit is the opposite of this - is not.

Actually you reveal the hypocrisy again. A group provides information and wishes to insure their own money does not promote an agenda with which they do not agree. In your totalitarian view, this is a crime. You would prosecute thought.

Frightening.

Nick

segovius

06-02-2005, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
It isn't flawed because even if Nazi's advocate for something in their speech, until they cross the threshold of action, they retain their rights. You desire to persecute thought or even the ability to assign a motive.

Think about how dangerous your reasoning happens to be. Because men rape women, I could claim that your intent to approach one amounts to the same crime. That is lunacy!

Prevention is tolerated when one has been convicted of a crime. You convict because you think someone might commit a crime, think about a criminal act, or tolerate those who do. That is a drastically and dangerously different standard.

If someone is convicted of being a pedophile, then prevention against future crimes might be warranted. However what you advocate is very different. You advocate keeping people away from schools who you think might be pedophiles, or people permissive enough to tolerate a books or movies that have a Lolita theme for example.

Except there is not removal of a gay marriage right because no one, even homosexual rights groups thought of advocating such a right until recently. The links and groups Fellowship cited in no way supported the death or hastening of it (read murder) of homosexuals in any manner. In your view, even permissiveness with regard to their speech is a crime since it, in slippery-slope logic, allows the creation of a totalitarian system.

In your view, even tolerating certain thoughts is a crime. Truly scary.

Actually you reveal the hypocrisy again. A group provides information and wishes to insure their own money does not promote an agenda with which they do not agree. In your totalitarian view, this is a crime. You would prosecute thought.

Frightening.

Nick

:lol: