Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:24:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1512 times
|
| |
|
|
It's just too tempting.
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Laswell wrote:
> > > Because .people is still hetero-assumed. Just like every other group in
> > > the entirety of LUGNET. It's the same reason why we have Black History
> > > Month, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Secretary's Day, when every day of
> > > the year is about whites, kids, and bosses.
>
> Well, I was not expecting THIS much of a response simply because I said of
> what I said in my letter. A lot of people must think of me as a
> narrow-minded, bigoted, right-wing, Bible-thumping homophobe now because I
> said that it was not a good idea to promote such a group on LUGNET.
Nah. They probably think of you as a narrow-minded, bigoted, right-wing,
Bible-thumping homophobe because:
1) You seem adamant that everyone who argued against your point is wrong, and
is also a hatemonger, solely on the basis that they disagreed with you.
2) You're quick to judge others as hatemongers without knowing them.
3) You're Christian and anti-gay, so, you're probably right-wing (maybe not,
admittedly).
4) You mentioned your zealous faith and religious beliefs about 16 times (by
my quick count) in the span of two posts, in a thread where religious
beliefs really shouldn't even be an issue.
5) You called gay lifestyle "immoral, hateful, bigoted, sexist, discriminatory,
intolerant, deviant, and even racist". And while I'd disagree that
"homophobe" applies since it strictly means "afraid of homosexuality", but
in the commonly-used meaning of the word (IE being anti-gay), it applies.
I mean, if it were just because you thought it wasn't a good idea to add the new
group, then John, Lee, Rob, Mark, Allister, Anthony, and many others would get
that label too. No, if you've been called that, it was your approach that got
you the label, not your point of view.
> As for those holidays, their purpose is, whether it was intentional or not,
> to promote discrimination, hatred, prejudice, and sexism.
That's the best quote I've seen in a while:
"As for [Black History Month, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Secretary's Day],
their purpose is, whether it was intentional or not, to promote discrimination,
hatred, prejudice, and sexism."
I know *I'VE* seen lots of hatred expressed about Secretary's Day. And Black
History Month is way too sexist for my tastes.
Really, though, I see your point insofar as it does create more discernable
societal groups against which one can discriminate. However, to remove such
distinctions would create a completely uniform and boring world devoid of
difference. Effectively, that's nazi-ism or perhaps communism. And as we all
know from Ferris Bueller, "-Ism's in my opinion are not good."
> My intention was to {i}prevent{i}, not {i}promote{i} hatred, prejudice,
> racism, sexism, and ethnicity.
Well, it's not LUGNET's job or intent to make sure that people all love each
other. People don't, and that's the way it goes. To try and force them to all
get along would be awful. It'd be rather reminicient of the Spanish Inquisition
or Nazi Germany.
LUGNET's job is to realize that that stuff is gonna happen, and try its best to
make sure that it doesn't interfere with things. If we didn't have an off-topic
group, for instance, how many religious debates might we see on lugnet.general?
> I am no hatemonger by any means but I am sure that the people who responded
> to my letter negatively are hatemongers because
Heehee, it's pretty funny. I tend to think of myself as one of the least hateful
people I know, and here you are 'sure' that I'm a hatemonger. I personally don't
mind you calling me that if you'd like, but I'll disagree with you. And I'm sure
by saying things like that, a lot of people would instantly dislike you since
you're accusing them of being hatemongers. How about instead of insulting them,
you just explain your point? That would probably promote a lot less hatred from
other people, and would indicate to people that you're not a hatemonger, either.
> they can not tolerate a view that is different to their own in life, yet they
> claim that I am intolerant of them because I say that their lifestyles are
> intolerant to other people in life. This viewpoint that people like those who
> speak negatively to me shows the REAL intolerant lifestyle and it not only
> shows it to me but it shows it to everyone online.
Uh, I can tolerate your viewpoint. I'd even advocate your right to voice it, and
encourage you to speak your mind. And I disagree with you. And I'm not gay, a
Christian, black, female, or a secretary.
> To those of you who ridiculed me for standing up to what you deem
> narrow-minded, right-wing, Bible-thumping, homophobic, backwards, ancient,
> old-fashioned, antiquated, and obsolete views in life, why not actually
> become serious about MAKING a REAL point about what I say on LUGNET instead
> of making fun of me?
Can we do both?
> If those words which are said in true faith and conviction and in all honest
> tend to cause you to hate me,
Nah. I of course don't know, but I don't think any of us actually hate you. I
do, however, wonder if you hate any of us. I'm sitting here writing this mostly
because I enjoy talking about the topic, but also to hopefully to help you
understand me, and possibly others who you disagree with, without the need to
hate them. Maybe you don't hate us at all, but at least maybe I can help you to
understand that neither do we all hate you. We just disagree.
> We do not tolerate hatred on LUGNET and it should remain as such on LUGNET.
Sure we do! It's ok to hate people. I wouldn't go around advocating it, but it's
perfectly natural and expected.
> There are those who will claim that I am a hypocrite by that statement.
Nah, they'd call you a hypocrite because you accused others of being
hatemongers, and at the same time saying you weren't one. Maybe you're not, but
to read your posts and the adamantness of your tone, it sounds more like you are
than not.
> Also, if homosexuality was acceptable in life, then why do the majority of
> the Civil Rights Movement leaders actively and openly condemn and do not like
> the current homosexual movement being compared to an actual wrong that had
> occured in society? These leaders are either hypocrites or they are simply
> trying to prevent more needless hatred in life.
I think the prevalant thinking is: just because someone else (or the majority)
thinks something, it's not necessarily right. I'm not going to change my
viewpoint just because I found out someone I know disagrees. I might be more
inclined to question myself, and maybe in so doing I'll find a flaw in my
thinking, but otherwise it's not going to change my mind.
> To those who would dare to use any of those names to apply to me, remember, I
> only said what God and other people who follwed Him said on the subject and
> what it did to people. I only ultimately follow the rules of God.
Isn't it written 'judge not, lest ye be judged'? And 'judgement is God's alone'?
I fail to understand why you wantonly and repeatedly cast derrogatory comments
at homosexuals and people who disagree with you if you're trying to follow God's
rules.
I'm no Christian or Bible scholar, but when I ask myself the trendy WWJD, I'd
say that he would probably either try and help sinners to understand (without
insulting them), or, if their minds could not be changed, that he'd sorrowfully
look on and let them condemn themselves (again without insulting them). I'd
hardly expect to see Jesus act like some angry, drunken fan at a baseball game,
shouting obscenities and jeers.
> If you hate equalty, then keep ridiculing these words and promote more
> hypocrisy on LUGNET.
Hmmm. You know, I almost was about to say that I don't hate equality, but
really, I think I should say that I dislike *forced* equality. Equality is
sometimes great, and I believe in the ideal of equal rights, but forcing people
to treat each other equally is another matter.
> LUGNET was meant to be for the love of LEGO and LEGO-related themes.
If Secretary's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Black History Month only
serve to cause discrimination, how is a society of Lego enthusiasts different?
> I did not start this argument but I intend on finishing this argument.
Good luck!
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Still doesn't change the fact that I don't have a car. I recalllll.... Central Park in fallllll..... Dave K -not one lesson! (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Well, I was not expecting THIS much of a response simply because I said of what I said in my letter. A lot of people must think of me as a narrow-minded, bigoted, right-wing, Bible-thumping homophobe now because I said that it was not a good (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
