Actually, a majority of the US believes homosexuality should be accepted. Hardly “pathologically hostile”.
Baffling? Baffling that I think that beating on a kid to toughen him up can be done by anyone, whether they think the kid’s likely to be gay or not - and that I think it’s much more important to focus on the wrong-headed toughening up than arguing that this terrible tragedy only serves to highlight the evil that is homophobia, and that if there was no homophobia then things like this wouldn’t happen, and won’t someone please think of the children? That’s baffling? If someone beats a red-headed stepchild to death, I focus on the “child” part and don’t start trumpeting about society’s attitude to the red-headed. Call me odd.
Oh dear, Otto thinks I’m an utter shit. :rolleyes: Fortunately, I pass this evaluation through the filter that the person I’m being evaluated by will argue himself blue in the mouth that collecting someone’s pubic hairs from a urinal and putting them in one’s mouth while masturbating is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. What drips out of the other end of the filter convinces me that your evaluation is not one I need greatly to concern myself about.
SteveG1,
May I direct your attention to post #59 in this thread?
First, fuck your “special treatment” bullshit rhetoric. Second, it strikes me that it’s not the people who expect to be treated decently in spite of differences who are fragmenting society. Seems to me it’s the people who insist on treating the “subsets” differently (by, say, beating suspected members of the subset to death) who are causing the fragmentation.
Fuck your “special treatment” rhetoric, part two. And your assertion that hate crimes legislation feeds the so-called persecution complexes of oppressed people is just bizarre.
What if those who appear gleefully taken by the idea of prison justice only do so because pushing the death penalty technically falls under “wishing death on someone”?
Did I SAY we could prevent everything from happening? No, I did not. I am saying that what we have learned about human nature in past generations has helped society advance. (At one time, people with mental illnesses were thought to be posessed by demons. Racism used to be acceptable.)
Sorry, I just find the criminal mind fascinating. I always want to know WHY someone acted a certain way.
Or are just plain opposed to the death penalty?
Personally, I don’t think the death penalty is less moral then vigilante justice in any meaningful way, and I find both disgusting.
Yes, it is completely baffling that you seem incapable of comprehending that the toughening up in this case (which in case you missed it is the case under discussion) is rooted in homophobia.
Gee, somehow, a number of other people have managed to decry both the death and the underlying homophobia that fueled the death. If there were institutionalized societal loathing of the red-headed, and a child was beaten to death for fear that he might grow up a carrot-top, then I’d be able to condemn both the death and the attitude that contributed to it.
Is there some reason why you’re so invested in discounting the role that the attitudes toward homosexuality that this person absorbed from society played in the death?
And yet you’ve concerned yourself with it so greatly that you’ve dredged up something completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand in an attempt to deflect the discussion away from your need to discount the role of homophobia in this death.
Your poll says that a bare majority - 51%- say that homosexuality should be “accepted.” No definition is given for accepted. The majority still overhelmingly oppose things like same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. A lot of people think that they are being “accepting” if they don’t advocate physical violence.
Sorry, I think your poll is meaningless. I’ll stick with pathologically hostile.
Except prison justice is reportedly a myth.
“Pathologically hostile” is just as meaningless, especially if you consider a lack of support for same-sex-marriage to be pathologically hostile.
Er–is it a myth, or is its prevalence a myth? I thought that it was MUCH rarer then people thought, but that it did happen?
It’s hostile because it’s an attitude that gay people should not have the same civil rights as everyone else. I say it borders on pathological because so many people seem so consumed with it. Tapping into that hostility helped tilt the last election. It’s pathological to want to change the constitution over it. It’s pathological because there’s no rational basis to care even a little bit if two guys want to get married. It’s pathological because such a trivial issue gets treated as though it has the utmost importance. The intensity with which the religious right hates gay people is pathological.
And it’s not just here. Look at Israel. It’s amazing that the one thing that denominationally conservative) Christians, Jews and Muslims can all get together and agree on is to hate homosexuals.
I don’t know if it’s a fucked up thing to think or not, but I wholeheartedly agree. And that exact same feeling is why I advocate choice by extension (tangentially, of course – no hijack intended) is because their life under the circumstances would be far worse than the relatively temporary state of their death.
Furthermore, I do think that all crimes of this nature are sick and should be punished by the ultimate extreme of the law. However, I also see it as a hate crime, one perpetuated by prejudice, ignorance and fear, and should thereby be distinguished above and beyond your typical psychotic break from reality. Same as the previously mentioned FGM or, as a throwback to any violent physical discrimination, et al., against person(s) of differing religion, political stripe, etc.
According to Lissa, it depends on if the perp is a man or a woman. If it’s the former, as in this case, the chances for prison justice is virtually nil.
I notice that so many people who offer “better off dead” arguments on either side of the political aisle aren’t ever in much of a hurry to shuffle off this mortal coil themselves.
It’s an umpersuasive argument, to me, and given the importance many people place on human life, even offering it tends to offend. I don’t know that I’d want to build a case on this.
What would have been better is for this child to have had a happy life with a normal family. I think we can all agree on that one.
I wonder if this scum would have killed his kid if he didn’t appear to be Gay?
Duly noted.
Well, not that you’d know me in the vast array of posters here, especially of the much more intelligent and interesting variety, but the very last thread I posted was my desire for that very thing. Given my life as it has been for the last decade, I’d rather have been aborted than for it to go on the way it has, wrecking almost everything in its path. But that’s neither here nor there. Just a fact from my own personal (recent and long-term) history, so at least my data of one is a counter-point to your opinion.
I apologize for it being offensive, however, I view the same attitude from the opposite side of the fence (that life of any sort – not saying this your belief – is better than death) is, not necessarily offensive itself, but saddening, frustrating, and IMHO, not very well thought-out. Obviously, YMMV.
We are in agreement on this. But the sad reality is that there are far too many children who suffer fates like this and then (in some cases) become adults who unfortunately repeat the pattern, ad naseum. That’s why I’d advocate, for myself if I were mentally stable enough to feel compelled to do so, adoption over having my own child. Lots already here that need to be saved instead without adding more and letting those languish. Again, that’s just what I think though.