[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Please lock (Page 1 of 11)
Posted: 2/27/2014 1:39:08 PM EDT
| I'm not a troll or I'd want to keep the derp fests going. Please lock. |
|
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it?
I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. |
|
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. |
|
Quoted:
Everyone is a bigot. Everyone has someone, or some group they find unacceptable, because of a trait, or group of traits. Henry doesn't like the gays, Johnny doesn't like Henry because Henry doesn't like gays. Johnny sounds like a bigot doesn't he? That's clearly stretching the definition to try and be clever, similar to calling atheism a religion. It's fair to say that common usage of bigot doesn't refer to people who don't put up with racists. |
|
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I think it is damaging to the child and society as well. Which is why most parents will not teach their children this. However, a parent has a right to raise the child the way they see fit. Now, should a parent be punished for accepting his child being gay? After all that behavior can technically be construed as negative to society as well, being as it doesn't promote the propagation of our species. So be careful OP. |
|
Quoted:
Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. are you on this GUN SITE to talk about guns, or just your line of bullshit. Methinks your user name is an answer to my question.....aaaaannndddd IGNORE BUTTON PRESSED. goodbye... |
|
Quoted:
Lol, I refuse to allow you to redefine trolling. We must protect the sanctity of the word. It doesn't refer to discussions on controversial topics, it refers to intent. Quoted:
Quoted:
Should YOU have the right to troll incessantly? Lol, I refuse to allow you to redefine trolling. We must protect the sanctity of the word. It doesn't refer to discussions on controversial topics, it refers to intent. I'd tell you to , but you'd probably enjoy it. |
|
People should be free to raise their children as they see fit. If those children end up with bigot type thinking, it's unfortunate but there's still hope for education, good will and common sense to prevail upon them in a free society. If people are not free to impart their own values to their children, then you might not have a free society at all.
In that sense, I voted "Yes" on the poll. |
|
Quoted:
Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. |
|
Quoted:
Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. Quoted:
Quoted:
Define bigotry. Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. So, if I said, "I love you, man, but I won't sing at your wedding" would be okay? |
|
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? Are you raising my kids? Are you feeding, clothing and sheltering them? Are you paying for any of their other needs? No? Fuck off. |
|
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I have the right to teach MY child ANYTHING that I choose to. No one-- not you, not the government, nor anyone else-- has the right to prevent me. Me thinks that we have an entire in-flux of ARFCOMers that seem quite OK with thought-police and big brother. How the fuck do you reconcile your view of what people should be "allowed" to teach their children, and presumably being a 2A supporter? |
|
Quoted:
I think it is damaging to the child and society as well. Which is why most parents will not teach there children this. However, a parent has a right to raise the child the way they see fit. Now, should a parent be punished for accepting his child being gay? After all that behavior can technically be construed as negative to society as well, being as it doesn't promote the propagation of our species. So be careful OP. Quoted:
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I think it is damaging to the child and society as well. Which is why most parents will not teach there children this. However, a parent has a right to raise the child the way they see fit. Now, should a parent be punished for accepting his child being gay? After all that behavior can technically be construed as negative to society as well, being as it doesn't promote the propagation of our species. So be careful OP. So should a parent be able to withhold education from their child? I don't think parents have the right to harm their children. Where do you personally draw the line? If you want to argue that accepting gays hurts society, we're going to need a new thread. I don't see any valid argument for that, and recent studies have shown benefits from homosexuality. |
|
Parents should have the right to raise their children any way they see fit that does not endanger the child. But it should be the base knowledge of all parents that one of their duties as a parent is to raise a child that can function in the society they inhabit.
I personally would not raise my child to be a bigot, but I also wouldn't raise them to worship the sun. That said I'm sure that someone somewhere in the world, even in my own town, would say I am irreparably harming my child by teaching them that meat is tasty, that guns are useful tools and that they shouldn't trust the man. |
|
Quoted:
Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. Quoted:
Quoted:
Define bigotry. Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. Great, now I'm a bigot. There is a group of people I despise. Literally. I consider them to be an enemy. I teach my kids how fucking stupid they are. I have daily examples of their idiocy to show them. I even tell them when one of their teachers turns out to be one. I absolutely teach zero tolerance for this group . |
|
Quoted:
Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. |
|
Quoted:
Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. Quoted:
Quoted:
Define bigotry. Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. Now, define hatred and intolerance. Be careful as those two words seem to mean radically different things to progressives than they do to people who actually think and reason. |
I'll teach Bubba Junior what I damn well please.
|
Quoted:
So, if I said, "I love you, man, but I won't sing at your wedding" would be okay? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define bigotry. Something along the lines of someone who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, understood to apply to things like race, not which NFL team they are fans of. So, if I said, "I love you, man, but I won't sing at your wedding" would be okay? I already answered this in the other thread. |
|
Quoted: Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. |
|
Quoted:
I have the right to teach MY child ANYTHING that I choose to. No one-- not you, not the government, nor anyone else-- has the right to prevent me. Me thinks that we have an entire in-flux of ARFCOMers that seem quite OK with thought-police and big brother. How the fuck do you reconcile your view of what people should be "allowed" to teach their children, and presumably being a 2A supporter? Quoted:
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I have the right to teach MY child ANYTHING that I choose to. No one-- not you, not the government, nor anyone else-- has the right to prevent me. Me thinks that we have an entire in-flux of ARFCOMers that seem quite OK with thought-police and big brother. How the fuck do you reconcile your view of what people should be "allowed" to teach their children, and presumably being a 2A supporter? We do the best we can. I don't think you have a right to teach your children that the earth is flat, and 1+1=3, and that blacks are sinners, and that gays are all pedophiles, and so on. What gives you the right to harm your kids?(you can definitely harm your kids in a very real way by what you teach them). |
|
Quoted:
That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Wrong. A person has a right to himself, and what is his. No right exists, however, that one is not willing to defend. |
|
Quoted:
So should a parent be able to withhold education from their child? I don't think parents have the right to harm their children. Where do you personally draw the line? If you want to argue that accepting gays hurts society, we're going to need a new thread. I don't see any valid argument for that, and recent studies have shown benefits from homosexuality. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I think it is damaging to the child and society as well. Which is why most parents will not teach there children this. However, a parent has a right to raise the child the way they see fit. Now, should a parent be punished for accepting his child being gay? After all that behavior can technically be construed as negative to society as well, being as it doesn't promote the propagation of our species. So be careful OP. So should a parent be able to withhold education from their child? I don't think parents have the right to harm their children. Where do you personally draw the line? If you want to argue that accepting gays hurts society, we're going to need a new thread. I don't see any valid argument for that, and recent studies have shown benefits from homosexuality. Harming children physically is wrong. So I draw the line there. I am not arguing that gays hurt society, only I am sure that a segment will argue that it does. Therefore by your line of thinking a parent that encourages or supports this should not have that right. |
|
Quoted:
That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. This is probably the most fascist statement ever made on this board. |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. A person has a right to himself, and what is his. No right exists, however, that one is not willing to defend. Quoted:
Quoted:
That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Wrong. A person has a right to himself, and what is his. No right exists, however, that one is not willing to defend. If it were an intrinsic right, then nobody would be able to take it away from you. Rights only exist if we create and defend them. Otherwise, it's just a meaningless word. "I have the natural right to life!" "No you don't, bang" |
|
The implication is that if you make it illegal, the state will 'own' the children if a parent teaches them bigotry.
The state owning a child is statistically and obviously worse for the child than hating a certain people. You can outgrow hate. Outgrowing absence of parental figures is nearly impossible. |
|
Quoted:
That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better question - who gets to decide what is "bigotry" and what isn't, and who gets to decide what is, and isn't acceptable for people to teach their kids? And, who enforces it? I know what this is in response to, as you made clear in the other thread - basically, anyone who thinks being gay is not normal is a bigot, so decreed by you. Actually, this is tied into the question of businesses discriminating. I touched on it earlier in that thread, where it's easier to breed new generations of bigots if they are surrounded by bigotry. The not normal argument is difficult to address. If it means statistically, then that's just factual. If it is used pejoratively against gays, then yes that's bigotry. Like everything else, it's really a cumulative group effort. Almost nobody lives in a bubble. The ones who do are still stuck with very primitive societies. Well, my American Indian ancestors didn't tolerate homosexuality, and often banished any practitioners. Who are you, as a White European, to come here and tell me that my cultural beliefs are wrong? You and your White Patriarchal Bigoted Rape Culture offends me. You should respect my diversity. That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Rights are observed truths. They are called Rights because it the right way to treat other humans. |
|
Quoted:
We do the best we can. I don't think you have a right to teach your children that the earth is flat, and 1+1=3, and that blacks are sinners, and that gays are all pedophiles, and so on. What gives you the right to harm your kids?(you can definitely harm your kids in a very real way by what you teach them). Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I have the right to teach MY child ANYTHING that I choose to. No one-- not you, not the government, nor anyone else-- has the right to prevent me. Me thinks that we have an entire in-flux of ARFCOMers that seem quite OK with thought-police and big brother. How the fuck do you reconcile your view of what people should be "allowed" to teach their children, and presumably being a 2A supporter? We do the best we can. I don't think you have a right to teach your children that the earth is flat, and 1+1=3, and that blacks are sinners, and that gays are all pedophiles, and so on. What gives you the right to harm your kids?(you can definitely harm your kids in a very real way by what you teach them). We are at an impasse. You believe that I do not have the right to my own child. I disagree with that fundamentally. I would like to see you or anyone else try to impose that view. |
|
Quoted:
Harming children physically is wrong. So I draw the line there. I am not arguing that gays hurt society, only I am sure that a segment will argue that it does. Therefore by your line of thinking a parent that encourages or supports this should not have that right. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
bigots? I don't think so. The whole concept of rights is misleading from the start, but putting that aside, I think it's damaging to the child and society. Agree/disagree? I think it is damaging to the child and society as well. Which is why most parents will not teach there children this. However, a parent has a right to raise the child the way they see fit. Now, should a parent be punished for accepting his child being gay? After all that behavior can technically be construed as negative to society as well, being as it doesn't promote the propagation of our species. So be careful OP. So should a parent be able to withhold education from their child? I don't think parents have the right to harm their children. Where do you personally draw the line? If you want to argue that accepting gays hurts society, we're going to need a new thread. I don't see any valid argument for that, and recent studies have shown benefits from homosexuality. Harming children physically is wrong. So I draw the line there. I am not arguing that gays hurt society, only I am sure that a segment will argue that it does. Therefore by your line of thinking a parent that encourages or supports this should not have that right. Some people will say that physically harming children is good for them, that doesn't make them correct. This is the kind of thing that gets worked out through discourse, laws, and time. |
|
Quoted:
If it were an intrinsic right, then nobody would be able to take it away from you. Rights only exist if we create and defend them. Otherwise, it's just a meaningless word. "I have the natural right to life!" "No you don't, bang" Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That touches on the entire problem with rights in the first place. There are no intrinsic rights. It's almost a meaningless word. There is only what we make, and might makes right. I think trying to label things as rights is just an attempt to simplify or ignore a lot of problems. Wrong. A person has a right to himself, and what is his. No right exists, however, that one is not willing to defend. If it were an intrinsic right, then nobody would be able to take it away from you. Rights only exist if we create and defend them. Otherwise, it's just a meaningless word. "I have the natural right to life!" "No you don't, bang" So the Law of Gravity only exists because we say it does? |