Why are people okay with blue eyed people but not gay people

Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

30 Apr 2017, 9:12 am

You seem to have difficulty, grasping the concept of private property, or of dedicated space, in general.

Quote:
where they want


I have said that, whether I want to engage in this behavior or not, it can be done where it bothers noone.

I have not asked to go preach there, nor have I asked them to support my cause.

The problem is that you want to benefit from the fame and resources of others.

I say, to each his own. You say to intrude.

I guess, it's technically an example of segregation, yet see the clothes, conditions, and manners of people, in those times, and they seemed to do just fine, without me.

If not, why not.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Apr 2017, 4:22 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
You seem to have difficulty, grasping the concept of private property, or of dedicated space, in general.

Quote:
where they want


I have said that, whether I want to engage in this behavior or not, it can be done where it bothers noone.

I have not asked to go preach there, nor have I asked them to support my cause.

The problem is that you want to benefit from the fame and resources of others.

I say, to each his own. You say to intrude.

I guess, it's technically an example of segregation, yet see the clothes, conditions, and manners of people, in those times, and they seemed to do just fine, without me.

If not, why not.


If conditions were so great for African Americans during segregation, why did so many of them want segregation to end? Clothing and material means hardly amount to anything, if someone isn't equal with everyone else in regard to being able to vote, or in the legal system, or just where they'd like to eat or sh*t. As I said before, intrusion is necessary if someone else' rights are denied them.
And please, don't tell me you're defending segregation!
:o


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

01 May 2017, 12:04 pm

In theory, they would have been able to vote, under their own, ample accommodations, in the same respect that you would be able to promote your own narrative, from your own pulpit, in your own church building. So, you could sidestep the argument, altogether, if not for want of negative attention.

I mean, we are raising three, distinct questions, here --
Are unpopular people ever entitled to their opinions, under any circumstances, anywhere.
Are they free to do what they want, but on their own dime.
Should people be allowed to do everything, at every time and place.

:arrow: The third is no longer a reductio ad absurdum.

We are shown blacks, getting the bad drinking fountains, and bad bus seats, but, in civil rights marches, and in their own accommodations, they used to look better, than post 2008 America.

You were jealous of the pastor's pulpit, when defending for a church to be disrupted. Maybe, yours can be bigger and better. Or, if you want to be gay, maybe you can still be affluent, without tormenting people.



DericWM
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 19 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri

01 May 2017, 12:36 pm

Probably because some people don't see anything wrong with blue-eyed people.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 May 2017, 10:36 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
In theory, they would have been able to vote, under their own, ample accommodations, in the same respect that you would be able to promote your own narrative, from your own pulpit, in your own church building. So, you could sidestep the argument, altogether, if not for want of negative attention.

I mean, we are raising three, distinct questions, here --
Are unpopular people ever entitled to their opinions, under any circumstances, anywhere.
Are they free to do what they want, but on their own dime.
Should people be allowed to do everything, at every time and place.

:arrow: The third is no longer a reductio ad absurdum.

We are shown blacks, getting the bad drinking fountains, and bad bus seats, but, in civil rights marches, and in their own accommodations, they used to look better, than post 2008 America.

You were jealous of the pastor's pulpit, when defending for a church to be disrupted. Maybe, yours can be bigger and better. Or, if you want to be gay, maybe you can still be affluent, without tormenting people.


Are you saying things were better under segregation for blacks than they are now?
Jealous of my pastor's pulpit? I think not.
Homophobia, like any discrimination, still puts people on an unequal footing, regardless of how affluent they are. And how is demanding the rights assured them by the constitution tormenting anyone?
As far as allowing people to do anything they want, as far as it's on their own dime: if that's the case, why isn't it applied to those southern whites who erect statues to Confederate traitors? I seem to recall how those monuments are put into place by public funds.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Shrapnel
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 467

02 May 2017, 4:16 am

The color of one's eyes does not affect the perpetuation of a species, sexual preference does. This is perhaps a partial explanation.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

02 May 2017, 11:38 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
if that's the case, why isn't it applied to those southern whites who erect statues to Confederate traitors?


The states were originally regarded much in the same respect as individual countries, in voluntary cooperation. So, I think that the concept of a safespace is applicable to the Confederacy.

The Lincoln Memorial, and other monuments, are made in the image of a pagan temple, and some people are literally said to pray at his feet. In the armrests of his throne, are fasces, as in fascism. The small rods, representing independent states, are bound to the sturdier ax handle, representing federalism.

:arrow: Is it in keeping with the original arrangement.

He committed warcrimes against civilians, and made colorful comments, about blacks, which were discovered by literate, black people, in the Library of Congress. These are some of the cleanest, by far --
https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.co ... erate-war/

So, social justice is an excuse to trespass.

If you have any nameable structure or boundaries (besides pure contrarianism) someone can posit that you are committing a crime and liberate your property, whatever that may be.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 May 2017, 2:27 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
if that's the case, why isn't it applied to those southern whites who erect statues to Confederate traitors?


The states were originally regarded much in the same respect as individual countries, in voluntary cooperation. So, I think that the concept of a safespace is applicable to the Confederacy.

The Lincoln Memorial, and other monuments, are made in the image of a pagan temple, and some people are literally said to pray at his feet. In the armrests of his throne, are fasces, as in fascism. The small rods, representing independent states, are bound to the sturdier ax handle, representing federalism.

:arrow: Is it in keeping with the original arrangement.

He committed warcrimes against civilians, and made colorful comments, about blacks, which were discovered by literate, black people, in the Library of Congress. These are some of the cleanest, by far --
https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.co ... erate-war/

So, social justice is an excuse to trespass.

If you have any nameable structure or boundaries (besides pure contrarianism) someone can posit that you are committing a crime and liberate your property, whatever that may be.


We may have been individual countries - - under the Articles of Confederation, which proved unworkable. Under our current constitution, we are one country.
As far as Lincoln's alleged war crimes against civilians are concerned - if you're talking about Sherman's march to the sea, it should be remembered that primarily Sherman destroyed property so the south couldn't wage war anymore. Compare that to how Lee and Davis had ordered that all blacks serving in Union uniforms were to be executed on the spot, even though it meant Lincoln wouldn't begin discussing a prisoner exchange with the Confederacy till the practise ended. That, and when Lee had marched into Pennsylvania, he had clapped the free blacks living there into chains, and had them sold as slaves in the south. How many of those people's lives were ruined by Lee, through no fault of their own?
Lyndon Johnson had also personally used crude language about blacks. But his and Lincoln's actions meant so much more than their words.
I hardly think anyone associated those symbols in the 19th century with 20th century fascism.
If trespassing means opposing denial of access to some individuals when it's open to the rest of the public, then so be it.
Let me ask this question: what if it was you being denied the right to vote or hold office, or even denied the access to eat or sh*t where ever you wanted to? Would you just shrug your shoulders, and go on living your life, content to be seen as something less than everyone else? Because I certainly know I wouldn't.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

03 May 2017, 1:20 pm

Quote:
the Articles of Confederation, which proved unworkable.

Then, what happened.

Quote:
Let me ask this question: what if it was you being denied the right to vote or hold office, or even denied the access to eat or sh*t where ever you wanted to? Would you just shrug your shoulders, and go on living your life, content to be seen as something less than everyone else? Because I certainly know I wouldn't.

But, I am denied those rights, as a result of radical Reconstruction.

It would be disrespectful, saying that an unattended homosexual or black person is dangerous. Yet, how are straight, white men regarded.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 May 2017, 4:48 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Quote:
the Articles of Confederation, which proved unworkable.

Then, what happened.

Quote:
Let me ask this question: what if it was you being denied the right to vote or hold office, or even denied the access to eat or sh*t where ever you wanted to? Would you just shrug your shoulders, and go on living your life, content to be seen as something less than everyone else? Because I certainly know I wouldn't.

But, I am denied those rights, as a result of radical Reconstruction.

It would be disrespectful, saying that an unattended homosexual or black person is dangerous. Yet, how are straight, white men regarded.


Federal law was applied to all states, and one currency, is what happened.
What rights are you denied due to Radical Reconstruction?
And seriously, blacks and gay people have it better than straight white men?!?!?!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

04 May 2017, 12:10 pm

Where did all the straight, white men, in my neighborhood go? Were they demographically-displaced?

The UN definition of genocide is not a gas chamber, per se. It's not mass deportations. It says, any conditions which do not allow a demographic to reproduce at replacement levels.

Quote:
What rights are you denied due to Radical Reconstruction?

It was explicitly intended as a form of psychological abuse.

While I am willing to judge (yes, I said judge) people, based on individual merit, it is not tolerance, to use a certain race of people, or a certain ideology, for rodeo clowns and bait dogs, to break the resolve of the cultural majority.

That is far more cynical than giving everyone their space, afaic.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 May 2017, 7:55 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Where did all the straight, white men, in my neighborhood go? Were they demographically-displaced?

The UN definition of genocide is not a gas chamber, per se. It's not mass deportations. It says, any conditions which do not allow a demographic to reproduce at replacement levels.

Quote:
What rights are you denied due to Radical Reconstruction?

It was explicitly intended as a form of psychological abuse.

While I am willing to judge (yes, I said judge) people, based on individual merit, it is not tolerance, to use a certain race of people, or a certain ideology, for rodeo clowns and bait dogs, to break the resolve of the cultural majority.

That is far more cynical than giving everyone their space, afaic.


Did anyone force those straight men to leave?
And psychological abuse? If it was , it certainly was unintended, as opposed to the Antebellum and Confederate abuse directed at blacks, which was purposely psychological and physical.
If you judge people by individual merit, then good for you, but far too many people have judged others by color, race, religion, etc.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

05 May 2017, 11:39 am

You plainly understood the concept of social engineering and assigned guilt.

Now, ask me for specific examples of reverse racism, and say you don't believe those examples. Set me up to fail, because I can never decline to participate, in any dialectic. Ever. (sarc)

People are now saying that the original racism was taken out of context, and it would be fine by me, if you kept eachother busy, perhaps at the edge of town, or away from breakable things.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,056
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 May 2017, 4:21 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
You plainly understood the concept of social engineering and assigned guilt.

Now, ask me for specific examples of reverse racism, and say you don't believe those examples. Set me up to fail, because I can never decline to participate, in any dialectic. Ever. (sarc)

People are now saying that the original racism was taken out of context, and it would be fine by me, if you kept eachother busy, perhaps at the edge of town, or away from breakable things.


Social engineering? As in making people denied equality in our society equal? If that's social engineering, then I'm all for it.
As for reverse racism - there's only racism, regardless of the perpetrator's race or religion. The problem with this so called "reverse racism" is, is that it's portrayed as being as harmful, or more harmful than that inflicted by whites onto non-whites for centuries. People who are in the minority, and are lacking political and/or economic power simply don't have the means to perpetrate the sort of racism that the powerful majority does.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,665
Location: temperate zone

07 May 2017, 4:37 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Actually the reason is that folks assume that homosexuality is a choice, and they assume that blue eyes are not a choice.

In reality having same sex urges is something that youre born with just like your eye color. But some folks assume that you choose it- so therefore its a sin.


I don't think that's how it works. People know that other people don't choose their skin color, but they are not always OK with people with other skin colors.

Thoughts about sexual practices agitate people in powerful and irrational ways. The traditions that flow through different cultures shape these emotional energies in ways that sometimes result in organized prejudice and sometimes leave individuals feeling the revulsion that comes with violated taboos.

Culture changes over time, so the reactions to things that were taboo in one generation may be completely different in another generation. These forces are not rational so raw logic is not always the most useful tool for analyzing them.


None of this obvious water-is-wet stuff contradicts what I said.


If you had actually read my post you would know that I was not talking about the origin of homophobia, but how its continuation in 21st century America is often rationalized.