Show post

Therumancer #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

One statistic increasingly being outed, despite all the odds, that semi-relates to this is the defense that gay men are statistically proven to not be more likely to attack children than straight men. Criticisms of some of those studies, largely fueled by anger over groups like NAMBLA (look them up) have lead to some of those studies being examined to find that typically the stats are compiled by using "homosexuals" in general rather than gay men, even if it's spun to look that way. Meaning they toss lesbians into the mix as well. Given than lesbians are not known to attack children, just as women in general are far, far less likely to committ violent crimes, become seriel killers, or whatever, this leads to a lot of those studies being themselves rendered irrelevent. If you look at a population that was doubled to begin with, you wind up with a lot of numbers that show gay men as being twice as likely (at least) of going after children. Liberals hate this point, as does the gay rights movement, but it's a pretty solid criticism, and again you'll notice NAMBLA is named after gay men, not after Lesbians and engages in direct activism on the subject, and does things like hire lawyers to protect child molesters... being successful enough at it, where one casino I worked for (which was at the time the largest in the world... Foxwoods) was actively intimidated by them and adjusted it's policies accordingly. Basically they got to the point where they would rather some kid get dragged off and molested, or raped to death in the woods outside, than deal with the suits from preventing such things. That's not how they stated it of course, but that's the bottom line. One of the reasons why I've ever looked into those statistics a while back, or no as much about NAMBLA as I do.

Show post

hyenathepirate #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

Here's a question.

A boycott against Card for allowing his personal beliefs to define himself as a public figure might be justifiable depending on which side of the argument you fall on.

But what about the other people who don't share Card's point of view that are involved in the film that could be hurt by the boycott? The actors. The producers. The special effects people.

This isn't just a film, it's also a livelihood for a bunch of people. Funny how it's NOT okay for someone to have a negative personal belief but it IS okay to collaterally harm ANYONE that might be associated with that person..

So yeah, I think tolerance is in order. After all, tolerance doesn't have to have conditions. Being tolerant means RESPECTING someone's opinion. Even if they weren't tolerant. You can't play fast and loose with the definition so that it suits your liking. You can't DEMAND tolerance and then turn around and be overtly INTOLERANT.

It really is that simple.

Edit: Another thought occurs to me. People overestimate the pro-gay equality lobby. More people could care less if Gays get married as it doesn't effect them. That doesn't mean they actually support homosexuality or even like gays, just that they don't support restricting them.

But you know what people support more? People's RIGHTS TO BELIEVE what ever they WANT.

I'll cite you one prominent and recent example: CHICK FIL-A. Remember how everyone was gonna boycott them because one guy in their corporation said he disagreed with gay marriage when asked point blank about it in an interview? Does anyone remember how that turned out?? In fact, didn't the reverse happen and they ended up with FAR more support than ever and the boycott suffered a public and humiliating defeat?

Yeah, the last thing I think anyone wants to do is turn this movie into a blockbuster smash hit not because the story and visuals were breathtaking cinema, but simply because butts got put in seats due to political controversy.

You are in the fortunate position where your rights are not subject to debate, political will and the vagaries of whether the voting public likes where the economy is going right now. You are in the fortunate position where somebody saying they hate your face and are going to make it illegal for you to walk around with a paper bag over your face will never actually be able to conceivably make it so.

I happen to be black american, bisexual, and Mormon.

Trust me, I know what it is to be on the receiving end of intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination.
Thing is, I also recognize that people in this world won't always agree with me as I don't agree with THEM on a great many things. People will always form little groups against things they don't like. Peta doesnt like me eating animals. They will never stop trying to make me stop eating meat. Many people hate religion. They try to reduce religion and even eradicate it from areas of society, at least public ones. They feel it is their right.
But it's also the right of those people to believe what they believe and to act on them.

Is it moral? That's a matter of opinion.

Like I said before, it's really a simple thing. You either believe in true freedom for people to believe whatever they wish or you believe that only one opinion can ever be considered valid on a subject, and often that opinion will only be the one that you share.

Show post

Therumancer #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

The more reasonable, non-religiously driven, right wing majority like me, well we aren't a factor because we don't have the media power to be heard an any large scale, we pretty much write message boards like this to make our noise, and sadly few of us bother to come into hotbeds of opposition like I do to express their viewpoints as opposed to engaging in a lot of back patting in friendlier enviroments.

As far as the gay/lesbian thing goes, I won't get into it in detail, but as I mentioned it's more pervy than hypocritical. I just haven't gone into a full run down on homosexuality and what I think of it in general. In short I do not define "homosexuals" as all being the same thing, men and women are differant, and gays and lesbians are differant. One of the problems with dealing with the "gay rights movement", compiling statistics, and setting fair policies is specifically that people lump it all together as opposed to dealing with gays and lesbians as two entirely differant issues, with two very differant outlooks, subcultures, and behavior patterns, that are rarely allied for anything other than political power. Gays and Lesbians don't exactly group up together "in the wild" like they do during rallies and shows of political unity. To make one point, when is the last time you've seen, or even really heard of a lesbian stalking and molesting a young girl, or a mother raping her daughter, or whatever else. It HAS happened, but not very often in reality. Now how many times have you seen or heard about it with men? You do a quick search you'll find tons of stuff about gay child molesters and predators but very little about lesbians. Likewise accross the spectrum women are more likely to kill their offspring/dependants when they go off the deep end, than sexually molest them over a period of time. As I said, there are exceptions, but that's one big pattern. Working casino security for a pretty long time I literally chased scores of creepy guys away from the little boys in the arcade, I did not have a single incident of finding a woman trying to lure little girls away or anything. It's not a point many people on the leftward side of things like to hear, but think about it sometime. You do a job like I did and you'll see the differances first hand as well in who you have to step in to deal with. Basically, chances are if I thought Lesbians represented a threat, I wouldn't be pervy towards the idea, especially seing as by their nature girls who like girls want nothing to do with me. :)

Show post

hyenathepirate #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

Being tolerant of intolerance is a paradox. If someone goes up to you and tells you he hates your face and is going to make it illegal for you to walk around in public without a bag over your head, you aren't going to respect this man's "Belief"/"Ideas".

You are going to tell him to fuck off and take his bullshit somewhere else.

Yes, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life trying to destroy HIM for HIS beliefs. I'm going to tell him to go away and leave it at that. I'm not going to start a MOVEMENT to ruin his career, his life, or anything else. WHY should I? Because it is hypocritical, and I don't understand how people just don't get that.

If someone offends me by trying to marginalize me, if I try to marginalize him in return, how am I no worse than he?
Again, Tolerance is not a two way street. It does NOT have to be reciprocated. You know what makes me the better man? Letting HIM have his beliefs, and me not CARING about it.

Gay rights organizations protest and do things based on their belief that there is nothing wrong with being gay.
Why is it not acceptable for anti-gay believers to do the same thing? Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong morally? If one side should not dictate morality, neither should the other.

This is why I always say that equality, fairness, and tolerance are false ideals. Because you can NEVER truly have ANY of those things, since people will always try to impose their side onto the other.

How are you destroying him? Are you actively hindering him in his work? He can write anything he wants, whenever he wants, I just won't buy it. The same way I will not buy anything off the guy in my example.

Then what is the point of the boycott? If it is not to cause him harm, it has no other purpose then and is simply the act of being vindictive for vindictiveness's sake.

Choosing not to involve yourself with him or his work due to a personal disagreement with his beliefs is one thing. To do so ONLY because of his beliefs and because OTHERS are doing it as well makes it revenge.. a "punishment." When you punish, it means you are attempting to impose your authority onto someone else.
When you do that, you are no longer the oppressed but the oppressor.

Show post

Imperioratorex Caprae #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

[on boycotting a homophobe]

The issue I have is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't go one way in the tolerance aspect. If you wish to be tolerated for your views, you must also tolerate views you don't agree with. Like him or not, boycotting him for disagreeing whether bigoted or just plain "I don't care for it" isn't being tolerant. Treat others as you want to be treated is a good standard to live by. Boycotting works by a man who doesn't agree with something thats a hot-button issue doesn't solve the problem, and it is detrimental to the cause they're trying to support. You may not like what he has to say, but he damn sure has the right to say it, just like you have the right to be contrary to the "accepted norm".
Catching more flies with honey and all.
Martin Luther King had it right. He didn't go all aggro on people who hated on him, he took the higher road and accepted that there would always be people who didn't see or agree with his point of view.
In my humble opinion, tolerating assholes and not lowering yourself to arguing and hating on them for having a contrary point of view doesn't solve anything and only causes more strife and drama.
We'll never get over racism, sexism, homophobia and the like because there will always be people who just can't take it. I feel Mr. Card is conceding defeat on this issue and asking people to just let it go, which is classy even if he is a homophobe. He has said inflammatory things, but I've also heard people on the gay rights side of the fence say equally incendiary things against "breeders". There are bigots on both sides, and until we learn as a species to take to heart the free speech ideal that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the hate and debate will perpetuate.
The best way, in my view is to accept that there will be detractors to your viewpoint, there will be haters (haters gonna hate) and lashing out at them isn't going to make it better. Taking the stance of "I respect your right to have an opinion but I don't agree" is the only way we can move on from these childish tantrums. I understand that people on the LGBT side feel oppressed when someone speaks out against their lifestyle, but if they want to be accepted they in turn have to accept that not everyone will feel comfortable with it. When it goes beyond the opinion into the realm of straight up oppression, then there is a problem. But it must be handled with grace and civility.
Personally I believe what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business but the people involved. I may not always agree with it, but I accept it is a "thing" and move on with life. I may from time to time say how I feel about it, and I have that right to express my feelings. But I also feel I must do so in a way that doesn't trash those I don't agree with. I expect the same respect from the people I don't agree with.
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Paraphrased from Voltaire.

Show post

Ksarty #homophobia v1.escapistmagazine.com

Tell him he is a douche who can't wrap his head around acceptance, and the fact that its the 21st century, and that stuff like gay people are normal. It would suck if they were heterophobic. Imagine that...

Well then you have a prejudice against homophobes, so you too would be a douche. He has every right to dislike the idea of homosexuality. Its only when he actually seeks to harm gays based on his beliefs that he would be in the wrong. Its perfectly fine in my mind to dislike homosexuals.

Show post

Jojo #fundie v1.escapistmagazine.com

. I may get some flack for this but I don't see animals as having more than the most rudimentary of rights and so I believe that bestiality should be legal as long as the animal isn't severely injured, after-all we allow meat products, hunting, fur clothing... particularly the last two we could easily live without.

Show post

Jojo #fundie v1.escapistmagazine.com

I agree, while there are still countless humans being hurt or dying terrible deaths every day I find it hard to get worked up about the crimes committed against mere animals. It certainly isn't worth killing a real living human over. Why waste our tax money on extra-long sentences for animal abusers when those places could be used instead to give murderers or rapists longer prison times? What she did was obviously wrong but I'm happy with the current laws as they are.

Or perhaps you improve on both laws?

I fail to see why we cannot try to prevent Human and animal abuse at the same time.

There's only a limited amount of resources we can spend on justice, in a perfect world I wouldn't mind seeing every murderer, rapist and child molester locked up permanently (unless there was mitigating circumstances such as youth at time of crime), however sadly we must make trade-offs. I don't see animal abuse as a high priority crime that we need to protect the public from.

I'm probably going to be crucified by pet owners for saying this but I honestly don't see why this was much worse than someone killing an animal for meat, other than a human owner has lost something she held value to. While death-by-microwave isn't a pleasant way to go, nor is being shot from a distance, being caught in a trap, or in some countries (depending on the law) being ripped apart by dogs and all are perfectly legal against many wild animals. I wouldn't make any animal suffer unneedlessly but I personally believe there are more important issues to spend resources fighting than animal abuse.