|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Johny S. puts his fingers in ears saying La-la-la
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your debating style. You don't seem teachable.
The latest example of Johnny putting his grubby little fingers in his ears and yelling "la-la-la" is on the Eat Fast Food for Jesus thread where not knowing what he's talking about doesn't seem to stop him from making all kinds of judgment calls about the Family Research Council (FRC) and dumping his garbage all over the thread.
Johnny S.: You're either incredibly stupid or disarmingly dishonest.
Over and over again you say you don't know what you're talking about:
quote:
Where does your friend get that information about FRC from? I'd never heard of them before...
quote:
...I know precious little about America. I'd never even heard of the FRC until this new story. And I would never make a judgment call on them based on what google could tell me
...yet that doesn't stop him from making unsourced assertions in 3 of the last 8 posts of the thread. (BTW, Johnny it's not what "google" tells you, it's what the links about them from other mainstream sources tell you, moron.)
If that wasn't bad enough, when people try to educate him on the issue he won't actually respond to what is being told to him.
When I post a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well-known non-profit, anti-hate group used by the FBI, that designated the FRC as a hate group, he dismisses the SPLC as a gay rights organization. Again, a simple trip to Wikipedia (or their mission statement, or the FBI's website) would show that they are not focused on gay rights at all, but (primarily) on anti-racist hate.
When I post a link of an interview with the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg who advocated that homosexuality be recriminalized he said: "Your last link is to a story 'playing hardball with Chris Matthews' that doesn't even mention the story." What story? I used the link to show that the FRC wants to criminalize homosexuality. There is no story. The actual quote from the show is:
quote:
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I certainly...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Peter Sprigg. We know your position. It‘s a clear one.
Exactly as I said.
When I post a link to the FRC site itself which asserts that gay men post a particular threat to children and that gay culture "celebrates paedophilia" as an example of hate, he ignores it altogether. At least be honest enough to argue that this isn't hateful and why, or acknowledge that it is.
Why do you waste our time? If you can't have an honest discussion that is responsive to the actual points that others are making to you, shut the fuck up. If what you're trying to tell us is that your mind's made up, the FRC is just a innocent Christian group who doesn't believe in gay marriage, and that what anyone else has to say about them won't change your mind, fine. Say so and bow out.
You don't have to post if you don't know what you're talking about. Honest. You're not helping. You're just making yourself look stupid or dishonest - you choose. You're certainly wasting everyone else's time.
And what's more: you do this over and over again on the homosexuality threads on Dead Horses to the point where people get exhausted with trying to get you to listen and give up. At this point I'm starting to believe that wearing others out is your goal.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
It seems others have also tried to educate Johnny on the quote from Cathy, the FRC and other items and he laughs and goes on his way thinking he's made a valid point just because he's unaware on all counts and his made up on the spot opinions are valid. What he's doing is judging based on what he thinks people are saying, or what organizations they might cite and not on the facts themselves.
Please Johnny do some actual research on the subject before posting. Not doing so makes you look willfully ignorant and/or stupid. I haven't seen you this bad in any debate before.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
More assertions from someone who admits he knows nothing about the U.S.
quote:
He has made in comments on radio about being pro-traditional marriage but he has never gone on record saying that he is against SSM.
In the U.S. context being "for traditional marriage" means that he's against SSM. What do you think he's talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once.
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about. Shut up already.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
And not half as much fun.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once.
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about. Shut up already.
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
Did you read my post on the other thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.
No, he didn't. It is not a direct quote.
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
Ken Coleman show
Listen to the actual radio show. (Like I did). He did not say what is attributed to him. The reporting is incorrect.
Listen to the show - it is right there in my link (you only have to listen to the interview with Cathy from about 20 minutes onwards).
Once you've actually listened to the original source, then I'm happy to discuss your frustrations raised on this thread about how I don't actually investigate issues and shoot my mouth off when I don't know what I'm talking about.
(Niteowl2 too.)
[ 04. August 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I did listen to the show and you're being dishonest when you're saying that in context, he's not referring to same sex marriage. When people in this country talking about the "redefinition" of marriage and somesuch, that is exactly what they are referring to.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
Ken Coleman show
Listen to the actual radio show. (Like I did). He did not say what is attributed to him. The reporting is incorrect.
Listen to the show - it is right there in my link (you only have to listen to the interview with Cathy from about 20 minutes onwards).
Once you've actually listened to the original source, then I'm happy to discuss your frustrations raised on this thread about how I don't actually investigate issues and shoot my mouth off when I don't know what I'm talking about.
(Niteowl2 too.)
There are several versions of that interview on YouTube. There were parts of the interview that were cut on some videos and complete in all it's anti-gay splendor on others. He said exactly what mousethief stated. I've just listened to two videos where he said we were headed for judgment for having the pride and arrogance to think we could change the definition of marriage: the definition of one man and one woman. One is just him talking, the other has news commentary with just that portion lifted out and played. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIOOZBhHdu4\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlzQFChlltk&feature=related
He also gave an interview to Baptist Press not long ago that pretty much said the very exact same thing. This isn't something he's hiding any more. He's always given money to anti gay organizations and to one organization that has been labled as a hate organization because they tell lies about LGBT, stating they are pedophiles and basically evil. The organization SPLC primarily deals with radism and other forms of hate, so they are not as labelled them a "pro gay" organization. If I'm not mistaken AFR is the only anti-gay organization to get that label.
I loved the way Dan Cathy was open about his organization and trying to serve and build up his customers. Now, it seems, he's going down a different path, though he's always donated to organizations that try to deny LGBT rights.
Everything that has been pointed out to you has been documented. I think it is you who has a lot of reading and listening to do.
To those so concerned about the state of the American family I suggest they focus on the heterosexual family unit as they've a great job of destroying themselves. It wouldn't hurt the heterosexual family one iota to allow the homosexual partners to have a marriage and children. We should support those families as well and ensure they have all they need to make it "til death do us part".
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
You're just wriggling now Dan.
You called me to hell when I said that it wasn't a direct quote. You repeated that it was a direct quote.
The substance of your hell call was that I don't check things out and post in ignorance and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I repeat, it wasn't a direct quote. That was not what he said. On the original thread I agreed that it was easy to deduce his views on SSM from his comments but simply stressed that the way he was quoted was inaccurate. Go back and check the other thread. That is what I said.
I'm happy to discuss my failings but if you are not even going to admit that on the very thing you called me to hell for you were mistaken then there doesn't seem much point.
This whole sad debacle proves exactly what I was posting on the other thread that got you so mad. Google is not your friend. Just because a website or news item reports from an interview something does not necessarily mean that's exactly what was said. Sometimes there is some heavy editing. (Like here.) I understand why you would read that and think it was a direct quote, but the simple truth is that it wasn't. Be careful with your sources.
Right. I'm off to bed. I wish you no ill, indeed I hope you have a good day.
[ETA - I've just noticed that Niteowl2 has posted something so will have to read that tomorrow. Night all.]
[ 04. August 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Your reading skills aren't improving.
I called you to hell because of all the things I laid out in my first post, none of which you have addressed. Perhaps you should try reading it again.
As several people, not just I, have pointed out, Candy's comments were that we were headed for judgment for having the pride and arrogance to think we could change the definition of marriage: the definition of one man and one woman. You seem to be arguing that because he doesn't utter the actual words 'SSM', he can't be talking about it. In fact you wrote: quote:
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
which is, frankly, bullshit, and at odds with you're saying now: quote:
On the original thread I agreed that it was easy to deduce his views on SSM from his comments but simply stressed that the way he was quoted was inaccurate.
The way he was quoted was accurate and anyone familiar with American politics and culture (which you acknowledge you aren't). He's talking about same sex marriage.
Again, the fact that you don't seem familiar with U.S. culture and politics doesn't seem to stop you from making assertions about it. That's the issue. Got it this time?
Meanwhile, you seem to be silent on the FRC. So perhaps I should take that to mean that you approve of their position of asserting that gay men are a particular danger to children, that we should not be protected from housing and job discrimination and that homosexuality should be criminalized. Perhaps in your mind you have reconciled that with professing Christian love for us but, please understand if some of us laugh in the face of any future professions of such love.
You say you wish us no ill will, but will do nothing to speak out against those who do, as if that's substantially different.
[ 04. August 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I've listened to it again and after he talks about family breakdown, he says that we invite God's judgment on us if we "redefine" marriage. Obviously that that point he isn't talking about single parents or family breakdown. He's talking about redefining what marriage is - SSM. Single parents are no longer married at all so it doesn't logically follow.
You would have a stronger case if he said that we were redefining what a family is to include single parents, but he said "marriage" not "family".
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Cathy does train his employees well in servicing customers. I just watched a video of a poor drive up window clerk getting a dressing down from a guy who ordered nothing but free water. You can make your point and still recognize the person in front of you is not responsible for how the corporation spends it's money, and the CEO is entitled to his beliefs as those on the other side are. The employee may or may not share the CEO's belief. Both sides need to make their case civilly. And there's far too many on both sides that aren't.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... Google is not your friend. ...
Quit blaming Google for your ignorance of US culture and your inability to tell shit from shinola. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Why do you waste our time? If you can't have an honest discussion that is responsive to the actual points that others are making to you, shut the fuck up. <snip>
You don't have to post if you don't know what you're talking about. Honest. You're not helping. You're just making yourself look stupid or dishonest - you choose.
<another post>
quote:
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Holy hell. I'm (generally speaking) on your side in this debate, and yet posting obvious lies - like that Mousethief posted a direct quote while linking to sources proving that he in fact did not post a direct quote - just makes you (and by extension 'our team') look either stupid or disingenuous or both.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Where is the lie? Notice what Mousethief put in his quotation marks. Notice what is not in his quotation marks.
Mousethief wrote:
quote:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Is the phrase that Mousethief quoted correct or not?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
No.
"Invites" is not the same word as "inviting."
Which I get is a niggling grammar teacher thing, but sloppy shit like that - particularly when disingenuously attached to a statement about gay marriage that wasn't there - matters.
This Chick-Fil-A crap is starting to rival SlutWalk in its utter stupidity and ability to convince (former)liberals/feminists to switch teams.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning. But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
[ 04. August 2012, 19:04: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to. Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment. Is this your assertion too?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
You should give it a try sometime.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning.
Here's the article:
quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
quote:
But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
It used to be common practice to indicate that one had changed the words in a quote. By writing invit(es), for example.
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn't major, but Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, any number of other media outlets, and basically all liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way, sometimes to include wholesale making shit up because someone might have said that because that's what they obviously mean and doing so "doesn't change the phrase's meaning."
It makes them untrustworthy. Especially when said changes are coupled with the previous paragraph, which supposedly explains his 'real meaning' even though that's not obvious from his actual words.
People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to.
I didn't watch the interview because I'm lazy, I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc.
quote:
Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment.
My italics.
Yes, that is your definition of marriage - a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance. Not a podvig, not a sacrament, not a complementarian fulfillment of ordained Biblical roles, not any number of things that others believe to be the definition of 'marriage'.
That is in itself a redefinition of marriage for a lot of people.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: saysay ]
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning.
Here's the article:
quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
quote:
But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
It used to be common practice to indicate that one had changed the words in a quote. By writing invit(es), for example.
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn'r major, but Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, any number of other media outlets, and basically all liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way, sometimes to include wholesale making shit up because someone might have said that because that's what they obviously mean and doing so "doesn't change the phrase's meaning."
The fact that other (purely liberal) blogs (evidently) may do that in a substantial way doesn't matter. You haven't explained the any difference between "invites" and "is 'inviting'" in this context in a way that makes the saying that Mousethief quoted Candy a lie. He did quote him.
quote:
It makes them untrustworthy. Especially when said changes are coupled with the previous paragraph, which supposedly explains his 'real meaning' even though that's not obvious from his actual words.
It doesn't make anyone untrustworthy unless they alter the meaning from the phrase. Use some common sense. Oh wait...
quote:
People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
And people seem to think that substituting the present continuous tense of a verb for the present tense changes the meaning of a quote in a way that makes it untrustworthy. Bizarre.
quote:
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yes, God is going to send me to hell for the substituting a verb conjugation. Got it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to.
I didn't watch the interview because I'm lazy, I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc.
Really, you too are going to admit you don't know what you're talking about and then waste our time on this?
quote:
quote:
Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment.
My italics.
Yes, that is your definition of marriage - a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance. Not a podvig, not a sacrament, not a complementarian fulfillment of ordained Biblical roles, not any number of things that others believe to be the definition of 'marriage'.
That is in itself a redefinition of marriage for a lot of people. [/QB]
In the context of Candy's talk, which you admit you haven't listened to, this makes no sense whatsoever.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn't major, but... liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way...
It makes them untrustworthy.... People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
Thus mousethief incurs the wrath of the almighty for changing invites to inviting.
What are you smoking?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Thus mousethief incurs the wrath of the almighty for changing invites to inviting.
What are you smoking?
I'm not actually pissed off at mousethief in this context; I'm pissed off at toujoursdan for being a typical liberal asshole and misrepresenting others' opinions. I'm unbelievably angry at all the liberal assholes who do shit like that right now, and I'm pissed off at him in particular as I've been fighting for same sex marriage in the US for more than 25 years and he's making my job more difficult.
To quote Johnny S. from upthread:
quote:
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:45: Message edited by: saysay ]
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
To get pissed off and unbelievably angry over invites vs inviting seems weird to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
How have I misrepresented anyone's opinion?
You just quoted Candy from an article in the Christian Post (a conservative evangelical* publication I might add) that is titled: "Chick-fil-A President Says 'God's Judgment' Coming Because of Same-Sex Marriage." (bold mine) for fuck's sake.
Beyond that you don't even know what his opinion is since you admit you haven't listened to the interview.
quote:
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
There is no incorrect reporting on what he said, just two people who are flailing about trying to offer different opinions on what the "redefinition of marriage" means, that they are pulling out of their arses. He hasn't gone on the record to contradict what people took from his comments from this interview and he has stated the same thing elsewhere.
A few braincells die in my head every time you post. If you are trying to help "our side", please, defect to the other side. It will help us more.
* Statement of faith and mission statement
[ 04. August 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
I'm not pissed off over invites vs inviting, though I'm starting to get annoyed at the fact that you apparently don't know how to read and are deciding what I'm really pissed off about.
It's this: quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I did listen to the show and you're being dishonest
Johnny S. may be wrong, his opinions may have a negative effect on the real lives of real people, he may be ignorant of certain issues, whatever, but does that make him dishonest?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well you've posted so much other stuff on this thread which you seemed to be annoyed about that if that one point was the focus you can hardly blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick.
Certainly the stuff I quoted suggested you were annoyed about the invites/invited thing, and didn't at all mention what you now turn out to be really annoyed about.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Yes, it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to make assertions in the face of evidence that shows that these assertions are wrong - evidence that has not only been presented by me but by others.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well you've posted so much other stuff on this thread which you seemed to be annoyed about that if that one point was the focus you can hardly blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick.
Certainly the stuff I quoted suggested you were annoyed about the invites/invited thing, and didn't at all mention what you now turn out to be really annoyed about.
Fairy nuff.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes, it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to make assertions in the face of evidence that shows that these assertions are wrong - evidence that has not only been presented by me but by others.
Listen to his concern on the original thread:
quote:
Now, I appreciate that the quote you gave is a fair deduction from that so I'm not disputing his views. My point is that there is something disturbing about this story in the way that commentators are doing the editing for us and then putting the words back into his mouth.
Still, as you said, this has nothing to do with his own views but everything to do with corporate lobbying - and that issue should be in the limelight. I agree.
You later responded by saying:
quote:
All of this certainly goes beyond your assertion that the FRC is just a innocent Christian group that happens to oppose gay marriage.
Even though he admitted that he knew nothing about FRC and never asserted that they were just an innocent Christian group that happens to oppose gay marriage. It's sort-of like you're trying to prove his point about people putting words in Cathy's mouth for him by putting words in his mouth.
The FRC may want homosexuality criminalized, but it doesn't follow that Dan Cathy does; am I responsible for everything moronic Planned Parenthood says or does just because I've donated to them because they provide low-cost women's health care to poor women?
OlivaG asserted that
quote:
Of course, the main reason children might not have a mother and a father in his society is because heterosexual couples split up, but that's not what he's talking about. (Or what God is busy judging, apparently.) He doesn't have to mention SSM because that "mother & father" crap is a dog-whistle, a code.
Which you also seem to believe and which goes back to Johnny S.'s original concern that people were putting words in Cathy's mouth. Of course he was speaking in 'code'. If everyone we dislike is actually saying something different from what it seems like they're saying because they're speaking in code all the time, then you can make it seem like people you hate said pretty much anything you want them to say...
And people wonder why a bunch of Christians might make a show out of going to Chick-Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy.
Anyway, I'll take a break from this until I have time to listen to the interview.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And people wonder why a bunch of Christians might make a show out of going to Chick-Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy.
Thank goodness there's nobody stupid enough to try to make cheap political capital out of it.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The FRC may want homosexuality criminalized, but it doesn't follow that Dan Cathy does; am I responsible for everything moronic Planned Parenthood says or does just because I've donated to them because they provide low-cost women's health care to poor women?
You know full well the difference between a few bucks in the tin and a series of major donations from a rich businessman.
And in case you don't: yes, it makes him responsible because he has the clout to make them stop saying and doing moronic things. That's kind of the point of giving a lobbying group a lot of cash - so that they do and say what the donors think.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Again, you're not making any sense at all.
No one has put any words in Cathy's mouth. Both liberal and conservative sites have acknowledged that he was saying that enacting same sex marriage is "inviting God's judgment on this nation". He has never said otherwise.
There are many conservative Christian groups that are against gay marriage that don't publicly assert that gay men pose a particular threat to children, gay culture "celebrates paedophilia" or that homosexuality should be criminalized or have been classified as hate groups. He chose to fund this one. Of course it follows that he thinks these things are true.
You are flailing about. Here's some advice: when you're in a hole, the best thing to do is to shut up and stop digging.
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
[ 04. August 2012, 23:39: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
And you are an idiot as well as a an ass.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
OK.
I will henceforth start telling the Christians I previously argued with on this issue that they are actually right, and that the liberal left is in fact trying to slippery slope them and eventually get Christianity made basically illegal by portraying basic statements of Christian belief (as well as the expression of other unpopular opinions) as "harassment".
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Thanks! It's nice to have a game plan.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
This thread is turning out well.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you are an idiot as well as a an ass.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
OK.
I will henceforth start telling the Christians I previously argued with on this issue that they are actually right, and that the liberal left is in fact trying to slippery slope them and eventually get Christianity made basically illegal by portraying basic statements of Christian belief (as well as the expression of other unpopular opinions) as "harassment".
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Thanks! It's nice to have a game plan.
From your posts it sounds like that has pretty much been your agenda all along. You refuse to see the facts of what Dan Cathy said and refuse to see that the fact he gives to organizations working to re-criminalize homosexuality means he's got agree with said, even if he doesn't say it publicly. And I've got no idea where you got from this thread that liberals have an agenda of slippery slope getting Christianity illegal because the conversation hasn't come anywhere near that. I think you came into this thread to wind people up as you certainly weren't interested in intelligent discussion.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc. ...
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Okay, now that I've got time to get back to this thread it seems to have turned into an even bigger train wreck.
I don't really have that much to add to what saysay said (although I didn't get the bit about the difference between inviting and invites either.)
Thanks to saysay for quoting me from the other thread so I don't need to bother.
I have never disagreed that Dan Cathy does hold these views about SSM only that he has been unfairly reported.
The Coleman show was a piece on fatherhood. The guest before Cathy was a woman talking about, in her opinion, the huge impact father's have as role models to their daughters. Then Coleman interviewed Cathy about his views on fatherhood. In that context, and in a show that never mentions the subject of SSM at all, he gave his quote about God's judgment on how we have abandoned our roles as parents and have tried to re-define marriage.
Is it is fair to deduce his opinion on SSM from the quote? - absolutely, yes.
Is it fair to quote him as saying that SSM invites God's judgment? - Absolutely not. As you say, many people listening would read the bit about redefining marriage as code for SSM, but the context of the whole show was much wider than that - about how (in the opinion of Coleman) society has abandoned the role of father. Yes that would include SSM but it would also include divorce, single parents ... all the other bugbears that rightwing chat shows love to bang on about. To make out that Cathy was specifically talking about SSM in this interview is simply not true.
It has sometimes been pointed out on the ship times when Republicans (and others) misquote people or research in order to bolster their right wing views. I am deeply saddened when that happens. I think it really comes back to bite the conservative position if it turns out, for example, that the research they are basing their claims on is flawed.
That is why I am genuinely surprised that you are digging your heels in on this one. The only thing that has been disingenuous has been the way Cathy's original comments have been reported. Everybody reading that article or listening to the news reports Niteowl2 linked to will automatically assume that he gave a direct answer to a question about SSM. Except he didn't. Yes, the report does accurately reflect his views. But no, that does not justify reporting it like this.
The fact that this kind of reporting doesn't bother you I find disturbing. The fact that you can't see that it causes harm to your cause, likewise. As I said, I am very cautious now. Whenever some conservative makes some quote or jumps into the SSM debate with both feet the first thing I do is check whether they have got their facts straight.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
You should give it a try sometime.
Spiffy! Dear, kind, gentle, sweet Spiffy.
Was just thinking about you last night - noting your absence. Hope you're well. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
This thread is turning out well.
As in a great big hole is opening up that's going to reach the water table? Yep.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Yes that would include SSM but it would also include divorce, single parents ... all the other bugbears that rightwing chat shows love to bang on about. To make out that Cathy was specifically talking about SSM in this interview is simply not true.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Sorry, but this doesn't fly. Yes he was talking about fatherhood and family breakdown, but it's obvious from the interview (and I listened to your interview, not Niteowl's) that he shifted his conversation (as happens frequently in interviews.)
Logically divorce and single parenthood don't "redefine" marriage. Single parents and divorced people aren't married by definition, nor are they agitating to become so legally. Their existence won't alter the definition of marriage.
In U.S. culture and politics "redefining" marriage means gay marriage. That's what the term means here. It's very obvious what he's talking about.
You say you know little about the U.S. yet insist on defining terminology in a way that is foreign to us. That has been my chief complaint all along.
[ 05. August 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Frankly, here in Australia where Johnny and I both reside I would have thought it was fairly obvious that anything about defining/redefining marriage at the moment was about the same-sex marriage debate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Who is the "they" that did something to you and how coterminous is this "they" with the liberal left? And are the liberal left really that monolithic a structure to oppose?
I'm having trouble joining the dots on this thread I must say.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Thank you, OliviaG, for demonstrating my point for me. Your post was a thing of beauty, and I really couldn't have asked for a better example of what I'm talking about...
I'm currently a bit fed up with people who think their own shit doesn't stink. Unfortunately professionals don't stop other people from being jerks.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Who is the "they" that did something to you and how coterminous is this "they" with the liberal left? And are the liberal left really that monolithic a structure to oppose?
I'm having trouble joining the dots on this thread I must say.
"They" in this specific instance would be the people who arrested me and put certain "suspicious" statements I had made in the warrant, including that I thought G-d was trying to tell me something and I wanted to know what G-d wanted me to do (because that's just crazy).
No, "they" are not coterminous with the liberal left in the sense that there's a complete overlap. However, it's all a part of a trend... FIRE documents campus speech codes and free speech violations; there are any number of campuses where insulting or embarrassing someone is forbidden.
The problem, of course, is when the prohibitions against insulting someone are combined with the offenderati: you can't make statements about how adultery is bad (being against one of the ten commandments and all), or divorce is generally bad, or promiscuity is bad, or any number of other things without someone claiming that you called them a bad name and insulted them and/or hurt their feelings, which is of course prohibited.
Throw in security theater and the delusional belief that the world is (or can be) made perfectly safe and the increasing number of laws against any kind of bullying and harassment, not to mention actual laws about raising children and things you must (or cannot) do, and you wind up with huge numbers of people who feel like the people in power are waging an all-out class war against the working class in this country.
No, the 'liberal left' is not a monolithic structure to oppose, any more than 'conservatives' or whatever are a monolithic structure to oppose. I just get tired of trying to change people's minds on certain issues only to have others come along and demonstrate that they have absolutely no respect for them as human beings.
But whatever. ToujoursDan had his illogical rant, Johnny S.. said his piece, and back in the real world a bunch of people's opinions on same-sex marriage are probably even more entrenched because they're sick of being called homophobes and having their actual concerns ignored.
So it goes.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
saysay, that's some singularly confused shit. I think you lost me where you suggested that security theatre is a left-wing plot against the working class.
Er, no.
(edited to add, if you think that the people in charge are left wing, especially in the USA? Er, really no.)
[ 05. August 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
You're under arrest for grammar abuse aggravated by irony (it's people who, thicky.) Anything you say can and will be ignored as stupid. You have the right to remain silent. You probably should, all considered.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Sorry, but this doesn't fly. Yes he was talking about fatherhood and family breakdown, but it's obvious from the interview (and I listened to your interview, not Niteowl's) that he shifted his conversation (as happens frequently in interviews.)
Logically divorce and single parenthood don't "redefine" marriage. Single parents and divorced people aren't married by definition, nor are they agitating to become so legally. Their existence won't alter the definition of marriage.
In U.S. culture and politics "redefining" marriage means gay marriage. That's what the term means here. It's very obvious what he's talking about.
That still doesn't make sense.
If it is so obvious what he is talking about, why not report what he actually said rather than putting words into his mouth?
(It would have been very easy to report his headline quote of "inviting God's judgement" in such a way to make it clear that the reporter was deducing that he was talking about SSM instead of that it was a direct quote on SSM.)
What I'm picking up from you on this thread (particularly from your response to saysay) is that it is okay to misquote someone as long as it is for the cause. Is that fair?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
Thank you, OliviaG, for demonstrating my point for me. Your post was a thing of beauty, and I really couldn't have asked for a better example of what I'm talking about...... .
My mistake. I should have offered you a third choice: you're batshit crazy.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... What I'm picking up from you on this thread (particularly from your response to saysay) is that it is okay to misquote someone as long as it is for the cause. Is that fair?
Look, you two, Dan Cathy is NOT complaining about being misquoted, so there's no actual reason for you and saysay to have your knickers all in a twist. If anything, Crap-fill-er is now exploiting the controversy to boost its business. Dan Cathy opposes CIVIL MARRIAGE for homosexuals. He donates significant amounts of money to organizations that spread lies and even campaign for the DEATH PENALTY in some countries. No amount of grammatical nit-picking or bullshit whining about paraphrasing is gong to change that. Those are his views. Defend them if you wish, but for fuck's sake, quit trying to pretend that he's being misrepresented by teh eevul gayz and their allies. 'Cause he ain't. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
saysay, that's some singularly confused shit. I think you lost me where you suggested that security theatre is a left-wing plot against the working class.
Sigh.
It's not that security theater is a left-wing plot against the working class.
It's that a lot of average people in the US see the world and country as spinning out of control. They want control, at least over their own lives. Many of the government initiatives that affect people's day-to-day lives do in fact come from the liberal left (nanny state).
Yes, I know the left wing in the US are basically right wing in most of Europe.
You can argue that people should support one party over the other because it would be in their best economic interests to do so, but that is not necessarily what they are basing their decision on.
A lot of people on the liberal left really and truly do hate working class culture and the people who participate in it. And they really do hate Christians, and they think that Christianity is a horrible religion that leads to bad things in this country and in the world.
No, there's not necessarily an organized plot, just individual people that your average person has run into, which is why the right gets so much play out of the war on Christianity/Christmas - because almost everyone has run into at least one of those people.
Last month a church I attend occasionally asked people to come in for special prayer days to pray for religious liberty (this was after Obama declared that health insurance had to cover contraception without a copay). Politicians in Boston, Philly and Chicago made official-sounding threats because the owner of Chick-Fil-A expressed an unpopular opinion. Yeah, sure, Cathy donated to FRC and has for years - but that's the thing - he'd been donating for years, but it's only now that people started to pay attention and start calling for a boycott.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
My mistake. I should have offered you a third choice: you're batshit crazy.
You try having a dozen arguments with people who are trying to convince you that your cousin is not actually your cousin because you are so obviously a racist (for talking about state's rights in reference to the drug war, for calling blacks black instead of African-American, for not supporting harsh punishments for students who make a potentially racially insensitive joke, for not supporting the removal of the word nigger from its historical context - all of which makes you completely racist) and your cousin is black and it's just not possible that he is in fact your cousin. It's all the same lefty troll logic. You are a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever because I know you are and there's nothing you can ever possibly do to prove me wrong.
quote:
Look, you two, Dan Cathy is NOT complaining about being misquoted, so there's no actual reason for you and saysay to have your knickers all in a twist.
And the reason I got involved with this thread was not because I was concerned about Dan Cathy being misquoted, but because it seemed like ToujoursDan was misrepresenting Johhny S.'s position. But whatever.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Let's attempt to clear up one misconception in saysay's diatribe: this is NOT a new call for a boycott. Gay people have known about Cathy's donations for years and have boycotted his restaurants, with about the same success that the evangelicals have had boycotting Disney.
As for the rest, I'm just going to walk away quietly...
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
