Daganev2005-05-09 18:32:26
I encounter that on an almost daily basis on campus.
Sure it causes me distress, but then so do taxes and homework.
The regular responce is a counter 'silent' protest right behind them. The popular thing these days are signs that say 'stop spreading the hate' the ironic thing is , every side of every argument appears to have them in thier back pocket incase some protestor shows up to protest anything.
Sure it causes me distress, but then so do taxes and homework.
The regular responce is a counter 'silent' protest right behind them. The popular thing these days are signs that say 'stop spreading the hate' the ironic thing is , every side of every argument appears to have them in thier back pocket incase some protestor shows up to protest anything.
Rakor2005-05-09 21:52:36
QUOTE(daganev @ May 9 2005, 01:51 PM)
The point is, you should be railing on people who stand on streat corners trying to entice people to hit them so they can sue and make money. It doesn't matter what message someone is spewing when that is thier inention, and it infact would make me question if those people actually believe what they are saying.
Shouldn't, I'm assuming you mean.
You're wrong about them doing it for money. They were doing it because they believed in what they were saying. They knew no one was going to hit them, or try.
Faethan2005-05-09 22:06:27
So, Daganev, following your logic that people who point to these signs and the presence of the child and cry "foul" while not pointing at palestinian children who are used as weapons are in the wrong, wouldn't these sign holders who show up at a guy's funeral to protest his homosexuality rather than showing up to protest the hate crime that killed him also be in the wrong?
Seriously, how can these people view homosexuality as the real problem in this event, rather than hate crime?
Also, I think the argument that they aren't saying "go kill homosexuals" is total
, because we all know full well that there are people out there who will hear "God hates these people" and think "I should go kill these people, because God hates them." Notice also that in a way, they are advocating the death of these people by using the signs that say "thank god for 9/11," referring to the belief that the killing of the people in those planes and in the towers was punishment for their evil behaviour, including homosexuality.
Seriously, how can these people view homosexuality as the real problem in this event, rather than hate crime?
Also, I think the argument that they aren't saying "go kill homosexuals" is total
, because we all know full well that there are people out there who will hear "God hates these people" and think "I should go kill these people, because God hates them." Notice also that in a way, they are advocating the death of these people by using the signs that say "thank god for 9/11," referring to the belief that the killing of the people in those planes and in the towers was punishment for their evil behaviour, including homosexuality.Daganev2005-05-09 23:10:50
I'm not sure what thing about a funeral your talking about, but yeah, disturbing a funeral probabbly goes on my list of things to do to ensure your eternal demise.
I personally find it humorous when people get upset about what other people say they think god thinks. Either your very insecure about your own religion or you just hate religious people.
I would also not leap to any conclusions about what people mean when they say 'thank god for such and such.' I often thank god for bad things happening to me when I later see how that bad thing was infact a blessing in disguise. Its a complicated thing for people who don't understand it.
I personally find it humorous when people get upset about what other people say they think god thinks. Either your very insecure about your own religion or you just hate religious people.
I would also not leap to any conclusions about what people mean when they say 'thank god for such and such.' I often thank god for bad things happening to me when I later see how that bad thing was infact a blessing in disguise. Its a complicated thing for people who don't understand it.
Erion2005-05-09 23:15:32
QUOTE(daganev @ May 9 2005, 07:10 PM)
I'm not sure what thing about a funeral your talking about, but yeah, disturbing a funeral probabbly goes on my list of things to do to ensure your eternal demise.
115721
It was discussed earlier in this thread. A young teenager named Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death for his sexual orientation by two classmates. This prick Phelps was at his funeral screaming about how he was punished for his sins. Phelps also wanted to erect a statue in the town's park of Matthew Shepherd, with an inscription of the day he died, precluded by the words "Matthew Shepherd entered Hell on".
Unknown2005-05-09 23:17:54
How can protesting someone's damnation and their so-called 'fatal flaw' at their funeral, with their parents and other relatives watching, be anything but wrong, Daganev?
I'm all for the freedom to say what you want, but I'm not going to be ridiculous and absolute about it. When what I want to say something that could be hurtful I try to say it in a way that shows compassion and understanding, or at least tolerance.
If you can't say something nicely, don't say it at all. It's a question of basic respect for others, of which these people show none.
I understand it is their religious and moral position they are operating from, but that does not give them the right to, frankly, act like knobs.
I'm all for the freedom to say what you want, but I'm not going to be ridiculous and absolute about it. When what I want to say something that could be hurtful I try to say it in a way that shows compassion and understanding, or at least tolerance.
If you can't say something nicely, don't say it at all. It's a question of basic respect for others, of which these people show none.
I understand it is their religious and moral position they are operating from, but that does not give them the right to, frankly, act like knobs.
Faethan2005-05-09 23:34:48
QUOTE(daganev @ May 9 2005, 07:10 PM)
I'm not sure what thing about a funeral your talking about, but yeah, disturbing a funeral probabbly goes on my list of things to do to ensure your eternal demise.
I personally find it humorous when people get upset about what other people say they think god thinks. Either your very insecure about your own religion or you just hate religious people.
I would also not leap to any conclusions about what people mean when they say 'thank god for such and such.' I often thank god for bad things happening to me when I later see how that bad thing was infact a blessing in disguise. Its a complicated thing for people who don't understand it.
I personally find it humorous when people get upset about what other people say they think god thinks. Either your very insecure about your own religion or you just hate religious people.
I would also not leap to any conclusions about what people mean when they say 'thank god for such and such.' I often thank god for bad things happening to me when I later see how that bad thing was infact a blessing in disguise. Its a complicated thing for people who don't understand it.
115721
I most certainly did not leap to any conclusions, I went to this group's website, to their FAQ section and clicked on the link that said "What do you mean when you say thank God for 9/11"
The group seen in these pictures lists as one of their major tactics picketing funerals, including those of homosexuals who were victims of hate crimes.
I happen to agree with you that it is the right of this group to express their beliefs, but there are certain limits to be placed on that right. Among those limits, I think, are saying things like "It's good you're dead," "God wants you dead," and other things of this nature, because they will surely incite violence. Since this is at a funeral, I find all the signs, and the presence of the group entirely to be rather unnacceptable, but were it a normal public demonstration, I would not question their right to display most of those signs. The one that says "Thank God for 9/11" and the one that says "Matt in Hell" (Matt is the victim of the murder), however, I find to be inciting violence, and I think they cross a line. This group is more than welcome to believe that God hates gay people, but there are some limits on how they express these beliefs.
Faethan2005-05-09 23:37:31
QUOTE(daganev @ May 8 2005, 08:24 PM)
I have yet to see any public organization outside of Jewish organizations be 'upset' about the use of children by the Palestian authority to cause death and violence amongst thier people. Infact the closest thing to a protest from any group outside a Reglious group was from PETA when the PA used a Donkey to kill some civilians.. here is the letter PETA wrote... http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat/
115380
BULLS***.
I have a poster hanging on my wall saying "Abolish the use of child soldiers worldwide." Unless Amnesty Internation is a Jewish organization, I think that counts as a public organization outside of Jewish organization that is 'upset' about the use of chilren by the Palestinian Authority to cause death and violence amongst their people.
Faethan2005-05-09 23:40:25
QUOTE(daganev @ May 8 2005, 09:50 PM)
Yes abstaining from making children is just as immoral.
115402
BULLS***
The world is not facing an underpopulation crisis, the world is facing an overpopulation crisis. Therefore, those who have children are worsening the problem, and those who do not have children are alleviating it. Of course, it all depends on there being a balance of people who have children and people who don't. Choosing not to procreate is far from immoral when the world's resources are being stretched to meet ever increasing needs, in fact, abstaining from making children (perhaps through homosexuality) is -more- moral under your logic.
Erion2005-05-10 00:13:27
Hear hear, Faethan. altyhough I'm strong in my belief that morals are irrelevant. Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Anyone up for the next round of sex, drugs and money?
Anyone up for the next round of sex, drugs and money?
Unknown2005-05-10 00:29:05
The world is not facing an overpopulation crisis. It is facing the worst case of misappropriated resources we have ever seen.
At the same time, people whine about stagnation in the baby boom. Well, that's what happens when you wake up out of hippy stupor and realize the world's strongest country is spending 15 times more on its military budget than on international aid, and thrice the quantity spent on interior social aid programs.
As for children as soldiers... children are the ones getting more serious injured by shrapnel, "target misnomers" (Gods I love Wolfowitz when he gives me catchy phrases) and 8 ton military bulldozers. Imagine your parents telling you your best friend died because the hospital he was in was hit by a "smart" bomb because it was providing injury relief and a base for insurgets, or that your younger brother/sister is missing an eye from shrapnel generated when an M249 hits a masonry wall... These children are not innocent, they are growing up in a war zone, and as such, certain responsibilities are placed upon them that children in first world countries would never have to assume. THEN the nations allowing this area to be a warzone complain because they can't shoot children on spot for being armed, and this provides a serious tactical disadvantage and endangers too many related lives...
At the same time, people whine about stagnation in the baby boom. Well, that's what happens when you wake up out of hippy stupor and realize the world's strongest country is spending 15 times more on its military budget than on international aid, and thrice the quantity spent on interior social aid programs.
As for children as soldiers... children are the ones getting more serious injured by shrapnel, "target misnomers" (Gods I love Wolfowitz when he gives me catchy phrases) and 8 ton military bulldozers. Imagine your parents telling you your best friend died because the hospital he was in was hit by a "smart" bomb because it was providing injury relief and a base for insurgets, or that your younger brother/sister is missing an eye from shrapnel generated when an M249 hits a masonry wall... These children are not innocent, they are growing up in a war zone, and as such, certain responsibilities are placed upon them that children in first world countries would never have to assume. THEN the nations allowing this area to be a warzone complain because they can't shoot children on spot for being armed, and this provides a serious tactical disadvantage and endangers too many related lives...
Erion2005-05-10 00:50:32
I say we take the Spartan approach, sexuality-wise. Breeding is done for the betterment of Sparta. Sexual pleasure was derived from your partners (in war IE: men). And screwing your wife was bad, you had to sneak out of your barracks, get to her, screw her, and get back. Without being caught. I guess in that sense it was illegal. The more children you had, the stealthier you were, and thus a better fighter.
Falasin2005-05-10 01:20:50
QUOTE(daganev @ May 9 2005, 01:30 AM)
If everyone was homosexual society would not continue past the current generation. Infact, if only half the population was homosexual it would not continue as the death rate would outnumber the birthrate. I could be missunderstanding the various forms of 'ethical decision making' but I'm pretty sure all of them have this idea that something is only moral if 'everyone doing it' would not have negetive affects.
Just as it is immoral to give so much charity that you yourself need charity.
Just as it is immoral to give so much charity that you yourself need charity.
115393
I'd just like to interject this little snipit here appoligies if something like this has already been stated before, this is one of the most illogical statements I have ever run across, and suprisingly I come across it quite a bit. Let me pose this little scenario, the world is on the brink of firey thermo-nuclear death, there is a small but secure shelter deep in the mountains that can survive (however unlikely this is, just say that it can for the purpose of this thingumy) the blasts and can fit 7 people. You are given a list a possible candidates to fill those spots and live on to propegate the species (however improbable this is). I have seen this done, and almost always people immediately rule out all homosexuals on the list, no matter how able they are to survive in a post-apocolyptic barrens.
For some reason people fail to realize that being homosexual does not mean you are sterile, it dosen't mean any sort of inability to procreate. In the impossible event that 100% of the population is homosexual that absolutely does not mean that the human race will end with that generation, birth will just be controled by some sort of central system rather than by individual families. This is worse than saying that if 100% of the population were women then there would be no procreation, because no only is it foolish, it's incorrect.
Again, sorry if someone already posted this, I don't feel like reading through this whole thing,the ignorance in some parts is astounding.
*rant over*
Dan2005-05-10 01:47:25
I just realised the topic looks like it almost says 'God hates faqs' .. I dunno about God, but I have seen some FAQs.. anyways, continue your bickering.
EDIT: Watch your language. ~Shiri~
FAQs.. anyways, continue your bickering.EDIT: Watch your language. ~Shiri~
Faethan2005-05-10 02:04:40
QUOTE(Folkien @ May 9 2005, 08:29 PM)
The world is not facing an overpopulation crisis. It is facing the worst case of misappropriated resources we have ever seen.
115748
While I entirely agree with you that there is a poor distribution of resources, that does not take away from the fact that the earth really does have a maximum capacity and we are rapidly approaching it. I will certainly grant that a significant part of the problem is in the distribution of resources, but population plays a major role as well. Even if the resources we have available were evenly distributed, each person requires a certain amount of land of a certain quality in order to maintain a certain quality of life. There is a finite amount of land available, and only a portion of that is really useable. Better distribution of resources is only part of the solution.
EDIT: Additionally, the fact that children are sometimes casualties of war, while certainly a horrible thing, does not in anyway excuse or lessen the severity of the use of children as soldiers. They are both issues that need to be addressed, and pointing to one to draw attention away from the other is only going to make that second one worse.
Faethan2005-05-10 02:15:36
QUOTE(Falasin @ May 9 2005, 09:20 PM)
I'd just like to interject this little snipit here appoligies if something like this has already been stated before, this is one of the most illogical statements I have ever run across, and suprisingly I come across it quite a bit. Let me pose this little scenario, the world is on the brink of firey thermo-nuclear death, there is a small but secure shelter deep in the mountains that can survive (however unlikely this is, just say that it can for the purpose of this thingumy) the blasts and can fit 7 people. You are given a list a possible candidates to fill those spots and live on to propegate the species (however improbable this is). I have seen this done, and almost always people immediately rule out all homosexuals on the list, no matter how able they are to survive in a post-apocolyptic barrens.
For some reason people fail to realize that being homosexual does not mean you are sterile, it dosen't mean any sort of inability to procreate. In the impossible event that 100% of the population is homosexual that absolutely does not mean that the human race will end with that generation, birth will just be controled by some sort of central system rather than by individual families. This is worse than saying that if 100% of the population were women then there would be no procreation, because no only is it foolish, it's incorrect.
Again, sorry if someone already posted this, I don't feel like reading through this whole thing,the ignorance in some parts is astounding.
*rant over*
For some reason people fail to realize that being homosexual does not mean you are sterile, it dosen't mean any sort of inability to procreate. In the impossible event that 100% of the population is homosexual that absolutely does not mean that the human race will end with that generation, birth will just be controled by some sort of central system rather than by individual families. This is worse than saying that if 100% of the population were women then there would be no procreation, because no only is it foolish, it's incorrect.
Again, sorry if someone already posted this, I don't feel like reading through this whole thing,the ignorance in some parts is astounding.
*rant over*
115762
Surely everyone knows that human cloning is part of the homosexual agenda so that they can recruit 100% of the population into homosexuality and then continue to produce human beings! DUUUUH!!
Falasin2005-05-10 02:18:57
Sorry, I must have missed the recruitment policy at the last Equality Forum... Pft, like I'd be caught dead there, even if I do live 15 minutes from Philly, one that would require me being 'out' and two I'd have to have a desire to go.
Unknown2005-05-10 02:31:41
QUOTE(Falasin @ May 10 2005, 01:18 PM)
Sorry, I must have missed the recruitment policy at the last Equality Forum... Pft, like I'd be caught dead there, even if I do live 15 minutes from Philly, one that would require me being 'out' and two I'd have to have a desire to go.
115794
There's an equality forum?
I swear, people will talk about anything if you give them a chance. (excuse my jaded nature, I work in a nsw gov't department and there are always useless meetings, working groups, planning groups, focus groups, reference groups, etc going on and a lot of just seems like a huge waste of time and money)
Daganev2005-05-10 06:57:20
QUOTE(Faethan @ May 9 2005, 03:37 PM)
BULLS***.
I have a poster hanging on my wall saying "Abolish the use of child soldiers worldwide." Unless Amnesty Internation is a Jewish organization, I think that counts as a public organization outside of Jewish organization that is 'upset' about the use of chilren by the Palestinian Authority to cause death and violence amongst their people.
I have a poster hanging on my wall saying "Abolish the use of child soldiers worldwide." Unless Amnesty Internation is a Jewish organization, I think that counts as a public organization outside of Jewish organization that is 'upset' about the use of chilren by the Palestinian Authority to cause death and violence amongst their people.
115732
Firstly, I did not say Jewish I said Religious. countless Christian organizations have condemed the PA for thier use of children as weapons.
Amnesty International however, and sadly, is not one of them. I just read 10 articles from the Amnesty international website after doing a search for 'Palestian Authortiy children' All of the articles were very detailed in how children were killed by 'both sides' but not ONE of them said that the PA is purposefully using children as weapons. It even failed to mention the teenagers who have turned themselves into suicide bombers. However, I do have to give them credit in that they are the only 'international' organization I have seen that actually accuses the PA of 'crimes against humanity'
Daganev2005-05-10 07:02:42
QUOTE(Faethan @ May 9 2005, 06:04 PM)
While I entirely agree with you that there is a poor distribution of resources, that does not take away from the fact that the earth really does have a maximum capacity and we are rapidly approaching it. I will certainly grant that a significant part of the problem is in the distribution of resources, but population plays a major role as well. Even if the resources we have available were evenly distributed, each person requires a certain amount of land of a certain quality in order to maintain a certain quality of life. There is a finite amount of land available, and only a portion of that is really useable. Better distribution of resources is only part of the solution.
115792
According to reports writen in the 1960's the world can not and will never be able to handle a population of over 6 billion.
