LilithsThrall wrote: Moro wrote:
You are putting words in my mouth. I don't want to believe anything is equivalent to anything else. I was simply pointing out that earlier in this thread, someone stated their beliefs, and a couple of you went on a crusade against him with far more vehemence than was necessary, immediately trying to equate him with every hate-filled act of bigotry you could think of.
Also, please attempt to compare the plight of the modern homosexual with that of a life in slavery again, I could use another fit of laughter.
For the record, Moro, I've been focusing my criticisms towards the group of evangelicals. I've not been pointing my comments towards any one particular person.
Also, I'm sure you don't know this, but gay teen suicide is nearly ten times more common than straight teen suicide and homelessness is also -much- higher. Like I also pointed out earlier, there's a long list of gays who have been tortured and murdered for being gay. To describe it as anything less than a holocaust is being disingenuous. Is it as bad as slavery? No. But there's nothing else in US history which can come closer to compare it to. The persecution of Native Americans? Maybe? Gays do have it rough. I am in no way denying that. But there's a little saying I was told as a kid that's gotten me through life:
" No matter how bad you think you've got it, somebody out there got it worse."
If you want to pull statistics to show everyone how bad you've got it, everyone in this forum can do the same thing. Nobody is saying gay people have it easy, but I'm afraid you're getting a little carried away. COmparing it to The Holocaust? Really? Again, I am not against gay rights in any way, but last I checked the US Government wasn't rounding up gays in trains to haul away to concentration camps. Fighting for equal rights is a little different than fighting against genocide.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
to tell a story about D&D, satanism, and misconceptions..... in 9th grade way back in 1991 or so my friend was confronted by a well meaning religious classmate of ours who condemned his gaming hobby and tried to present evidence of dungeons and dragons soul erroding capabilities. He endured the lecture throughout our algebra class. We got up to leave class and as we walked outside my friend jerked to the side, ducked, and covered his head. The girl who was still in the process of recounting evidence linkin D&D to evil supernatural forces asked, "What's a matter?" to which my friend replied, "Oh sorry...low flying demon."
guess you had to be there, eh?
Jandrem wrote:
If you want to pull statistics to show everyone how bad you've got it, everyone in this forum can do the same thing. Nobody is saying gay people have it easy, but I'm afraid you're getting a little carried away. COmparing it to The Holocaust? Really? Again, I am not against gay rights in any way, but last I checked the US Government wasn't rounding up gays in trains to haul away to concentration camps. Fighting for equal rights is a little different than fighting against genocide.
I called it -a- holocaust, not -the- Holocaust. There is a difference.
Though we can always talk about gays vs. Jews in the camps.
Charlie Bell wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: To repeat myself again, I've got no problem with people being gay as long as they don't punch me in the face with it.
Homosexuals, as a group, have a history of punching others in the face with their sexuality.
Just had to flip the script on you to demonstrate just how intolerant that comes across to the group you're condemning. You didn't demonstrate how that comes across, you demonstrated how ludicrous you're being.
The statistics simply do not back you up in the least.
How many evangelicals can you name who were tortured and murdered by gays for being evangelical - go ahead, use the Internet, take your time.
It's starting look like we need to get the Enola Gay off the ground.
LilithsThrall wrote: Though we can always talk about gays vs. Jews in the camps. Dude, gypsies. No single group can claim more destruction at the hands of the nazi's than the gypsies. Percent of population, and all...
LilithsThrall wrote: You didn't demonstrate how that comes across, you demonstrated how ludicrous you're being.
And the Oblivious Award goes too...
Mirror, Mirror wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Though we can always talk about gays vs. Jews in the camps. Dude, gypsies. No single group can claim more destruction at the hands of the nazi's than the gypsies. Percent of population, and all... You're right. The Rom had it rough. Also, to my knowledge, they are the only group Berlin still hasn't built a memorial to.
Though gays often passed themselves off as Jews so as to have an easier life in the camps. I imagine it was harder for the Rom to do that.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: You didn't demonstrate how that comes across, you demonstrated how ludicrous you're being.
And the Oblivious Award goes too... Maybe, I just don't respect the mirror argument ("mirror" as in "turn things around").
It's like the guy who argues that the run-away slave should see things from the perspective of the slave-master who has just lost his property.
Decrepit DM wrote: In the eighties Dnd was assailed as the gateway game that would lead us all to devil worshiping. For those of us who were unlucky, we not only played the game, but also happened to listen to the second threat to our souls, Ozzy Osbourne. The rarer few like myself, who listened to even worse bands like Slayer, were considered damned beyond all hope.
YOU ARE SAVED!! Having grown up with both D&D and Black Sabbath since the late 70's, your soul is more than safe. I still play, both with my two boys and with a group of friends. My music has evolved to the likes of Korn, Five Finger Death Punch etc. We are the people who say NO to letting our emagination go via the Dodo bird. The only bad people in D&D were already bad. LONG LIVE ELRIC! HAIL THE BLACK SWORD!
Jandrem wrote: Religion is a lot like shoe-size. You gotta wear what fits you best, otherwise it's gonna hurt, or at least be uncomfortable, maybe even impossible to wear at all. If I wear a size 11, no preacher/atheist/republican/democrat/liberal/conservative can convince me to wear a size 6. That size 6 just doesn't fit me, no matter how hard they try and shoehorn me in.
Makes walking a mile in some one else's shoes a bit difficult! ;)
LilithsThrall wrote: Maybe, I just don't respect the mirror argument ("mirror" as in "turn things around").
It's like the guy who argues that the run-away slave should see things from the perspective of the slave-master who has just lost his property.
As you may guess, I actually like the "mirror" arguemnt quite a bit ^__^
But if you are talking about inalienable rights, or anything in the natural rights doctrine really, the flip side is a perfectly valid point to bring.
The slave is being deprived all rights, but those helping them escape are depriving their owner of their right to property. It's just we see one set of rights (slave) as being much MUCH more valuable than the other (property).
What the "mirror" is pointing out here is that this is not a case where the transitive property holds. Any group X is going to be diverse, and stating "X then Y" only holds for a definitional argument. However, on this issue, religious groups are NOT defined by their opposition to homosexuality. Ok, some may be, but most are not. And even for those that are, they tend to self-identify as a branch of a larger group, and the property of the part does not transit to the whole (transitive violation).
If it is not definitional (Christian means hating gays), then the use you are using is inclusive (Christians hate gays). This use is falsified by finding at least one who is Christian and does not, in fact, hate gays. Like by brother-in-law, who is Christian, went to a Christian school, and is also gay, and does not hate himself (or his boyfriend).
Now, if you narrow the set a bit (Christians who hate gays), then the opposition goes away, because you are only reffering to those that fit in both parties.
In any case, it's the second statement that really makes it:
LilithsThrall wrote: To repeat myself again, I've got no problem with people being Christian as long as they don't punch me in the face with it.
Evangelicals, as a group, have a history of punching others in the face with their religion.
Now, to rework the statement:
UnknownTroll wrote: To repeat myself again, I've got no problem with people being White as long as they don't punch me in the face with it.
Whites, as a group, have a history of punching others in the face with their race.
This is easy to spot as bigoted speech. Also has demonstrably true parts, just as your statement does. That does not excuse the underlying racist sentiment.
Just as the founders of Nation of Islam developed a racist philosophy as a reaction against the racism they encountered in their lives, so have others, including a good friend of mine, developed a religious intolerance as a reaction against the intolerance they encountered in their lives (being gay).
Mirror, you have seriously distorted what I said.
I said on multiple occasions that I don't have a problem with Christianity in general. In fact, I've pointed to several Christian groups (I specifically referenced the Quakers) whom I respect.
So, if you want to equate "Christian" to "white", it's only fair to point out that I said nothing against "Christians" (in general) or "whites" (in general). So, my comments weren't equatable to racism.
What I did specifically call out were evangelicals.
So, to fix your rephrase of my quote,
LilithsThrall wrote: To repeat myself again, I've got no problem with people being white as long as they don't punch me in the face with it.
Skinheads, as a group, have a history of punching others in the face with it.
You think that's a bigoted comment on my part. But the question I asked before still remains not adequately answered. Why did the person decide to become a skinhead if they weren't racist? Why did the person decide to join a Christian group (of all the possible Christian groups) which teaches bigotry if they aren't bigots? One partial answer has been offered - that they don't know the group advocates racism/bigotry and that answer actually makes sense during the very early stages of membership, but there does come a time (and probably very soon) where ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are.
Unless people who opose said group reinforces their views of themselves as just part of a whole instead of individuals, which conditions them into the patterns of behavior of the whole. Social roles are a terrible thing when they occur as the consecuence of generalization, but it is a very real phenomenon.
So we could just play the blame game of who started it (i became racist because i was discriminated against, so now those who i discriminate against are more recist)or we could just try to see each person as an individual and try to work it out, I have made my choice.
Jared Ouimette wrote: Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are. You mean, like these?
Jared Ouimette wrote: Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are. If they aren't, then where is the large outcry from people who are and who are denouncing them?
All I hear is crickets chirping.
LilithsThrall wrote: Why did the person decide to become a skinhead if they weren't racist? I would imagine is similar to any other fringe group. The individuals start off by feeling neglected by the rest of society (I would imagine most skinheads start off as poor white undereducated males). They find a fringe group that is willing to accept them and support/protect them, this often starts off without focus on the more negative aspects of the fringe group or it is presented as protecting the person from other fringe groups (I would imagine in prison this how these groups recruit, join up or be left by yourself to be attacked by others). As the person spends more time, they begin to conform to the groups mores even with respect to the more negative aspects.
LilithsThrall wrote: Why did the person decide to join a Christian group (of all the possible Christian groups) which teaches bigotry if they aren't bigots? One partial answer has been offered - that they don't know the group advocates racism/bigotry and that answer actually makes sense during the very early stages of membership, but there does come a time (and probably very soon) where ignorance is no longer an excuse. Personally, no church I have ever attended has preached anything remotely like what most people say they have been exposed to. Most of the churchs have specific "lessons" they wish to focus on (this or that book of X, etc), and don't waste valuable church time with a bunch of politics or social commentary. The most I've heard is a part of most services where the minister/priest asks for the congregation to pray for the leaders of the nation, that the spirit works through them and that the will of god is served. They make those prayers irregardless of who is actually in power at the time.
Frerezar wrote: Unless people who opose said group reinforces their views of themselves as just part of a whole instead of individuals, which conditions them into the patterns of behavior of the whole. Social roles are a terrible thing when they occur as the consecuence of generalization, but it is a very real phenomenon.
So we could just play the blame game of who started it (i became racist because i was discriminated against, so now those who i discriminate against are more recist)or we could just try to see each person as an individual and try to work it out, I have made my choice.
Which group is right now ensuring that you are right now being treated as a second-class citizen throughout the United States?
Noone? Then pardon me for thinking that your fortune cookie advice rings more than a bit hollow.
There were times when brown people were treated poorly (repatriation - a period of time when American citizens of Hispanic descent were forcibly sent to Mexico to live, for example), but you are, I'm sure, too young to have lived through that.
LilithsThrall wrote: Jared Ouimette wrote: Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are. If they aren't, then where is the large outcry from people who are and who are denouncing them?
All I hear is crickets chirping. Most people don't speak out about anything, complaining that christians by and large don't due it, as if they should be different than most people seems a bit silly.
pres man wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Why did the person decide to become a skinhead if they weren't racist? I would imagine is similar to any other fringe group. The individuals start off by feeling neglected by the rest of society (I would imagine most skinheads start off as poor white undereducated males). They find a fringe group that is willing to accept them and support/protect them, this often starts off without focus on the more negative aspects of the fringe group or it is presented as protecting the person from other fringe groups (I would imagine in prison this how these groups recruit, join up or be left by yourself to be attacked by others). As the person spends more time, they begin to conform to the groups mores even with respect to the more negative aspects.
LilithsThrall wrote: Why did the person decide to join a Christian group (of all the possible Christian groups) which teaches bigotry if they aren't bigots? One partial answer has been offered - that they don't know the group advocates racism/bigotry and that answer actually makes sense during the very early stages of membership, but there does come a time (and probably very soon) where ignorance is no longer an excuse. Personally, no church I have ever attended has preached anything remotely like what most people say they have been exposed to. Most of the churchs have specific "lessons" they wish to focus on (this or that book of X, etc), and don't waste valuable church time with a bunch of politics or social commentary. The most I've heard is a part of most services where the minister/priest asks for the congregation to pray for the leaders of the nation, that the spirit works through them and that the will of god is served. They make those prayers irregardless of who is actually in power at the time. Let me emphasize that my comments aren't meant to be directed towards all Christians. At one point, I was considering becoming a Quaker. The fact that they actually do teach love and social activism struck a chord with me, but the church was over an hour away from where I lived, so I ended up not doing it.
LilithsThrall wrote: Jared Ouimette wrote: Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are. If they aren't, then where is the large outcry from people who are and who are denouncing them?
All I hear is crickets chirping. I can't speak for all religions, but Catholics believe that if you follow the bible you are a part of Christianity. We've gotten to the point where we concede that although you may not be Catholic, as long as you lead a good life you will go to heaven.
People who follow radically different versions of the bible like Mormons are NOT Christian, but if they lead a good life they will go to heaven, same with any other religion (or atheism, though the church generally frowns upon it, but they still go to heaven if they are good).
A "Christian" group that the Church has basically said is going to hell would be these guys.
LilithsThrall wrote: You think that's a bigoted comment on my part. But the question I asked before still remains not adequately answered. Why did the person decide to become a skinhead if they weren't racist? Why did the person decide to join a Christian group (of all the possible Christian groups) which teaches bigotry if they aren't bigots? Using "Evangelicals" is still to broad, that does not at all change the form of the argument, which is where the problem lies.
And what does it matter why a skinhead becomes a skinhead? If I go somewhere where people hate Japanese people, am I entitled to hate them back, carte blanch? Is it no longer bigotry if I only hate bigots?
This fails a definitional test. Being a bigot has nothing to do with the group they hate, only that they hate them. Being bigoted towards bigots is still being a bigot. You just get away with it more. Yes, you can assault them, deny them jobs, refuse to serve them at resturants, and even make them sit in the back of the bus because they are bigots and people allow bigots to be bigoted against. That does not in any way make it right. Permissible=/=right.
BTW, that's a gneeric "you", not you personally. This is not insinuating any actions on your part.
Anyway, that's the problem with the argument, and why it gets the reaction it does.
LilithsThrall wrote: There were times when brown people were treated poorly (repatriation - a period of time when American citizens of Hispanic descent were forcibly sent to Mexico to live, for example), but you are, I'm sure, too young to have lived through that. ??
No descrimination against latinos in this country? Been to Arizona or Texas lately? Know anyone who's parent got deported for working in a resturant?
LilithsThrall wrote: Jared Ouimette wrote: Just because a group says they are Christians doesn't mean they actually are. If they aren't, then where is the large outcry from people who are and who are denouncing them?
All I hear is crickets chirping. Wasn't this EXACTLY the argumet used against Muslims after 9/11? That there was not an obvious outcry against Muslim extremism by fellow Muslims, so they must be complicit in it? CAIR had some great words about that one.
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
And what does it matter why a skinhead becomes a skinhead? If I go somewhere where people hate Japanese people, am I entitled to hate them back, carte blanch? Is it no longer bigotry if I only hate bigots?
Okay, let's go with people who hate Japanese people.
During a short period of time, Japanese people were forcibly removed from their homes and put in concentration camps. Japanese children grew up with machine guns pointed at them.
Did you live through any of that?
In fact, have you ever lived through any period in your life where some group of people were making sure your legal status was as a second-class citizen?
Mirror, Mirror wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: There were times when brown people were treated poorly (repatriation - a period of time when American citizens of Hispanic descent were forcibly sent to Mexico to live, for example), but you are, I'm sure, too young to have lived through that. ??
No descrimination against latinos in this country? Been to Arizona or Texas lately? Know anyone who's parent got deported for working in a resturant? I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now.
This is new to me. Please tell me more.
LilithsThrall wrote:
There were times when brown people were treated poorly (repatriation - a period of time when American citizens of Hispanic descent were forcibly sent to Mexico to live, for example), but you are, I'm sure, too young to have lived through that.
Wow, I think this clarifies the picture a bit more. I will not fall into the whole ¨I´ve had it worst than you¨ routine, all I can say is that as a christian and as a psycholoist i wish you find peace.
LilithsThrall wrote:
I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now.
This is new to me. Please tell me more.
Yeah it´s not like there are american citizens who go to the southern frontier to shoot families running across the border. ALL AMERICANS ARE HATEFULL BIGOTS!!!! (sarcasm over)
LilithsThrall wrote: I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now.
This is new to me. Please tell me more.
DHS about 3-4 years ago began a new sweep to ID and deport illegals. Many of these illegals deported had children that were relocated along with the childred. Poder magazine did an expo in 2007.
That is essentially a forced deportation of US citizens. Not that it matters to this discussion one bit. Little descrimination or big descrimination, it's still just as wrong. It's just more permissible to descriminate a little than a lot. Permissible=/=right.
EDIT: Frerezar just reminded me of the whole "minutemen" thing. Good call.
The worst part is that following the logic that dictates ¨if you belong to group X you are Y, and if you´re not Y then why do you belong to group X¨ then all americans would be hatefull bigotted racists who shoot random inmigrants.
¨Just stop being american then if you are not....¨ right...
I removed some less-than-civil contributions to the discussion.
I'd also like to ask everyone to act like mature adults here.
LilithsThrall wrote: I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now. Please tell me more. Mirror, Mirror wrote: DHS about 3-4 years ago began a new sweep to ID and deport illegals. Many of these illegals deported had children that were relocated along with the adults. Poder magazine did an expo in 2007.
That is essentially a forced deportation of US citizens. Not that it matters to this discussion one bit.
I admit to confusion. How is it possible for U.S. citizens to be illegal aliens?
Chris Mortika wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now. Please tell me more. Mirror, Mirror wrote: DHS about 3-4 years ago began a new sweep to ID and deport illegals. Many of these illegals deported had children that were relocated along with the adults. Poder magazine did an expo in 2007.
That is essentially a forced deportation of US citizens. Not that it matters to this discussion one bit.
I admit to confusion. How is it possible for U.S. citizens to be illegal aliens? Children's status is in question.
Chris Mortika wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: I wasn't aware that there is a huge movement of American citizens of Hispanic descent being forcibly deported right now. Please tell me more. Mirror, Mirror wrote: DHS about 3-4 years ago began a new sweep to ID and deport illegals. Many of these illegals deported had children that were relocated along with the adults. Poder magazine did an expo in 2007.
That is essentially a forced deportation of US citizens. Not that it matters to this discussion one bit.
I admit to confusion. How is it possible for U.S. citizens to be illegal aliens? Because they had children here, and they (incorrectly, if I remember the way it actually works) think that their children automatically qualify for citizenship. Which, even if it were true, there would be an even bigger outcry if the INS were to deport the parents and then stick their offspring in a state run orphanage.
Basically some people were trying to game the system and get green cards granted to them by virtue of childbirth, and then called in the media to cry foul when the government called them on it.
So, wait, if I'm understanding this correctly, Frerezar wants to show parallels between
a.) some people trying to game the system and failing
and
b.) the facts that teenage suicide is ten times higher among gay youth, homelessness is much higher, there have been multiple instance of torture and murder of gay people, gay people are second-class citizens
???
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yes... Yes... Hmmmm... Uh huh... I totally agree with everyone above.
Anyone for some Dnd? =)
Decrepit DM wrote: Yes... Yes... Hmmmm... Uh huh... I totally agree with everyone above.
Anyone for some Dnd? =)
Only if you want to put your soul in jeopardy.
Heathen.
Now Pathfinder, on the other hand...
I found a chip on the ground over here. Anyone know whose shoulder it came from?
I can't help but wonder if in an alternate universe this thread was treated with the levity in which it was originally spawned.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
It is not that the discussion is entirely valid and all, and the points are fascinating and important, but they are one of the reasons why I like gaming... To get away from the drama and enjoy a little time with people who share something in common.
Diplomacy roll =)...
Decrepit DM wrote: Yes... Yes... Hmmmm... Uh huh... I totally agree with everyone above.
Anyone for some Dnd? =)
Doesn't look anything like the baby you first created, eh? We could drown them out with Slayer by turning it up to 11. :P
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A bit of a mutant =)... No Slayer today. I opted for the Tool =)
Thanks for the correction Celestial... Pathfinder... Whew... Much better =)
Somebody please lock or jack this thread before even I end up going to hell.
Celestial Healer wrote: Decrepit DM wrote: Yes... Yes... Hmmmm... Uh huh... I totally agree with everyone above.
Anyone for some Dnd? =)
Only if you want to put your soul in jeopardy.
Heathen.
Now Pathfinder, on the other hand... So that's how devils and politicians manage it...
Save your soul today by... what's a good word that means "finding the path"?
Jack Chick wrote: Somebody please lock or jack this thread before even I end up going to hell. I think it might be unjackable!
Unjackoffable?
It possesses Jack Resistance 20?
Oh wait, Jacks have been posting here on the thread, that can't be it...
Hmmm...
Sebastian wrote: I found a chip on the ground over here. Anyone know whose shoulder it came from? *grin*
Okay, I'll take my lumps.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
