Oops, sorry, I forgot. When liberals do stupid shit, we’re supposed to just laugh it off.
That was a great post, Epimetheus. I agree all the way.
litost, How about all those scary threads against Jewish people? [see ‘great debates’]. Do you think that to feed stereo-typing Jews and sly accusations towards Israel, helps fighting ignorance? Or do you think these kind of posts will actually feed some sub-concious anti semitism?
Once again, FYI: I’m not Jewish, I’m an atheïst, and a peace-loving left-winger who knows what hating other people can do. No, I shall not use a ‘Godwin’
[btw: As alien as Libertarian’s thoughts are to me, I *do * think he has a good sense of humor.]
You just made this thread a brighter place for me.
The name change is kinda hard to deal with, Libertarian.Why didn’t you change it to something a bit more truthful, like, um, Crazy Fuck?
The fundamental problem is, while we are fighting ignorance on this message board, the Administration and its friends are using their control of the media to spew ignorance across the American culture. Ignorance isn’t just sitting there waiting to be correctly, it’s ACTIVELY FIGHTING BACK and it has a MUCH bigger megaphone than we do.
Why is that “unfortunate?” Assuming that the individual doing the “insulting” is, in fact, right thinking.
Then maybe we shouldn;t say anything bas about anything that anyone does. …
We shouldn’t judge the members of Al Qaeda who sawed off Nick Berg’s head–maybe he was a rude guest to them. Perhaps he threatened them first. … we just don’t know.
The guys who killed Matthew Shephard only did it once and after all, can we judge the entirety of a life by one act? And as a gay man, I’m ashamed that I ever said one mean thing about those poor boys, who were merely expressing their disapproval of homosexuals. If I criticise them, why, I’m just as bad as they are. Just ask the OP.
And shouldn’t we just stop trying to impose racial equality throguh the courts? After all, some white people truly believe that non-whites are inferior to them, and since “It doesn’t matter which side is right or wrong. Each side is 110% convinced of its position which leads to ignorance and hatred on at least one side or both,” shouldn’t we allow segregation to be legal again? Remember that no viewpoint is any more right than any other, according to the OP, so every point of view is just as valid as any other, right?
Oh,
does anyone have Fred Phelps’ address? I want to send him a contribution to further his work. I’m so embarrassed that I ever commented negatively on his campaign to rid America of the plague of homosexuality. He has every right to keep “making his voice heard in accordance with his worldview,” and it’s a shame that any gay person should ever contradict him or attempt to combat his activism.
According to Litost and Liberal, Phelps’ belief that “God hates fags” is as valid ethically and morally (or maybe even more so ) as my belief that I have a right to live in peace and equality, so in the spirit of absolute fairness I’m going to make reparations and help Fred realize his dream.
You’re confusing me, here, Q.
Lib points out that cancer (being a disease) does not qualify as a “natural cause” and you challenge him, pointing out that “natural cause” does not include a specific reason, such as disease.
So, who of the three of us is missing the point, here?
Probably me. I seem to have misread that Wikipedia definition at 3:30 in the morning. I’d always counted disease as a “natural cause”. shrug
My apologies, Lib.
While I don’t think the two are equally morally or ethically valid, I’ll point out that neither statement is ignorant, because, while “God hates fags” is hypothetically a statement of fact, I’ve got no idea how you’d find out if God actually does, and “Gobear has a right to live in peace an equality”, is a value statement, not a factual one.
And, as my personal view, while it’s ok to criticize actions, I do find it kind of distasteful to say “X died and I’m glad he’s dead”, whomever X might be.
I am sorry but I don’t see where I ever mentioned what you have just claimed. In fact, I haven’t mentioned homosexuality or moral equivalence in any of my posts. Libertarian gave his personal perspective on the OP. Why are you lumping me with what he said? 
I have been talking about the bunker mentality fueled by ignorance and hatred. In the fight for securing rights for homosexuals, the ignorance and bigotry solely rests on the side opposing it. There is no moral equivalence.
Epim…, Great post which gives us all hope.
This led me to think you saw no diference between pro and anti. Glad to see your clarification.
litost When I quit drinking, I learned this:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
It is the central belief adopted by AA and it is the center of my existance. For the record, they didn’t invent it and they don’t own it. A guy named Bill said this is wise and spread it. It is called the Serenity Prayer and I have considered it for many hundreds of hours of the last 17 years of my life. I have learned that the only person I can really change is the man in the mirror and that’s damned hard sometimes. I try to be well informed and knowledgeable, sometimes I fail. I try to pass factual information to other people, sometimes they learn, sometimes not. Ignorance is ramapant across our little planet, I cannot change that but one bit at a time, often I fail.
There could be ignorance on at least one side or both. But, the bunker mentality seems to exist on both sides. While I hope none of us develop a siege mentality that could potentially lead to hatred, I am more concerned about the hatred that stems from ignorance. Ignorance of plain facts and history. Ignorance that comes from being intellecually lazy. Ignorance that comes from being fanatical and jingoistic.
I think Lib was protesting the hatred and bunker mentality on its own, independent of the relative merits of the individual positions. I wish I could say what he said with conviction, but I can’t, not with my own personal shortcomings. But, that would be an ideal we should work towards, as hard as it could be for those who are in the right.
gobear, you don’t have to hate your opponents to be politically active and oppose them, right?
No, I don’t have to hate them, but I also must never forget that they hate me.
Laughing off stupid shit never killed anybody. And I think you tend to keep your criticism on one side of the aisle.
Does that mean you hate them in return?
(Let me reiterate that I strongly believe that your fight is for a just cause)
Did you read what I wrote?
I said, “No, I don’t have to hate them,”
What part did you not understand?
No.
I,
Don’t
Have
To
Hate
Them
So, does not hating them mean that I should sit, hands folded, and do nothing? Because, you know, that if I were to defend my rights as a citizen that might hurt someone’s feelings.