RE: Heritage or Hate?

RE: Heritage or Hate? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slaveluci -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/21/2007 5:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Then one of you should be able to provide a link to where it was explicitly stated, or cleary implied. Check out Domiguy's posts. He pretty much explicitly stated and clearly implied that anyone who'd display the Confederate flag is a total "asshole" and/or "white trash" whom he would not give the time of day. He did later on say that "white trash" may have been a bit harsh, but in the first several pages those sentiments were directly expressed. Not sure how widespread the same feelings were because I didn't read every single post. Perhaps his posts were the ones Lady E and Camille were referring to as giving them that impression.............luci

Sinergy -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/21/2007 5:21:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan Calling me "flat out ignorant," if it demonstrates anything, demonstrates classlessness on your part. Calling your opponent names doesn't defeat his arguments. If anything, a resort to name-calling makes it clear that you don't have anything more substantive to say. Apparently, this lesson was lost on you. Or have you forgotten that you called me a segregationist? Fine, you lack class. You are unable to defeat my arguments. You dont have anything more substantive to say. Gotcha. Sinergy

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/21/2007 5:40:17 PM)
Ok folks, enough. I'm not going to ask again. XI

Sinergy -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/21/2007 5:45:29 PM)
Works for me, Mod11. I am done here. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 6:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Then one of you should be able to provide a link to where it was explicitly stated, or cleary implied. Check out Domiguy's posts. He pretty much explicitly stated and clearly implied that anyone who'd display the Confederate flag is a total "asshole" and/or "white trash" whom he would not give the time of day. He did later on say that "white trash" may have been a bit harsh, but in the first several pages those sentiments were directly expressed. Not sure how widespread the same feelings were because I didn't read every single post. Perhaps his posts were the ones Lady E and Camille were referring to as giving them that impression.............luci You are aware that there is more to Domi (and his posts) than meets the eye?

Alumbrado -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 6:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack I will address the points in reverse order: 2. Obviously you have missed the part where I supported ALL offensive activity because I did in fact assert it on this thread. So, feel free and reread this thread with some thoroughness and you will see this. I don't care what the activity is or how hateful or how offensive it is. The government has NO place banning it on the basis of offense or obscenity in my opinion. I remain silent with respect to other grounds which I may/may not condone (like your proposed "disruption to the learning environment" grounds). 1. Since you missed point 2, there is nothing for me or you to say about point 1 (logic, or its lack thereof), as you have obviously "missed" a significant portion of my arguments. Feel free to try this again after you have read everything throroughly if in fact you feel the same after reading it all. The person referring to the Supreme Court's ruling was yourself... I certainly hope that you actually had some idea on what basis they upheld the right of schools to control certain behaviors. If you have in fact, not read the ruling you cite, I'll give you a hint... the 'disruption of the learning environment', is not my proposal. If you are in fact aware that the schools aren't banning things purely on the grounds that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended, then congratulations on yet another tapdance around the question as to why the flag most associated with the Klan should be exempt from the prohibition on disrupting the classroom.

Termyn8or -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 8:03:12 AM)
What gets me is that this was a valid dicussion at some point. Now we are to the point where it might be shut down. Nice work. Get a clue, quit quoting endlessly and picking apart every last word of every post dammit. We are not enemies here like in a courtroom where each and every word can be used against you. Lighten up. T

domiguy -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 10:49:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Then one of you should be able to provide a link to where it was explicitly stated, or cleary implied. Check out Domiguy's posts. He pretty much explicitly stated and clearly implied that anyone who'd display the Confederate flag is a total "asshole" and/or "white trash" whom he would not give the time of day. He did later on say that "white trash" may have been a bit harsh, but in the first several pages those sentiments were directly expressed. Not sure how widespread the same feelings were because I didn't read every single post. Perhaps his posts were the ones Lady E and Camille were referring to as giving them that impression.............luci This is pretty much a summation of my stance....If I see someone displaying the rebel flag...."I think they are an asshole." I went on to say that they might be considered to possibly be a redneck or white trash by others or by "many others." I stand by those statements....Where is the problem? Since it is apparent that many people do find the confederate flag offensive what does that say about someone who still chooses to garnish it? Now maybe if you are some really old fuck who doesn't know better, you might get a pass....Similar as to when my GrandDomme would refer to blacks as colored or negros....I do think those terms are kind of a hoot...But ya see she was old and hadn't kept up with the times...So we would all just shake our heads and smile at her.

domiguy -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 11:21:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee PS: Winking makes it ok to be rude, right? I guess I missed the part where suggesting to someone that getting over the past, is the best way to move on, was rude. Here I thought it was at best, pretty good advice, and at worst, an alternate viewpoint. Hey, maybe I will join the crowd. I'm female, oppressed by men for thousands of years, or so they tell me. I wasn't there, so don't really know. I'm Irish Catholic, of Celtic origin ... oppressed by Germanic peoples, oppressed by the Roman, the Romano-Britains, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the English ... hell, it would be hard to find a more oppressed people in the west, than Irish Catholics. Goodness, I sure have a lot of flags to be offended by. I'm just bothered that I missed being insulted by Joe Elliott at that Def Leopard concert I went to not long ago. His Union Jack shirt certainly brought back all those aweful offenses done to my people, many years before I was even born. caitlyn...I dig you...You are smart...Bright, and you are a chick that digs strip clubs and pussy....I got admit I'm a little surprised by the lack of depth or thinking that you put into this post. You live in the states...How strongly do you actually celebrate your Irish heritage today?....Besides getting hammered on St Pats...And crawling around on all fours, the next morning, in some dudes dank dirty apartment looking for your "Fuck me I'm Irish" t-shirt...That is probably about as far as it goes...At least for most, this is probably a fairly accurate description. Can someone look at you and tell that you are Irish?...If they could what consequence might that bring you today, living in Texas? I looked at how the Irish have been oppressed over the centuries....Please tell me the stories of all the times when you have been pulled over for DWI?...I'm not looking for the times that you were drunk...Unless the cop fucked you or you gave him a bj. I can't recall, but I don't think the Union Jack is usually displayed to prominently in the US and even when you see it...It really doesn't strike you as something that brings up horrible memories...Because you never lived it...It happened in a different country...and the ramifications of how the English treated the Irish are no longer relevant in this country and carry absolutely no weight "here" today. Can you honestly say that we have come so far as a nation....That the reasons why people are offended by the confederate flag...are things of the past? That carry no ramifications in the world we currently live in? But one last point...Do you think that there are people in Belfast or Dublin who share your zeal for the Union Jack...They probably look upon it as just any other symbol....Didn't they just recently decide to stop killing the English in 2005?

xBullx -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 12:11:25 PM)
-fast reply- Has anyone ever wondered if Ray Charles(God rest his singing ass soul) and Ronnie Milsap had got to gether and had never heard of one another, only that they both loved music; beyond that they were just men. I wonder if they would recognise the skin tone of one another? I wonder if they sat down to play at the same keyboard if it would matter about flesh shades. I wonder if they preformed for 10,000 people of mixed collor if their key strokes could be identifiable? If they could be, would it matter to your ears or would it matter to your heart? We have all stood on the downhill side of prejudice. Who in turn are the loosers in such an affair? Is it it sympathy that has us wanting to forward (better) the interracial, faith, gender or sexual preferance agenda or is it politcally motivated to gain favor or standing? Until the parties involved want it for the betterment of ourselves as men (stated in a gender neutral context), it is little more than a pissing match waiting to happen. It is little more than lip service. The fact is that I like being seen as a hayseed, cowboy type, the problem is that 9 out of ten inner city African American youth see a redneck (we all know the racially motivated black term redneck is equal to the racially motivated white term niger); 9 out of ten Arab American youths see a western radical that stands in contrast to the Muslim radicals; 9 out of ten of all free thinking American females see a hard cock that will use them well (wait, that came from a fantasy I had once, those figures might be tainted) and lastly please don't tell the Jewish community I consider myself a German American, kinda (I'm tainted with a few not so carefully selected mixes of various bloodlines tossed in for a higher resistance to alcohol like effects). Like I said, I think attempting to legislate equality is like forcing a teenager to do anything. While rules are a must, they are also the most frequent reason for having to discipline folks for doing something they had no reason to do in the first place. So keep up the struggle neighbors, the labors are far from over and so long as everyone is dumping the responsibility of where the efforts for a more civil tomorrow lie, we will simply be spinning our wheels in the mud of political correctness and the false proclaims of fair and unbias equality. Your favorite Gorean, Bull P'S. Jesus please protect me and my buddy DG from your followers............They'll nail your ass to a cross...(well, uhmmm....uhh, I guess you knew that)

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 12:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The person referring to the Supreme Court's ruling was yourself... I certainly hope that you actually had some idea on what basis they upheld the right of schools to control certain behaviors. If you have in fact, not read the ruling you cite, I'll give you a hint... the 'disruption of the learning environment', is not my proposal. If you are in fact aware that the schools aren't banning things purely on the grounds that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended, then congratulations on yet another tapdance around the question as to why the flag most associated with the Klan should be exempt from the prohibition on disrupting the classroom. For the SECOND time now... read what I have said THOROUGHLY, before commenting if you want to discuss the issue with me. What you have written demonstrates you have still failed to do this. There is clear acknowledgement that the Supreme Court has separated protected speech/expression from obscenity and they permit censorship on obscenity. I do not agree with this. I do not agree with censorship on the grounds of obscenity/offensiveness (and including this post, I have expressed my viewpoint and how my opinion differs from SCOTUS' ruling no fewer than three times in this thread). Other factors may/may not persuade ME to agree with regulation on other grounds (like disruption). How you have confused MY opinion from my disagreement with what the Supreme Court upholds is beyond me, but it is clear you STILL haven't read thoroughly since you are unclear on this. And I am not going to burn my fingertips out "threehashing" what I have already written if I cannot be understood the first time, which makes this situation unfortunate because there is merit in the second point of discussion. Once you can thoroughly absorb and process what I wrote, then you can proceed to why (at least arguably) the stars and bars should not be banned from schools. (Hint: because there is a weaker argument of law, and a stronger argument of equity).

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 12:59:00 PM)
[Shakes his head in utter disbelief that this pot is still boiling...] Still all heat and no light, I see. What questions were those? And, no, I'm not going to go back to search for them. You should know your own questions, unless all that smoke you're blowing has obscured them so much that even you can't find them...!

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 1:25:38 PM)
Wow! Thank you, caitlyn! And I, too, apologize and hope we can be better to each other in the future. Hopefully, as they say, we can disagree without being disagreeable...

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 1:47:57 PM)
I was interested in discussing the issues with you at some point, but it seems I am not able to extract them from your latest post(s). It seems you have accused those of writing no substance (while dodging pertinent issues, challenges, and questions raised), yet, you have made unsubstantiated generalizations yourself. You have feigned outrage over name-calling, which you "never lower yourself by doing", yet you have been called out by two members for doing this. Finally, you level criticism at certain challenges to your points, questioning them why they "waste their time" and "don't they have anything better to do", when you yourself have publically announced that you have resigned from this thread. And that resignation has amounted to the melodramatic "eye-rolling" and "huffing" entrance on multiple occasions, with little more than a "you have nothing to say" body and closing. You have every right to be here and speak with whomever wishes to engage your ideas or dramatic flair on this thread, but it will no longer be with me on these issues. You have been given multiple opportunities to address the issues honestly and seriously (and when your emotion didn't overcome you, you did so successfully). I am not going to feed into this trolling, particularly when you come here a second or third time from a thread you claimed you resigned and state you have no interest in answering the questions that I clearly posed and referenced unless I hand-feed them to you amidst the barrage of insults that you paradoxically are above hurling. So, as per Modeleven's gentle nudge that you seemed to miss.... I am joining Synergy off to the side of this part of the train wreck. Enjoy your discourse with others on this thread should you decide to recant your resignation. [rolls neck, snaps fingers, hops on one foot, peels a potato, does a back flip, and waves goodbye]

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/22/2007 2:20:09 PM)
Awwwwwwwwwww... Don't go away mad!!! I, unlike yourself, publically apologized to anyone I called names (who didn't call me names first, like you did). What about you? In my opinion, your position on this issue (and pretty much every other issue, it appears to me) boils down to just one thing: Freedom of speech is the paramount value, and the government should do nothing to curtail freedom of speech, no matter the context or the consequences. Assuming you really are interested in debate, as opposed to name-calling and hyperbole, I would put this question to you: Are you aware of any government, anywhere that government exists, that does not place limits on freedom of speech where the context--particular national security and/or public order--demands it? Is there any government, anywhere, whose law reflects the public judgment that freedom of speech is the supreme value? And, if there is no such government, that would seem to be good evidence that the experience of mankind is that while freedom of speech is valuable, it's not the supreme value. That doesn't mean that your position is necessarily wrong, but it certainly isn't evidence that it's correct... By the way, a decision to leave a string doesn't form a binding contract, and the decision to leave is freely revokable. Unless you have authority to the contrary... [Looks outside, sees beautiful sunshine and his car badly in need of washing, and signs off...]

LadyEllen -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/23/2007 5:07:13 AM)
Interesting point BM - that there are restrictions on free speech and expression even in free societies. Here in the UK we have such restrictions in respect of speech and publications (under which I suppose symbols/flags could also fall), which are designed to produce hate or indeed inspire violence against a group. One could therefore suppose that such a limit would premeditate against the display of such - for example the people from that US church who parade with banners reading "God hates fags", would fall foul of the law the instant they displayed them here. We also have regulations relating to what is termed hate crime. To overcome the situation where an offender can simply deny that his actions were based on hate (it then becoming impossible to determine the nature of the offence), all such offences are treated as hate crime, until and unless it can be proven otherwise, if hate is taken to have been the motivation of the offender by the victim or indeed a third party witness - this latter overcoming the issue of victims' fear about indicating hate to have been the motive. Where the offence is shown to have not been so motivated then it is treated as per the normal regulations, but otherwise it is subject to harsher penalties on conviction. The problem though, is that whereas an assault is straightforward, whereas a speech calling for the death of Muslims is straightforward, whereas a banner reading "God hates fags" is straightforward, it becomes much more difficult to establish that a flag or symbol which is used by multiple interest groups can fall under such a simple interpretation. For example, the sunwheel or swastika; used by Hindus it would be difficult at best to hold that it was being displayed by them to stir up hate for Jews. Similary, ACW reenactors using the Confederate flag are using it in a context which is absent the 50s/60s backlash against the civil rights movement. In both of those instances, it is apparent that no hatred is present and thus no offence can be taken to have occurred. At the same time though, it is equally simple to establish hatred as the motive, when neo-nazis display swastikas or when KKK types display the Confederate flag. My problem with the deeply entrenched positions that have been expressed here is that in many cases, by comparison to these former easy interpretations, it is impossible to determine motivation of those using certain symbols that are used by multiple groups in different ways. Thus it is ridiculous to say that everyone who flies or displays a Confederate flag is a racist pig, just as it is ridiculous to say that everyone who does such is motivated by a feeling of rebellion against authority. It is a mixed bag, and the motivation being unclear it is my contention that even under UK laws, displaying such symbols would not constitute an offence absent very clear corroborating evidence. I havent spent a long time resisting nazis here to be told that I am anything like them for feeling an affinity with the sunwheel as a holy symbol of my people. It was they who perverted it, not I and their move towards Celtic symbology is I hope evidence of the resistance to them and their abuses which the likes of me have undertaken. Unfortunate for the Celtic symbols, but the fight goes on in their respect too. E

Alumbrado -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/23/2007 8:08:54 AM)
quote: What you have written demonstrates you have still failed to do this. No, what I have written was just to get it on the record that (as I suspected), you support the absolutist position that government should 'hands-off' condone all offensive behaviors, even when that means that schoolchildren would have to run a gauntlet of hate and vitriol, because you find the 'learning environment' argument outweighed by other considerations. I wouldn't want to have misread your position, so thanks for making it quite clear.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/23/2007 3:02:06 PM)
I never said that everyone who flies or displays a Confederate flag is a racist pig. But, I will admit that, if I had to bet, I'd bet that way. Sometimes, of course, I'd be wrong. But I bet I'd be right more often than not. Anyway, the movitation of the person who displays or flies that flag does not determine whether or not the flag is offensive to those who see it. Whether it's offensive is affected by the context in which it's displayed or flown. If you display the Confederate flag at a NASCAR event, or at an Ol' Miss (University of Mississippi) football game, that's one thing. If you displayed it during the Jena 6 march (as someone apparently drove by the demonstrators displaying a noose from his truck), that's quite another...

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/25/2007 9:39:39 AM)
Sinergy, I don't know what your issue is, but you keep saying that I said what I did not say. If I called you a segregationist, you should have no problem pointing out where. So, please do. I'll be waiting... To my knowledge, I haven't used the word "segregationist" at all in these posts. Gotcha, yourself. And when you state that I am "unable to defeat [your] arguments," you truly flatter yourself!!!

Sinergy -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/25/2007 11:28:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan I, unlike yourself, publically apologized to anyone I called names (who didn't call me names first, like you did). What about you? I suggest you review your responses on this thread. I never called you anything. You have not apologized to me for calling me a supporter of the Confederacy and an anti-segregationist. I dont really care whether you apologize or not, but if it helps you sleep better at night thinking you have, I accept the apology you never made. Peace out. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 11 12 13 [14] 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875