RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER

RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/18/2013 5:36:45 PM)
quote: Oh please, give me a fucking break. Why? Your post deserved contempt, and that's what I gave it.

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 4:27:39 AM)
Harsh but fair DC. [;)]

thompsonx -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 4:44:26 AM)
quote: Well, it just goes to show that when one runs out of the ability to cogently disagree with someone they invariably point out false equivalency. I did that intentionally so that morons without the ability to think have something to respond to [8\|]

Marc2b -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 7:20:04 AM)
quote: Bullshit........ Exactly which uncrupulous people are you on about, and be specific. I am guessing I will get more conspiratorial bullshit in response. You guessed wrong... way wrong. You presume far to much. Your question has already been answered. quote: Heres a thought, it takes more guts to hold high moral principles, when they dont affect you. Really? So the male Christian Fundie who opposes abortion because he believes that all human life is sacred (that is certainly a high moral principle, isn't it?) has more guts for holding that principle even though he will never have to face having an abortion? The wealthy person who opposes food stamps because they create dependency (encouraging people to be self sufficient is certainly a high moral principle, yes?) has guts even though they need not fear going hungry? Now, those are examples of people who think their positions are moral positions, which is primarily what I meant by people who hold "high moral principles" (you obviously didn't get the sarcasm)... in which I would include people who favor hate speech laws when their opinions are not the ones being targeted... today. However, for the sake of completeness, how about a moral principle I do hold... do you really believe that those of us who are heterosexual and support gay marriage have more guts than the homosexuals who actually suffer such discrimination?

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 7:33:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I said they shouldn't tack on extra years because the victim was special. I never said there should be no action. Obviously they should still be charged with murder. It's scary that you have to spell this out to some people. It is scary that someone who is in a discussion about hate crimes has no clue as to why they exist. Thats right, if you can't come up with a intelligent response, just go ahead and call them clueless.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 7:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx. Alert the press, I have it from an alleged gay woman who claims, there is no anti gay bias in the court system[8\|] I did not say there wasn't any bias. I said the scenario you cooked up about the women who got raped and her attackers only got 2 weekends punishment was a bullshit lie. Now I didn't spell it out for you, so I am not surprised that once again you read it wrong.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 7:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi It was questioning his intelligence. Now it may have been done in such a way as to pass TOS, but that doesn't change the message. And don't worry, I am learning more every day. [8D] I think not. Yea, I got that impression too. But maybe you should give it a shot. Especially before posting.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 7:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Oh please, give me a fucking break. Why? Your post deserved contempt, and that's what I gave it. If only we lesser beings could live up to your shining example, what a better world it would be.

evesgrden -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 10:52:49 AM)
[/quote] I said they shouldn't tack on extra years because the victim was special. [/quote] They don't tack on years because the victim was special. Do you consider the people who died in 9/11 "special"? They weren't unless you consider being in the buildings that day as "special". The purpose of 9/11 was to intimidate a group. That's what a hate crime is about. It's not about the victim as the perp doesn't even have to know the vicitm. It's about making a point and using fear to influence societal behavior. It's a crime against society, and arguably against democracy. It's a form of tyranny but not having official authority.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 2:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden I said they shouldn't tack on extra years because the victim was special. They don't tack on years because the victim was special. Do you consider the people who died in 9/11 "special"? They weren't unless you consider being in the buildings that day as "special". The purpose of 9/11 was to intimidate a group. That's what a hate crime is about. It's not about the victim as the perp doesn't even have to know the vicitm. It's about making a point and using fear to influence societal behavior. It's a crime against society, and arguably against democracy. It's a form of tyranny but not having official authority. No they don't tack on years because the victim was special, they tack them on because they have decided it was a hate crime. Same difference. 9-11 was a terrorist attack and as far as I know that is what the charges were. One has nothing to do with the other.

dcnovice -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 2:31:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Oh please, give me a fucking break. Why? Your post deserved contempt, and that's what I gave it. If only we lesser beings could live up to your shining example, what a better world it would be. Yeah, that's original. [8\|] ETA: More seriously, I'm not the one dissing people who "sit around" having illegitimate fears, and deciding who needs to be hauled into "counseling."

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 4:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Bullshit........ Exactly which uncrupulous people are you on about, and be specific. I am guessing I will get more conspiratorial bullshit in response. You guessed wrong... way wrong. You presume far to much. Your question has already been answered. quote: Heres a thought, it takes more guts to hold high moral principles, when they dont affect you. Really? So the male Christian Fundie who opposes abortion because he believes that all human life is sacred (that is certainly a high moral principle, isn't it?) has more guts for holding that principle even though he will never have to face having an abortion? The wealthy person who opposes food stamps because they create dependency (encouraging people to be self sufficient is certainly a high moral principle, yes?) has guts even though they need not fear going hungry? Now, those are examples of people who think their positions are moral positions, which is primarily what I meant by people who hold "high moral principles" (you obviously didn't get the sarcasm)... in which I would include people who favor hate speech laws when their opinions are not the ones being targeted... today. However, for the sake of completeness, how about a moral principle I do hold... do you really believe that those of us who are heterosexual and support gay marriage have more guts than the homosexuals who actually suffer such discrimination? You are avoiding the issue again, try answering the question. Specifically as requested and not generally as answered. Food stamps create dependency ? ......Spoken like a man who has never had to live on food stamps. Abortion should be an issue for the woman concerned, no more and no less than that. Being Anti abortion isnt holding any moral principle for her, is it. You think my opinions are never challenged, you should see my gold Cmails. So here we have it, the opinion of those in favour of completely free speech, it is okay to say anything, whatever the outcome....... how fucking lovely.

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 4:37:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi It was questioning his intelligence. Now it may have been done in such a way as to pass TOS, but that doesn't change the message. And don't worry, I am learning more every day. [8D] I think not. Yea, I got that impression too. But maybe you should give it a shot. Especially before posting. I think not, was in relation to you learning more every day. [8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 4:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi No they don't tack on years because the victim was special, they tack them on because they have decided it was a hate crime. Same difference. 9-11 was a terrorist attack and as far as I know that is what the charges were. One has nothing to do with the other. It is staggering to even suggest that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not a hate came. its even more staggering to suggest they are not one and the same. Hasnt anyone every read the news articles that are anti-American, or anti-British. Did no one see any of the anti Us/UK videos made by OBL, the ones where he tells his followers to attack the west, America in particular. Didnt anyone not ehwat the 9/11 terrorists had been reading, or who they had been listening too. FFS its too easy for me somedays........ The 9/11 terrorists were inspired by hate speech, any suggesting that that isnt the case isnt just fucking laughable, its naive.

Kirata -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 8:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It is staggering to even suggest that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not a hate came. its even more staggering to suggest they are not one and the same... The 9/11 terrorists were inspired by hate speech, any suggesting that that isnt the case isnt just fucking laughable, its naive. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. The Koran's instructions are matter of fact; it is the will of Allah. Serving the will of Allah has its own inherent value. It is not the Kafir who is hated, it is his disobedience to Allah's will. Absent any other charge for which he might be slain, his conversion to Islam is encouraged and welcomed. Or as our friends in Syria are telling the Christians, "Convert or die." More pecuniary types (with luck) will settle for your submission to the Jizya. It's all very cut and dried, nothing personal. The fighter and the martyr are not infused with hatred, they are infused with the glory of Allah. That your view would differ simply illustrates the fact that it all depends on who gets to define what constitutes hate. The same applies to racism. Why has the media moved past the Navy Yard shootings so quickly? According to Paul Farhi in the Washington Post (link) the answer is white racism. The shooter was black. Nobody is interested in black people. Yawn. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/19/2013 11:49:32 PM)
quote: Kirata Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'hate speech' is. The 'hate' in 'hate speech' is in the intentions of the speaker. When the speaker's intention is to promote hate or violence, the speech qualifies as hate speech. If it was left to the listeners to define hate speech, there would always be someone who claimed that the speech was not intended to provoke hate or violence, and therefore no offence occurred. If some one were to assert "<insert target group of your choice here> are evil malicious people who must be wiped off the face of the earth", the clear intention of the speaker is to provoke hate. The interpretation of any given individual listener or "beholder" is irrelevant, it cannot change the intention of the speaker or rationalise the hate away.

Marc2b -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/20/2013 7:22:40 AM)
quote: You are avoiding the issue again, try answering the question. Specifically as requested and not generally as answered. The question has been answered Logan 5. Seriously, if you dispute the general principle that power corrupts then no amount of specific examples will persuade you. You are nitpicking because you want to give yourself some more ego strokes at my expense and I see no reason to assist you in your bullying. quote: Food stamps create dependency ? ......Spoken like a man who has never had to live on food stamps. Abortion should be an issue for the woman concerned, no more and no less than that. Being Anti abortion isnt holding any moral principle for her, is it. You still don't understand. I am not praising such people, I am criticizing them. The people in the examples I cited THINK that they are acting on high moral principles. It is easy for them because the consequences of their beliefs do not affect them personally. The same thing goes for people who favor hate speech laws when it is not their opinions that are being targeted. quote: You think my opinions are never challenged, you should see my gold Cmails. The people who run Collarme can't fine and/or jail you for your opinions. quote: So here we have it, the opinion of those in favour of completely free speech, it is okay to say anything, whatever the outcome....... how fucking lovely. Where did I say that it is okay to say anything whatever the outcome? I may draw the line for freedom of speech further up the freedom scale than you but I already made it clear that I am not an absolutist (I am not an absolutist on almost everything and I only say 'almost' because... well... I don't want to be absolutist). But let's be frank, the purpose of the above statement was not to advance your argument but to elevate yourself at my expense by denigrating me. But while you are so busy being holier than me you fail to see the danger. Right now the opinions that you disagree with are the ones being targeted so you are not worried (the consequences of your beliefs do not affect you) but what happens when the political winds change? What happens when it is your opinions that are being targeted? And don't give me any bullshit about it being speech that incites hatred or violence because that is not always obvious. Yeah, sure, it may be obvious in some cases but it is not so obvious in others... it becomes a matter of interpretation. Christian fundamentalists are stupid (they actually believe that there is an invisible man living in the sky and the earth is only six thousand years old and other nonsense) and worse they want to force their beliefs upon the rest of us. We must stop them. The above is my opinion. Am I inciting hatred but calling the fundies stupid? Am I inciting violence when I say we must stop them? I know for a fact that I am not. By "stop them" I mean that we must vote against them in every election and take them to court whenever they try to foist Biblical Creationism into the science classes of the public schools. Some one else might think "he wants me to shoot them. He's inciting violence!" Now I'm not particularly worried because fundies aren't a group protected by hate speech laws... today. But they are a large enough in numbers that they may well achieve enough political power to make themselves a protected group... and then I will have a problem. I would prefer that the precedent of unpopular speech not exist but alas... At least I can have my own holier than thou moment with the knowledge that I am not a hypocrite who cheers when the other is oppressed but whines when the tyrants and bullies come after me. Freedom of speech must apply to everyone, most especially to people and opinions we don't like, otherwise it is meaningless.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/20/2013 8:44:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Oh please, give me a fucking break. Why? Your post deserved contempt, and that's what I gave it. If only we lesser beings could live up to your shining example, what a better world it would be. Yeah, that's original. [8\|] ETA: More seriously, I'm not the one dissing people who "sit around" having illegitimate fears, and deciding who needs to be hauled into "counseling." I wasn't dissing anyone. You said you didn't want your death compounded by the murder's striking fear into the hearts of countless other LBGT folk and I was pointing out that not all LGBT folk felt fearful when they hear of a murder. That doesn't make one better than the other.

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/20/2013 8:45:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi No they don't tack on years because the victim was special, they tack them on because they have decided it was a hate crime. Same difference. 9-11 was a terrorist attack and as far as I know that is what the charges were. One has nothing to do with the other. It is staggering to even suggest that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not a hate came. its even more staggering to suggest they are not one and the same. Hasnt anyone every read the news articles that are anti-American, or anti-British. Did no one see any of the anti Us/UK videos made by OBL, the ones where he tells his followers to attack the west, America in particular. Didnt anyone not ehwat the 9/11 terrorists had been reading, or who they had been listening too. FFS its too easy for me somedays........ The 9/11 terrorists were inspired by hate speech, any suggesting that that isnt the case isnt just fucking laughable, its naive. Then why were they charged with terrorism and not a hate crime?

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/20/2013 10:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Kirata Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'hate speech' is. The 'hate' in 'hate speech' is in the intentions of the speaker. When the speaker's intention is to promote hate or violence, the speech qualifies as hate speech. If it was left to the listeners to define hate speech, there would always be someone who claimed that the speech was not intended to provoke hate or violence, and therefore no offence occurred. If some one were to assert "<insert target group of your choice here> are evil malicious people who must be wiped off the face of the earth", the clear intention of the speaker is to provoke hate. The interpretation of any given individual listener or "beholder" is irrelevant, it cannot change the intention of the speaker or rationalise the hate away. Spot on Tweakable. Those that understand you will continue to do so, those that dont, wont.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875