How do I hate MC? thread, Part Two

This is a continuation of How do I hate MC? Let me count the ways . . .

The other thread was closed due to excessive length; if you wish to continue to discuss the topic, please do so in this thread.

Wow. It must have been a whole lot of ways.


Jesus, John, another TENNIS thread? Pathetic, why don’t you just start a tennis thread in another forum for chrissakes.

MC? I kinda hated him in the '80s—those ridiculous parachute pants! But I’m over it . . . Unless you mean Mae Clarke? Jimmy Cagney hated her enough to shove a grapefruit in her face, but I never had anything against her.

      • The point of this thread was to demonstrate that different people have different opinions of the same behavior, and to assume that this is a “problem” to be “solved” is to imply that one’s own opinions were superior to others.
  • You have said it yourself: “… Every time someone joins a mob mentality…” - Why would anyone join a mob mentality in the first place? Because individuals develop prejudices, and then form a group based on matching prejudices. Divergent individuals do not form a group, and then settle on a prejudice to share. - MC

Call me crazy, but it’s my conclusion that an opinion that homosexuals are simply people to be treated like any others until they harm someone is superior to an opinion that homosexuals are perverted child molestors. The former, you see, is the opinion of an intelligent person, while the latter is the opinion of a blinkered moron.

You know, I’m really only into how MC reached 1900 posts without my noticing his or her existence. I saw the first thread and figured, “gotta be a newbie who’s pissed someone off”. Check into it and bang(!) no newbie there!

Am I just blind or something? This better not be another of those damn handle change things. Those are beginning to annoy me.

  • Jonathan “Corn-Fused” Chance

Jonathan Chance said:

Nah, I don’t think it was a handle change. Up until now I was pretty much able to ignore him too, because most of his posts I’ve seen were bizarre handy-like one liners in Great Debates that didn’t really make much sense.


All bolding mine.

Again you flaunt your ignorance as a three year old might flaunt a booger he just picked. …

Look again at the definition above. You are posting here with a proud air, of your prejudice against homosexuals. You tell us that you are proud of the fact that hold these prejudices. Your above quote seems to imply that you’d like to form some sort of club so many bigots can get together and share their prejudices with each other.
Jesus, you got a white sheet handy?
You keep embracing “prejudice”, is it any wonder why you’re being flamed?

I’ve gotta get out more. I saw the original thread title and wondered a) Why did pun hate MasterCard so much? and b) Was it bad enough to warrant six pages?

Now, I see my error, carry on.

The point of my original thread, in fact, was to call you out for the (willfully and deliberately, as it turns out) ignorant piece of trash you’ve shown yourself to be in a few threads now.

To your second “point”: I assume that since my opinions are derived from fact and yours are not that I have more of a reason to think I’m factually correct than you. Leap of faith, I know, but bear with me . . . if I have facts from unbiased sites and you have people picking and choosing to figure out some ass-backwards way of supporting their bigoted assertations . . . yeah, I guess it does seem as though I think my own opinion is superior to yours.:rolleyes:

What? I seem to remember a distinct group of people in high school (most of the school, actually) acting in a prejudiced way toward a particular student because he was gay. And certainly there are glaring years of American and European hitsory that shine forth as periods of group prejudice. Perhaps the years 1935-1946 (or thereabouts) have escaped your mind?

Because I couldn’t pay my damn tuition bill on the phone because of them! Rat bastards!

Jonathan, I was surprised myself to see someone who’s been around here longer’n I have spouting such amazingly ignorant and bigoted bullshit.

Y’know, I may well be the occasional queen of Beating Things To Death and Not Letting Things Go (ask around), but c’mon. This guy is not going to (a) allow anyone else to have the last word or (b) admit that he is wrong.

There are certain people who will refuse to acknowledge that anything other than pearls of wisdom could possibly fall from their lips. You can present such people with cogent arguments, reasoned analysis, and even out-right evidence that they are incorrect, and they will look through or past it all because hell will freeze over before they will admit that they might . . . possibly . . . be . . . well . . . [sub]wrong[/sub].

Those of you still attempting to discuss this matter with MC, may I suggest you whack yourselves in the head a few times with the nearest heavy object. You will have achieved the exact same result and saved yourself all the pesky typing.

      • Please quote the actual text, anywhere I said that all homosexuals are perverted child molesters.
  • I did argue that many people have preferences about whom their children spend time around, and that everybody has different ideas about what constitutes “undesirable” behavior. Can you prove either of these points false?
  • As I see it, you are trying to make a simple connection out of a complex situation that I am not, and did not intend. - MC

In the original thread that started all this over here you said (bolding in the following quote is mine)

As I read it, in that comment you have, based on our putative scout leader’s sexuality and no other factor, stated that he is a high-risk individual. It’s as obvious as a large rock dropped from a high place landing on your head that, to you, gay = high risk for being a child molester.

Of course people have preferences about the people their child(ren) spend time with. Nobody here is arguing that. Rather, we’re arguing that first statement, the one that equated being gay with probably being a child molester.

Yes, there are people out there with whom your kids shouldn’t associate. However, the fact that someone is gay does not automatically mean they belong on that list.

      • You are oversimplifying: I said that would be a likely reason that the parents would sue the BSA, not that it was true. -“This isn’t about truth and justice, it’s about lawyers and juries.”
  • Uh, incorrect: the concept that groups give rise to individual thoughts does not bear logical extension, and has never been demonstrated.
  • Whose facts are you ignoring? Only 10 U.S.C 2544 specifically mentions a special priveledge exclusive to the BSA- the other examples you gave not only mention other groups by name, but also leave open the possibility of including yet more groups in the future. -And the court decision noted allowed discrimination, for whatever reasons. That buck stops there. - MC

Jodi: I doubt anyone here actually expects to convince MC of anything, but considering that between this thread and the original thread there have been more than six thousand views, there’s a good chance that someone with a more open mind (or any mind at all, for that matter) might come along and catch one or two of the clues that have been flying around in here. The thing to remember in debates is that it’s not your opponent your talking to, it’s your audience. So I think there is good reason to keep arguing. In that spirit,

**MC wrote:


Exclusive? Who said anything about exclusive? The point is that the Boy Scouts are specifically mentioned, which means (if I’ve been following this right) that they have a sort of official government sanction. Since they have discriminatory practices, this means the government is in effect condoning those practices. The fact that other organizations are mentioned in the same bill would only be relevant to this discussion if those other organizations were also discriminatory. The fact that the court upheld discrimination is merely a further perpetuation of the injustice, not an excuse for it.

MC, you said:

“your kid gets molested by a gay scout leader while on a camping trip.”

Two lines later, referring to that gay scout leader, you said:

" . . . someone who was a high-risk individual . . . "

This indicated to me and to a lot of other people that you felt that homosexuals were more likely than other individuals to molest kids (more specifically, young boys). We’ve had many, many other people who shouted this at us (along with other things which you, fortunately, haven’t said yet) and we keep giving them the evidence to contradict this assertation, just as we did in the previous thread.

If you’re going to assert that this feeling of a gay man being more likely to molest boys is the feeling of the parents of said boy (and not your feeling as well), then that’s something else, and not clear in the wording and language you used.

Given that the BSA doesn’t do criminal background checks, and that one can lie on their test for scout master applications (as waterj2 and I discussed in the previous thread), I think they’ve got bigger things to worry about than a demographic that is statistically less likely than heterosexual men to molest young boys.

If there is harmony within that group, that’s one thing; why would anyone feel the need to go outside the protective layer of a group that worked well together?

If, however, there isn’t . . . if there are people trying to be leaders or to escape . . . in other words, if there is no harmony, or less than in the first example, does it not then follow that this situation would be conducive to individual thought?

And he wasn’t arguing opposite that these were things specifically given to the BSA. What pldennison was saying, I think, is that the notion that the BSA is purely a social organization, which you put forth here:

is not accurate in light of the governmental sponsorship it receives.

If memory serves, MC had about 40 posts before someone mentioned camping. It all got a bit Pavlovian after that.
BTW, I come across the word ‘toggle’ a lot these days in relation to 'puter programmes. Reminds me of my youth: Do American scouts have toggle’s as well ?
Happy camping !

Aren’t they called woggles?

And, in case you were wondering, I’ve noticed MC several times in the past, usually either posting about how unprofitable rail service is or about arguments for and agaist Linux, as compared to Windows.

As for this debate, I’ve left enough questions for him in the last thread that have never been answered, so I’m really not going to bother trying to argue anymore.

      • Actually I have been around a while,but only a few peole such as pldennison would really know that…
  • By the by, I notice my post count hasn’t changed, while (for instance) iampunha’s was 5425 in the OP of the other “me” thread while in this one, just a couple posts above, it’s 5420, so I dunno what’s up with that-? In my case, it shows the right date, but my post count seems to be stuck at 1940… so I dunno how high it is. I know they copied the post counts off of the AOL site, and they changed board software at least once since then. They asked if people wanted to show their counts or not, and I beieve I said no, so it may have been frozen at the present count at the time, but that don’t explain why imp’s went backwards.
  • Counts are fairly meaningless anyway; some people have built up large post counts in the space of just a couple months, while some long-timers have relatively few. You can get thrown off the board for racist remarks though (among other reasons) and it has happened.
    I have been around a long time, though. - MC