Wow. . . i'm amazed at the intolerance for intolerance here. It's really kind of bizarre.
It's also notable how a lot of folks here will deride a religious group that's totally harmless, just because of their opinions, and will defend the LGBT community, which is really just another gathering of opinions.
Oh well.
A total non-sequitur.
What does decrying the murder of a boy, with no qualifying thoughts, have to do with either deriding a religous group or defending the LGBT community?
Hep A and B perhaps (time for a vaccination perhaps? free for high risk groups in Australia, too!) but C and HIV/AIDS, no.
Quote:
No one is saying that heterosexuals can't get diseases too.
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
But there is clearly a higher prevalence in the GLBT... (sigh) GLBTI
I didn't even notice you left off the "I". I'm just in the habit of using it because of the GLBTI legislation in the ACT getting it stuck in my head. I'm not a total pedant you know.
Quote:
communities.
Look, the implications you made were these gay people are more likely to be disease-carriers; therefore, there's some kind of an obligation to reveal sexuality before having sex with someone.
To this I would say that everyone is potentially an STI carrier regardless of sexuality. Moreover, any risk is something people should be uncomfortable with.
If you really must reveal anything to a prospective partner, you should tell them if you've been having unsafe sex recently, if you've never had an STI check etc. - because that's directly relevant.
Sexuality is a pretty crap measure of likelihood of being infected, given the extremely large array of diseases out there, and the real percentage numbers of those infected. Ultimately, if you're not sure, you should have safe sex... but it's pathetic to associate sexuality and disease so closely, because the correlation is not nearly so close as you seem to think, and at any rate it misses the really important question, which is "Has this person actually engaged in risky activity? Am I happy to engage in risk-taking behaviour with them, or should I think about safe sex?"
Accepted a reduction of culpability on the part of these two in such situations is really allowing them to disclaim responsibility for their carelessness in choice of sexual partners.
Quote:
Facing such realities is not admitting you are "sinners" or "evil" or "impure" or whatever.
uh, right. I don't think that was ever the issue, so I'll leave that aside.
Quote:
You are so defensive you cannot take flat, deadpan, monotone statements of facts without superimposing some presumed agenda of accusations, denouncements or criticism of your sexual identity and all it entails.
Thank you for ad hom'ing me as an irrationally defensive person... it might help you to take my arguments at face-value to know that I'm a WASP, in a stable monogamous heterosexual relationship. I like to think of my cross-dressing as part of my Scottish cultural heritage ()... I'm perfectly comfortable with my gender identity (and yes, I do identify as a man).
Quote:
I'm sorry if religious or intolerant people ABUSE facts to their advantage, but pretending FACTS are evil is stupid on your part. You just fall into your enemies' traps that way. Every dead GLBTI from AIDS/HIV/Hepatitis/etc is that many less advocates on your side, so I would think you'd want to do everything you can to eliminate the problem rather than having it morph into this victimhood/tragic martyrdom routine.
If you'd read my statement you would realise that actually what I was saying was that it's more important to look to proper safe sex practices than demonising minorities as being modern-day Typhoid Maries. Encouraging the latter simply encourages the very kind of violence described above. I'm not saying, nor would I ever say that GLBTIs don't need to be aware of sexual health issues.
Honestly, in my experience GLBTI are much more aware of sexual health issues than straight people ? it's purely luck which prevented a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS in the US and elsewhere.
Quote:
Sorry, but no matter how supportive, inclusive, tolerant people are a transsexual will always be, to the common public (if they can detect it), what they were born as, first, and then whoever the person really wants to be identified as, second.
The vast majority will always never quite buy it. Again, I'm just stating the reality not saying that's how it ought to be.
Look, if we're discussing the culpability of guys who kill a transsexual because of their outrage at that person's unorthodox gender identity, we're talking about morals and ethics. They're the cornerstone of culpability. So in fact we're talking about the latter rather than the former, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
Quote:
You folks seemingly have a real problem with talking about the issues in a frank way. Any iota of disagreement instantly equals "right wing nut job homophobe gaybasher" or some such, right?
When did I call you that? You don't think your punching at shadows, do you?
I obviously think you're a bit misguided ? but that's merely a logical consequence of thinking you've approached the issue from something of a tangent (disease risk) rather than the real issue (culpability).
Quote:
One last thing: If a man identifies himself as a woman, gets a sex change and is flawless enough to pass as a woman, "she" still has -no right- to deceive a straight man and develop a relationship. Because someday he will want children and the truth will be known. (assuming "she" is saavy enough to get married in a state that doesn't have blood tests).
Such selfish deceit is utterly unforgivable. If it lead to violence it would be no surprise. Again, the onus to not lie to the straight is the first step the onus to not murder the trans in rage is on the straight. But don't for a second pretend that a trans getting into a relationship with an unwitting straight isn't a form of lying.
Now if a guy wants to marry a trans and he is aware of it, then great. I have no problems, people can love whomever they want.
It's solely a matter of deceit - not gender. [/B]
Indeed? To this I would say that:
(1) I really really doubt there are many cases where a person marries a transsexual without knowing them to be so;
(2) even if if child-bearing is really that important to a wo/man, they'll almost certainly talk about this as a future option before they get married ? if at this stage deceit is involved, well, yeah, that's pretty bad;
(3) it's interesting that the discussion moved from murder after casual sex to divorce after marriage of a barren person: there's a pretty big difference here, you know.
Obviously if the transsexual partner is aware that the partner wants children, they should apprise them of the facts... but you're not really attacking a real target here.
What does decrying the murder of a boy, with no qualifying thoughts, have to do with either deriding a religous group or defending the LGBT community?
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
I didn't read through the chain of replies. But I would surely do some serious damage to any twisted creature posing as a woman in order to build up a relationship with me. Death is a bad choice. Maybe chopping off an arm or a leg would be more satisfying.
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
What in the world is a "tolerance fest"? More than one person of the opinion that killing people for their sexuality is bad?
When we start a thread about how a "Christian" was slaughtered by drunk young men because they found out he was actually Jewish, you can worry about standards.
I'm sorry guys, but what they did is exactly what i would've done...
...i personally, hate crossdressers and gays...but that's just my opinion...
-Neø
If the notion of "let the punishment fit the crime" had any validity, then people with such truly vile, hostile, medieval and stone-age characteristics, like yours, should, for actions like these, deserve life in jail, with mandatory homosexual rape to be performed upon you, violently, every hour, for 24 hours a day, by Wackenhut Security apes with IQs of <70, until your dying day.
What you have printed just confirms that either humanity is a failure and we should just nuke ourselves and rid the Earth of such scum and take the entire human race out whil we're at it...or...you are a closet homosexual who is so screwed up and uptight about, you are willing to take your extreme dysfunction out on those who you privately admire, but publicly fear because you feel your (highly questionable) "manhood" is at stake.
To advocate the arbitrary killing of another human because of a supremely debilitated pyschological condition, but to remain aware of your actions and the consequences of such, is about as near to pondscum as humans can get. You are a truly sick individual who needs to be under close supervision at all times.
How would you feel if it was YOUR kid who had just been murdered by some sicko? There is a golden rule...don't post to BBs when angry...but this time I shall make an exception. This jerk needs rooting out...someone get his ISP id and report the shithead to the FBI for advocating the coldblooded murder of another.
Edit: according to her profile, Neø is 13...which goes some way to explaining the ignorance in the quoted post and makes an angry response kind of pointless.
Not necessarily..does *everyone* in here publish their actual age? Mature (in age) men ahve proved throughout history that they are capable of doing the most ghastly deeds.
Count to ten, take a deep breath, repeat. Then reread the whole thread and think about what you just said.
I was responding to a post by someone who baldfacedly said he would murder someone, for no reason other than (a biological male) was wearing clothes/makeup that are usually worn by the opposite gender. If someone can't handle that, then he belongs in a mental institution, and should never be let out...(even on Tuesdays with heavy supervsion).
Yes, I counted to 100 and my thoughts remain consistent. Anyone who publicly posts a call to terrorize or kill people should be reported to the relevant authorities.
What is with hate crime, that designation is absurd, all violent crimes are rooted in hate,
That's hardly true. Many violent crimes are rooted in desperation, others in a twisted sense of love.
Quote:
thus just because it is hetero on homo, white on black, or the other way around, it doesn?t matter, I understand this is a horrible crime, and this sicko should be dangling from the gallows but, why does the court system give an extra harsh sentence if the offender looks/sounds/lives differently than his victim?
It is society's way of saying "we won't tolerate THIS" when the this is the bigotry that led to the crime. Society has an obligation to stamp out bigotry.
But I don't agree with hate crime laws. I think most are fairly poorly constructed.
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
Sexuality is not a preference. Preferences are chosen. Sexuality is an ingrained orientation that can never be chosen or changed. Anyone who sits in a fundamentalist church and believe that evil glurge has CHOSEN to sit their and yell "amen!' and is 100% accountable for all the evil things their religions does to innocent groups like gays and lesbians.
Comments
Everyone knows that the pastor's daughter is the easiest lay in town
um, i hate to break it to you, but the pastor doesn't have a daughter...
Originally posted by alcimedes
um, i hate to break it to you, but the pastor doesn't have a daughter...
Originally posted by alcimedes
um, i hate to break it to you, but the pastor doesn't have a daughter...
Oh snap!
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Wow. . . i'm amazed at the intolerance for intolerance here. It's really kind of bizarre.
It's also notable how a lot of folks here will deride a religious group that's totally harmless, just because of their opinions, and will defend the LGBT community, which is really just another gathering of opinions.
Oh well.
A total non-sequitur.
What does decrying the murder of a boy, with no qualifying thoughts, have to do with either deriding a religous group or defending the LGBT community?
Originally posted by johnq
What have I said that is uncool?
I was more referring to Neo than you, you know.
it is trivial to get Hepatitis via kissing.
Hep A and B perhaps (time for a vaccination perhaps? free for high risk groups in Australia, too!) but C and HIV/AIDS, no.
No one is saying that heterosexuals can't get diseases too.
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
heterosexuals can get diseases too
But there is clearly a higher prevalence in the GLBT... (sigh) GLBTI
I didn't even notice you left off the "I". I'm just in the habit of using it because of the GLBTI legislation in the ACT getting it stuck in my head. I'm not a total pedant you know.
communities.
Look, the implications you made were these gay people are more likely to be disease-carriers; therefore, there's some kind of an obligation to reveal sexuality before having sex with someone.
To this I would say that everyone is potentially an STI carrier regardless of sexuality. Moreover, any risk is something people should be uncomfortable with.
If you really must reveal anything to a prospective partner, you should tell them if you've been having unsafe sex recently, if you've never had an STI check etc. - because that's directly relevant.
Sexuality is a pretty crap measure of likelihood of being infected, given the extremely large array of diseases out there, and the real percentage numbers of those infected. Ultimately, if you're not sure, you should have safe sex... but it's pathetic to associate sexuality and disease so closely, because the correlation is not nearly so close as you seem to think, and at any rate it misses the really important question, which is "Has this person actually engaged in risky activity? Am I happy to engage in risk-taking behaviour with them, or should I think about safe sex?"
Accepted a reduction of culpability on the part of these two in such situations is really allowing them to disclaim responsibility for their carelessness in choice of sexual partners.
Facing such realities is not admitting you are "sinners" or "evil" or "impure" or whatever.
uh, right. I don't think that was ever the issue, so I'll leave that aside.
You are so defensive you cannot take flat, deadpan, monotone statements of facts without superimposing some presumed agenda of accusations, denouncements or criticism of your sexual identity and all it entails.
Thank you for ad hom'ing me as an irrationally defensive person... it might help you to take my arguments at face-value to know that I'm a WASP, in a stable monogamous heterosexual relationship. I like to think of my cross-dressing as part of my Scottish cultural heritage (
I'm sorry if religious or intolerant people ABUSE facts to their advantage, but pretending FACTS are evil is stupid on your part. You just fall into your enemies' traps that way. Every dead GLBTI from AIDS/HIV/Hepatitis/etc is that many less advocates on your side, so I would think you'd want to do everything you can to eliminate the problem rather than having it morph into this victimhood/tragic martyrdom routine.
If you'd read my statement you would realise that actually what I was saying was that it's more important to look to proper safe sex practices than demonising minorities as being modern-day Typhoid Maries. Encouraging the latter simply encourages the very kind of violence described above. I'm not saying, nor would I ever say that GLBTIs don't need to be aware of sexual health issues.
Honestly, in my experience GLBTI are much more aware of sexual health issues than straight people ? it's purely luck which prevented a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS in the US and elsewhere.
Sorry, but no matter how supportive, inclusive, tolerant people are a transsexual will always be, to the common public (if they can detect it), what they were born as, first, and then whoever the person really wants to be identified as, second.
The vast majority will always never quite buy it. Again, I'm just stating the reality not saying that's how it ought to be.
Look, if we're discussing the culpability of guys who kill a transsexual because of their outrage at that person's unorthodox gender identity, we're talking about morals and ethics. They're the cornerstone of culpability. So in fact we're talking about the latter rather than the former, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
You folks seemingly have a real problem with talking about the issues in a frank way. Any iota of disagreement instantly equals "right wing nut job homophobe gaybasher" or some such, right?
When did I call you that? You don't think your punching at shadows, do you?
I obviously think you're a bit misguided ? but that's merely a logical consequence of thinking you've approached the issue from something of a tangent (disease risk) rather than the real issue (culpability).
One last thing: If a man identifies himself as a woman, gets a sex change and is flawless enough to pass as a woman, "she" still has -no right- to deceive a straight man and develop a relationship. Because someday he will want children and the truth will be known. (assuming "she" is saavy enough to get married in a state that doesn't have blood tests).
Such selfish deceit is utterly unforgivable. If it lead to violence it would be no surprise. Again, the onus to not lie to the straight is the first step the onus to not murder the trans in rage is on the straight. But don't for a second pretend that a trans getting into a relationship with an unwitting straight isn't a form of lying.
Now if a guy wants to marry a trans and he is aware of it, then great. I have no problems, people can love whomever they want.
It's solely a matter of deceit - not gender. [/B]
Indeed? To this I would say that:
(1) I really really doubt there are many cases where a person marries a transsexual without knowing them to be so;
(2) even if if child-bearing is really that important to a wo/man, they'll almost certainly talk about this as a future option before they get married ? if at this stage deceit is involved, well, yeah, that's pretty bad;
(3) it's interesting that the discussion moved from murder after casual sex to divorce after marriage of a barren person: there's a pretty big difference here, you know.
Obviously if the transsexual partner is aware that the partner wants children, they should apprise them of the facts... but you're not really attacking a real target here.
Originally posted by addabox
A total non-sequitur.
What does decrying the murder of a boy, with no qualifying thoughts, have to do with either deriding a religous group or defending the LGBT community?
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
Originally posted by alcimedes
um, i hate to break it to you, but the pastor doesn't have a daughter...
Sure coulda used that little tidbit last friday night at the prom, talk about shock and aw!
Originally posted by 709
Well shit. Who checks profiles?
It's still no excuse (if s/he's being genuine), but now I feel bad. A little.
i do if someone makes an outrageous or what i consider an immature statement
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
What in the world is a "tolerance fest"? More than one person of the opinion that killing people for their sexuality is bad?
When we start a thread about how a "Christian" was slaughtered by drunk young men because they found out he was actually Jewish, you can worry about standards.
Originally posted by Neø
I'm sorry guys, but what they did is exactly what i would've done...
...i personally, hate crossdressers and gays...but that's just my opinion...
-Neø
If the notion of "let the punishment fit the crime" had any validity, then people with such truly vile, hostile, medieval and stone-age characteristics, like yours, should, for actions like these, deserve life in jail, with mandatory homosexual rape to be performed upon you, violently, every hour, for 24 hours a day, by Wackenhut Security apes with IQs of <70, until your dying day.
What you have printed just confirms that either humanity is a failure and we should just nuke ourselves and rid the Earth of such scum and take the entire human race out whil we're at it...or...you are a closet homosexual who is so screwed up and uptight about, you are willing to take your extreme dysfunction out on those who you privately admire, but publicly fear because you feel your (highly questionable) "manhood" is at stake.
To advocate the arbitrary killing of another human because of a supremely debilitated pyschological condition, but to remain aware of your actions and the consequences of such, is about as near to pondscum as humans can get. You are a truly sick individual who needs to be under close supervision at all times.
How would you feel if it was YOUR kid who had just been murdered by some sicko? There is a golden rule...don't post to BBs when angry...but this time I shall make an exception. This jerk needs rooting out...someone get his ISP id and report the shithead to the FBI for advocating the coldblooded murder of another.
Count to ten, take a deep breath, repeat. Then reread the whole thread and think about what you just said.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Edit: according to her profile, Neø is 13...which goes some way to explaining the ignorance in the quoted post and makes an angry response kind of pointless.
Not necessarily..does *everyone* in here publish their actual age? Mature (in age) men ahve proved throughout history that they are capable of doing the most ghastly deeds.
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
sammi jo, Chill out dude...
Count to ten, take a deep breath, repeat. Then reread the whole thread and think about what you just said.
I was responding to a post by someone who baldfacedly said he would murder someone, for no reason other than (a biological male) was wearing clothes/makeup that are usually worn by the opposite gender. If someone can't handle that, then he belongs in a mental institution, and should never be let out...(even on Tuesdays with heavy supervsion).
Yes, I counted to 100 and my thoughts remain consistent. Anyone who publicly posts a call to terrorize or kill people should be reported to the relevant authorities.
Originally posted by a_greer
What is with hate crime, that designation is absurd, all violent crimes are rooted in hate,
That's hardly true. Many violent crimes are rooted in desperation, others in a twisted sense of love.
thus just because it is hetero on homo, white on black, or the other way around, it doesn?t matter, I understand this is a horrible crime, and this sicko should be dangling from the gallows but, why does the court system give an extra harsh sentence if the offender looks/sounds/lives differently than his victim?
It is society's way of saying "we won't tolerate THIS" when the this is the bigotry that led to the crime. Society has an obligation to stamp out bigotry.
But I don't agree with hate crime laws. I think most are fairly poorly constructed.
Kirk
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are people in this thread who were very clear in their disapproval of hate. Not hate crimes, but hate itself. In this case it bubbled into a little tolerance-fest over gays. I just find it interesting that there are people out there who are so taken by a perceived need to promote tolerance of sexuality, but at the same time are very intolerant about other kinds of preferences.
Sexuality is not a preference. Preferences are chosen. Sexuality is an ingrained orientation that can never be chosen or changed. Anyone who sits in a fundamentalist church and believe that evil glurge has CHOSEN to sit their and yell "amen!' and is 100% accountable for all the evil things their religions does to innocent groups like gays and lesbians.
someone get his ISP id and report the shithead to the FBI for advocating the coldblooded murder of another.
Thanks for the laugh, Sam.