Incoming pro-gay troll alert!

self | march 17 2004 | little jeremiah

[tdadams]

You of course post this on homosexual sites also as far as having to deal with conservative/Christian people and the real world?

Can't say I've ever posted anything on homosexual sites, nor can I think of any off the top of my head. Sorry, if I dispel any insinuations you may have been making.

[ArGee]

Tell me again where "restraining evil" is enumerated in the Constitution.

It's not, but it is still a legitimate purpose of government. Keep in mind that 1) The Constitution is for the Federal government only, and 2) the framers of the Constitution recognized a higher law to which the Constitution was subordinate. They understood that no man could pursue happiness while evil remained unchecked. They also understood that no society could long endure while evil remained unchecked.

You don't have to agree with me. That's what debate is for. You don't even have to look up anything or read the actual statistics posted in front of you. You don't have to interpret those statistics the way typical people will.

But you have to accept the fact that we can all see your shucking and dodging throughout this thread, trying to focus on the small when people are discussing the large, and vice-versa. You can claim the winning ground all you like. You may hold it among your friends. But your attempts at suppressing the obvious truths with games and misdirection are evident to most of us. It's entertaining for a while, but it gets old.

Now you're going to say you could say the same of me, and John O., and little jeremiah, and ed reform, and scripter, and etc. I'll accept their company.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

The only thing that will mesh is if homosexuals go back to what they originally claimed to want--privacy in their bedrooms with tolerance for that privacy and the desire to be able to walk about in public without being physically attacked.

If they would accept this standard, I would march in their protests with them.

The problem is, they won'. Homosexual behavior is a symptom of a mental illness. It is actually one of the last steps in the complete dehumanization of man. The first steps were taken when heterosexuality was the norm and homosexuals had to fear the things you mention. Instead of standing firm for the truths that sustained us, in this case that human relationships are about much more than sexual gratification and marriage is about much more than a license to screw, then we wouldn't be in this mess now.

And the worst part is, the Church was complicit in the silence, which makes the Church culpable for where we are now. We need to be praying BIG-TIME for G-d to restore the Church if the Church is ever to have the power to restore America.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

I'm not sure why you directed that long diatribe toward me since I've never even skirted anywhere near the issue of school curriculum.

The same reason why I claimed you support homosexual marriage.

By continuing your attacks on all who wish to point out the evils of homosexuality you align yourself with all that those evils are attempting to accomplish.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

But you have to accept the fact that we can all see your shucking and dodging throughout this thread

ArGee, you can make any claim you like, but just stating it doesn't make it true.

I've not dodged or shucked anything. I've taken every point and countered it head on. I've poked holes in every bit of illogical, hysteria-laden rhetoric you and others have put up. It must be frustrating for you, but rather than call me names and make insinuations, why not improve your logic?

[tdadams]

The same reason why I claimed you support homosexual marriage.

Which is incorrect. I don't.

By continuing your attacks on all who wish to point out the evils of homosexuality...

I'm attacking? Where am I attacking? You mean by pointing out misstatements and illogical arguments? That's attacking? So I should just let those misstatements and illogical arguments slide lest I be called a gay-rights activist? Please!

[ArGee]

You mean by pointing out misstatements and illogical arguments? That's attacking?

But you don't. You claim they may be misstatements or illogical, but I can only think of one instance where you point out the illogic. And your point was correct, except that you made it without looking into the issue at all.

In the mean time you bring up attacks against religious groups (when I talked about having seen some footage and saying I don't like such pictures), statistics in general (without even beginning to review the data presented to you), and the people who present them to you.

Believe you're being moderate and rational if you like. I define those words differently.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

In the mean time you bring up attacks against religious groups (when I talked about having seen some footage and saying I don't like such pictures)

I pointed out that religious groups use videos such as the one you mentioned as part of their fundraising techniques. That's a charge you neither denied or made any attempt to refute, nor did you deny that this is where you saw the video in question. Sort of validates my point don't you think? And that's not an attack. It's a truthful statement.

statistics in general (without even beginning to review the data presented to you)

I wasn't presented the data to review. I was expected to accept the statistics at face value, something I would never do no matter what the topic.

and the people who present them to you

I'm supposed to review the people I have discussions with on FR? How am I to do that?

[ArGee]

I pointed out that religious groups use videos such as the one you mentioned as part of their fundraising techniques.

A very helpful point, considering it had nothing to do whatsoever with what we were talking about. It was an outright attempt to smear those who are anti-homosexual and try to get those to associate the smear with me. But I wasn't talking about making homosexual perversion illegal, nor about supporting religious groups. I was just saying I didn't want any such pictures on FR.

And that's not an attack. It's a truthful statement.

If we had been talking about religious group fundraising, it might have been. In the context of my post, it was an attack.

I wasn't presented the data to review. I was expected to accept the statistics at face value, something I would never do no matter what the topic.

You have been presented the data time and time again. You always wave it off, without ever truly addressing it.

I'm supposed to review the people I have discussions with on FR? How am I to do that?

Parentheses are our friends. Learn how to use them. Or maybe you really are stupid? I still don't think so. I still think it's all an attempt to dodge, but I have been wrong before.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

A very helpful point, considering [the source of the video] had nothing to do whatsoever with what we were talking about.

Of course the source of the tape is very relevant, and that's probably why you want to steer clear of that subject. It's important to understand the context and credibility of those who are distributing the tape. If you didn't want to discuss this tape, and it seems you don't, you shouldn't have brought it up.

You have been presented the data time and time again.

I've not been presented with data, I've been presented with questionable statistics which no one has stepped up to legitimize or defend. That's the most I've been given. In most cases, I've simply been told something to the effect of "go see scripter's database". To say that's a weak argument is to insult weak arguments. That's no argument at all.

[ArGee]

Of course the source of the tape is very relevant, and that's probably why you want to steer clear of that subject.

No it's not, and I'm not going to reply to anything else you say until you explain why you think it is.

But, to refresh your memory, let's look at what we were talking about.

You said something like, They [the gays] aren't doing it [parading their perversion] where you live either. And if they are, post the pictures here on FR so we can all see them.

I said I had seen video of what they do, and I don't want the pictures here on FR.

I did not try to condemn anyone. I just said I didn't want disgusting pictures on FR.

You immediately turned to who had produced the video, I guess because you don't want to focus on what was in the video. I want to focus on what I saw, not on who showed it to me.

Now, why is the person (or group) who showed it to me at all relevant to my point? Please answer. And don't duck by saying the fact that I won't tell you who produced it makes your point. Tell me why it's relevant.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

ArGee, I just told you in the very last post why it's relevant. It goes to the credibility of the video and those who are distributing it. It most likely shows selectively edited clips which are completely out of context. If the distributors have a fund-raising agenda, perhaps they're distorting what's on the video just a bit? Maybe they need to make the problem appear worse than it really is just to get people fired up and eager to write them a check? Come on. I know you're not credulous enough to have never considered that.

Am I saying they're faking it, or staging it? No, but you're intelligent enough to know how people can be slandered by selective editing and an omission of context. It's done to conservatives by the leftist media all the time. I'm not defending anything that might be on this tape, but trying to consistently practice objective fairness.

Conservatives complain about media bias all the time. It's a bit self-serving and hypocritical to raise the issue of bias and slander when it's a group you belong to, but say nothing when the target of denigration is a group you oppose.

[little jeremiah]

This has been a very interesting thread, and unfortunately I have been too busy to participate...:(

I appreciate your arguments, and agree.

Liberals are really just fascists, and refuse to debate fairly, honestly, or even sanely. They lie as a prinicple. Their modus operandi is to demand three steps, conservatives only let them have one or two, and then they again demand three steps, the conservatives compromise, and let them have one or two, etc etc.

As far as libertarians are concerned, they're just another brand of utopians. They want a perfect world, (perfect for their adolescent fantasies) which maybe could work if everyone except libertarians died, and if human nature was all different.

Without a foundation on moral absolutes, this country (or any other) would be robber barons, cannibals, and child slavery in one generation or less.

[little jeremiah]

This argument about the tape of "Gay Pride" parade public perversion is unbelievable.

1. My spouse lived in SF for years and saw more than one of these parades. (Not on purpose, the roads are closed and it's hard to avoid seeing the crap.) Everything you've read about these parades is true, and understated.

2. I have read numerous eyewitness accounts of these parades and other public excesses. Articles by pro-gay writers, neutral (more or less) writers, and conservative writers. They all agree on the facts - that "Gay" Pride parades contain sexually explicit homosexual acts, simulated and sometimes actual, performed in public.

3. It matters not who filmed the perverse sexual acts. Trying to find bias in the producer of said video is worse than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's in the same league as Clinton dancing around the word "is".

4. The really interesting point here is why tdadams keeps supporting the "gay" agenda. ArGee, me and many others are totally clear about why we oppose it.

[N3WBI3]

lol God took care of that one for me I am allergic ;)

[little jeremiah]

Not only do I abstain from shellfish, I observe kosher since I am a vegetarian! No prob with the shellfish!
;-)

[If someone thinks conservatives are never vegetarian, they're misinformed.]

[philetus]

Because if I did that, I would have to clean the barf off my keyboard every five minutes.

[philetus]

Don't forget "It's Elementary

It’s Elementary is the first film of its kind to address anti-gay prejudice by providing adults with practical lessons on how to talk with kids about gay people. Hailed as “a model of intelligent directing,” It’s Elementary shows that children are eager and able to wrestle with stereotypes and absorb new facts about what it means to be gay or lesbian.

Since it aired on more than 100 public television stations in 1999, It’s Elementary has fueled a growing movement of educators and parents—gay and straight alike—who are committed to preventing pervasive homophobia and anti-gay violence. The film shows what happens when kids in kindergarten through eighth grade discuss lesbian- and gay-related topics in age-appropriate ways. Shot in six public and private schools, It's Elementary models excellent teaching about family diversity, name-calling, stereotypes, community building and more.

It's Elementary has won numerous awards for excellence, has been acquired by nearly 2,000 educational institutions, and has received widespread acclaim from educators, policymakers, parents and religious leaders. Not surprisingly, It's Elementary has also been relentlessly condemned by the religious right.

Since its release, the producers have run a remarkably successful grassroots distribution campaign, intended to make It's Elementary accessible to every conceivable type of institution working with children today. Through this effort, the film has had an unprecedented impact, creating a tidal wave of activism and public dialogue about dealing with lesbian and gay issues in schools.

[I got the rope]

Trolling again I see.

[Fledermaus]

Don't worry, we can smell them a mile away!