(August 13, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Anima Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: And your arguments are demonstrated fallacies at best and homophobic hate speech at worst, and it's gone on so long that nobody cares if you think you've won the argument. We're all just kind of tired about reading what a backward bigot you are.

Logical flaw in the arguments have yet to be presented.  No homophobic hate speech has been utilized.  Of course I
recognize you may not know the legal of definition of hate speech so let me help you out a bit.

Hate speech does not consist of speech which is undesirable or offensive.  Hate speech consists of speech which is either obscene (devoid of any value to public discourse) or incites others to violence against a particular group or person.

Under the 1st amendment speech which may even be considered offensive is protected if it is regard to a matter of public discourse (in this case homosexuality in society and law) and is in keeping with the forum of expression (in this case a public forum for the expression of opinions and ideas).

So at worst it will not even constitute hate speech.

By all means I am more than happy to hear arguments in their favor.  I trust these arguments shall not be predicated on fallacies (as you claim mine are).  I have repeatedly asked for them.  

So what are you arguments in favor of their condition not being classified as a defect and in their favor not predicated on a fallacy of false equivalency?

Hahahaha  , they will not like it but good one  

(August 13, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: You don't get to reference the first amendment in an attempt to refute the way others perceive you.

Again, no argument needs to be brought forth in their favor.  You need to provide a compelling case to the contrary.  You have yet to do so.

I do get to utilize the 1st amendment in regards to an accusation of hate speech, which is not determined subjectively according to people's opinions. I may further utilize tortious defamation in defense to a false defamatory statement in regards to my person (in this case it would be liable as it is expressed in a more permanent medium than speech).

You keep saying no argument is needed in their favor but a compelling case needs to be brought to the contrary? Why is that? If you do not have to convince opponents of your position than they do not have to convince you of theirs. I have made compelling argument, now you say you are not compelled by the arguments made, which endeavors to denigrate the argument to one of subjective satisfaction. Thus if you do not want to believe it no argument will convince you and if I do not want to believe it no argument will convince me.

I have come to the discussion with arguments and endeavoring to make a point. You have come with nothing other than insults and claim since you are not convinced than you have won? It seems quite readily you are unable to refute my arguments with arguments of your own. Hell you are not even willing to make arguments of your own.

"Any fool can criticize and most fools do." - Benjamin Franklin

With that said do you just not have an argument not based on false equivalency? Even a non-compelling one?

(August 12, 2015 at 11:42 am)Ace Wrote: Been saying that for some time now, so interesting you just now seen it.  But you also do know that my statement was general in that the I in single or small group.  Thus making it apply to people on this form as well. Because you can sing that damn song, (we are the world)  as long as you want and think you are but, the truth is that you are not "the damn world at all."        (wonder if you will get that)

Hahaha your assuming that they think that their own ideas don't matter to them or that they give a damn about what the world thinks.  We all live in the big world but it's our own little world that we have made that truly counts  

Uhm... Who are "they"? Why would I assume, that "their" own ideas would not matter to "them"? Why should "they" give a "damn" about what "the world" thinks - and about what? Who's "the world"? Are you talking about that old M. Jackson/ L. Richie song? What has that got to do with anything?

Are you feeling alright? You're not making sense. 
I'm beginning to hope your "own little world" has padded walls...

(August 13, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 11:42 am)Ace Wrote: Been saying that for some time now, so interesting you just now seen it.  But you also do know that my statement was general in that the I in single or small group.  Thus making it apply to people on this form as well. Because you can sing that damn song, (we are the world)  as long as you want and think you are but, the truth is that you are not "the damn world at all."        (wonder if you will get that)

Hahaha your assuming that they think that their own ideas don't matter to them or that they give a damn about what the world thinks.  We all live in the big world but it's our own little world that we have made that truly counts  

Uhm... Who are "they"? Why would I assume, that "their" own ideas would not matter to "them"? Why should "they" give a "damn" about what "the world" thinks - and about what? Who's "the world"? Are you talking about that old M. Jackson/ L. Richie song? What has that got to do with anything?

Are you feeling alright? You're not making sense. 
I'm beginning to hope your "own little world" has padded walls...

It might help if you read your post be for reading mine.

In summation I had said that pro homosexuality is a western ideology and that "my or I or an individuals" idea has no power in a mass ideology. You said now you get it so go tell my friends about my comment . I said i the comment I made is a general one, meaning any little persion or group (like this borad) also has no say in what an ideology is or is not, accepted or is not accepted. You may think that because you are large on this form your word do have some meaning but, you are no were near the size of what it mean to have a mass ideology. Therefor those on this post which is little when compared to a mass, is so little that it is no different then a single persion speaking.

So though you will say we all agree with the western ideology of homosexuality ( which believe it or not is not the American ideology of homosexuality is not the exact same per say in the rest of the western world. That is they do not have the are views as you) but you or your small gay community on this borad is not the world as well as the United States.
So do to this forms smallness in "speaking" on what the whole gay community thinks in the u.s. Has no barring, in other words "it does not matter what I think" That it is just plan Western Ideology.

You said, assing the I was in single term that I tell my other bigots what I said. I said that you are assuming ( the bigots that I seem to know) that they thing the same way I do or even agree with what I say. So it say it to them in the assumption that it will effect them is wrong to assume. They have there own ideas and views like all individual people do.

I am sorry ,
you might not understand this post as I am simplyfing my responses because I am using my cell phone and not a big computer. The phoen is not so easy for my to type with. So if you don't understand me let me now so I can write it clear later.

(August 13, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Anima Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: You don't get to reference the first amendment in an attempt to refute the way others perceive you.

Again, no argument needs to be brought forth in their favor.  You need to provide a compelling case to the contrary.  You have yet to do so.

I do get to utilize the 1st amendment in regards to an accusation of hate speech, which is not determined subjectively according to people's opinions.  I may further utilize tortious defamation in defense to a false defamatory statement in regards to my person (in this case it would be liable as it is expressed in a more permanent medium than speech).

You keep saying no argument is needed in their favor but a compelling case needs to be brought to the contrary?  Why is that?  If you do not have to convince opponents of your position than they do not have to convince you of theirs.  I have made compelling argument, now you say you are not compelled by the arguments made, which endeavors to denigrate the argument to one of subjective satisfaction.  Thus if you do not want to believe it no argument will convince you and if I do not want to believe it no argument will convince me.

I have come to the discussion with arguments and endeavoring to make a point.  You have come with nothing other than insults and claim since you are not convinced than you have won?  It seems quite readily you are unable to refute my arguments with arguments of your own.  Hell you are not even willing to make arguments of your own.

"Any fool can criticize and most fools do." - Benjamin Franklin

With that said do you just not have an argument not based on false equivalency?  Even a non-compelling one?

Hahaha,
I always wondered if they were ever going to look that amendment. But never did, wonder why.

Very dangerous mandate is being required.

According to this articular,  [u]The Christian purge has begun:[/u]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/1...tcmp=hpbt3

"It wasn’t so much a choice as it was a demand."

Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials.

DJJ staff, volunteers, interns and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, That is very dangerous!! Such a 'required document can suddenly become a state mandate to be enforced on educators, social workers, trash collectors, hell any state employ!!

What is so funny that no document has ever being required to not speak ill of blacks, women, people with disability, or religious people. BUT a MANDATED document is REQUIRED for ONLY the LQBTQIOXYZ people!!!??? A group that is not even a protected class or that those who actually are a protected classes are not even have a "protected document" for them?

Now that is discrimination and inequality to all!!!!

Because a Faux Noise opinion piece is such a SHINING BEACON OF EXEMPLARY JOURNALISM...

(August 14, 2015 at 10:31 am)Iroscato Wrote: Because a Faux Noise opinion piece is such a SHINING BEACON OF EXEMPLARY JOURNALISM...

It is just an article that I just read, not read or care what news group it is in affectation with, I will admit it.

But it is something the many Chaplains are actually facing, in the military for example. There have been various news clips of Chaplains  losing their position because of their religious views. And if state start making mandates for those of different ideas and/or faith, that is very dangerous.

Some other article's about the issue.

Star's and Strips: Commander wants Navy chaplain removed for alleged anti-gay remarks, discrimination

http://www.stripes.com/news/commander-wa...n-1.333847

U.S. News: Evangelical Groups Divided on Issue of Military Chaplains and Gay Marriag

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013...y-marriage

Express: Police chaplain claims he was fired over gay marriage views

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/381339/...iage-views

Gay Star News:Scottish school chaplain sacked after calling gays ‘perverted

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chapl...ted070114/

WND: Pentagon urged to boot chaplains who oppose 'gay' marriage

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/pentagon-urge...orVvrFV.99
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/pentagon-urge...-marriage/

(August 13, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Anima Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: And your arguments are demonstrated fallacies at best and homophobic hate speech at worst, and it's gone on so long that nobody cares if you think you've won the argument. We're all just kind of tired about reading what a backward bigot you are.

Logical flaw in the arguments have yet to be presented.  No homophobic hate speech has been utilized.  Of course I
recognize you may not know the legal of definition of hate speech so let me help you out a bit.

Hate speech does not consist of speech which is undesirable or offensive.  Hate speech consists of speech which is either obscene (devoid of any value to public discourse) or incites others to violence against a particular group or person.

Under the 1st amendment speech which may even be considered offensive is protected if it is regard to a matter of public discourse (in this case homosexuality in society and law) and is in keeping with the forum of expression (in this case a public forum for the expression of opinions and ideas).

So at worst it will not even constitute hate speech.

By all means I am more than happy to hear arguments in their favor.  I trust these arguments shall not be predicated on fallacies (as you claim mine are).  I have repeatedly asked for them.  

So what are you arguments in favor of their condition not being classified as a defect and in their favor not predicated on a fallacy of false equivalency?

I'm not going to dignify that last question with a response, you bigoted little shit.

Your definition of hate speech includes your "last resort" talk of exterminating them because you think they have a defect, fuckwallet. You're so ignorant it makes me go cross-eyed.

"Fuckwallet"

Nicking that, cheers