I meant “is not bashing her.”
“bringing in” does not equal accusation of “bashing”, either.
Okay, I see. Well, not wearing shoes, you can get ringworm that way, can’t you? And plantar warts, which I’ve HAD, thankyouverymuch, and are disgusting and painful. Oh well, I just hope they wear sunscreen! :eek:
But like I said-I’m not a huge fan of parades, anyways.
Oh, and I like weird people. Weird people are cool.
Several other times when you’ve targetted me, I’ve asked what I can do to set things right. How can I mend fences.
The reason I asked was because I was pretty sure you were doing what you do because you like to do it.
I figured if it was really about the issue you would accept or at least acknowlege an attempt at amelioration.
On both occasions you completely ignored it.
I saw you similarly ignore other people when they try to reconcile which is what gave me the thought to try it myself.
So, the fact that you attack a lot of people. That your reasons tend to be thin, that you are not interested in reconciling, all point pretty strongly to the idea that you do this for no other reason than as a sadistic outlet.
You’ve demonstrated pretty clearly that you’re not interested in mutual respect and consideration.
You just like to hurt people, and you need an excuse to hide that fact from yourself.
Today’s excuse is my “straight white male sensibilities.”
I don’t take it personally.
By the way, I haven’t congratulated our happy marryin’ couples yet, since I just heard. Matt, you know I’ve always taken a paternal interest in you, especially the part where I ignored you for a year :rolleyes:, and I am so happy for you that you have found your one-and-only. Scott, I don’t know you so well (though I recall welcoming you when you joined) but I am still very happy for you. Marriage can be tough but it can also be fulfilling. Being pioneers can also be hard and I hope you guys and your partners can find the strength to make gay marriage a fact of daily life, not something that is exotic and scary.
A 1992 New York Supreme Court ruling also stated that women in the state can go topless anywhere men can.
Desmostylus said:
Grow the fuck up, junior. You win no points with shit like this and just succeed in making yourself look like a blind partisan hack.
(And Scylla -… how you doin’?)
Who_Me?, I’m pretty sure I know what you mean.
A few years ago I went to a Pride festival in Brighton (England) with some friends of mine and a part of their extended poly-family. And part of the comment I made then, and something I still retain, is that the people there were exuberantly themselves. It didn’t matter if they were the couple with the stroller or the guys with shaved heads and spangled platform shoes strutting on a float – they were all fully present, all there, and not afraid to be who they were.
The energy of it was amazing. It’s something that’s stuck in my mind under the tab for “People are really beautiful.”
Sodomite, please. That wasn’t what you were doing.
Do tell, breeder. Do tell.
Mojo, you’re aware, I’m sure, of the general concensus that a black man is allowed to call another a “nigger” without offense, but a white man would find himself in dire straits if he did the same.
That holds true for gay folk, too. We can self-mockingly call ourselves sodomites or fags or fairies or swishes. In the mouth of a heterosexual, especially when it appears to be intended as insult, it’s unacceptable. In other words, (checks the forum this is in) go fuck yourself.
While I disagree with the tone of Mockingbird’s arguments over the last two pages of this thread, and don’t think Scylla deserves quite the lambasting he’s gotten, I won’t stand by silently while someone directly addresses a fellow homosexual with the gay equivalent of “nigger” or “kike”. Disagree with Mockingbird to your heart’s content. Examine his motives with an electron microscope. But kindly refrain from perpetuating confrontational fighting words like that. Thank you.
And Mockingbird, do we have to stoop to that level too?
No, not always.
They don’t win out whenever blind prejudice and hate are institutionally allowed to be expressed coercively. They don’t win out whenever sorry workers get legislative favor, nor when incompetent businesses get government subsidies, nor when the peaceful and honest exercise of a talent might result in retribution either by government or by a neighbor.
When you are free to choose, do you not choose quality over worthlessness? Do you not yourself prefer a competent customer service rep over an incompetent one? Wouldn’t you rather spend your own money to see a great talent than a talentless hack? How in these things are you different from almost anyone else?
Trouble brews whenever the law says that the playing field must be leveled so that the incomptetent business may compete with the competent one, and the shoddy work may get equal market share with the quality work, and the man without talent may have equal time singing as the trained opera singer.
No man with quality, competence, and talent needs a “level playing field”. He needs freedom. As has been said, free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
It’s my wife. I’m not worried about it. In fact, I think it tends to prove my point.
If you go after him based on sexual preference, than he’s rightly aggrieved instead of dead wrong.
Don’t give him that excuse.
I’m sorry, Libertarian, but I just don’t trust humanity enough to adhere to a completely libertarian philosophy.
Besides, you have those giant intelligent squid cluttering up your side. Ewww… 
Hmmm…I’d always wondered what they meant when they said “trainwreck”
Is anything being accomplished here? Seriously.
Well, I helped blanx understand pride events and stop feeling oogy about them. I think that counts. 
Otherwise, no. We have an argument that originated in another thread and oozed over this way, engendering rhetorical mitosis and splitting into two identical but separate arguments. While scientifically interesting, this served no purpose but to cause hard feelings between people who usually get along, at least to an acceptable level of civility.
Final analysis: the argument hijack gets an F.
Interestingly, my friend, it is precisely because I do not trust humanity that I advocate a completely libertarian philosophy. If the haters and bigots were restrained from initiating their force and fraud upon me, this l’il Injun would get along just fine. 
And so would you.
Then, clearly, the right thing to do is to Get down and boogy oogy oogy.
This is a nice theory, but in real life is the difference in quality always so extreme?
I think bigots would be able to minimize the quality difference in their minds.
Then let them. So what? Let them be free to patronize the lesser, just as you would be free to patronize the greater.