Gays are retards

[Dis]

Is there a reason the OP couldn't edit out the racial slur in the title?

You mean other than because she doesn't have to?

You DO know what kind of board you signed on to, right? Very lightly moderated... Very "freedom of speech" oriented...

 

[Darkwind]

Is there a reason the OP couldn't edit out the racial slur in the title?

You mean other than because she doesn't have to?

You DO know what kind of board you signed on to, right? Very lightly moderated... Very "freedom of speech" oriented...

yes, I understand that.

Why would that change My opinion or belief that I should stand up against racism where ever I find it?

 

[Dis]

Is there a reason the OP couldn't edit out the racial slur in the title?

You mean other than because she doesn't have to?

You DO know what kind of board you signed on to, right? Very lightly moderated... Very "freedom of speech" oriented...

yes, I understand that.

Why would that change My opinion or belief that I should stand up against racism where ever I find it?

Well, then why don't you specifically ask the OP rather than putting forth a general question such as "why couldn't the op..." which results in the type of answer you just received, which is obviously unsatisfactory? Not to mention it's a downright silly question if you know what type of board you're on, as you just stated.

Methinks you and Joyce are going to make friends *real* quick if simple word in a title got under your skin...

 

[Darkwind]

You mean other than because she doesn't have to?

You DO know what kind of board you signed on to, right? Very lightly moderated... Very "freedom of speech" oriented...

yes, I understand that.

Why would that change My opinion or belief that I should stand up against racism where ever I find it?

Well, then why don't you specifically ask the OP rather than putting forth a general question such as "why couldn't the op..." which results in the type of answer you just received, which is obviously unsatisfactory? Not to mention it's a downright silly question if you know what type of board you're on, as you just stated.

Methinks you and Joyce are going to make friends *real* quick if simple word in a title got under your skin...

Because a general question like, "Why couldn't the OP" in his/her own thread may or may not elicit a response from said OP in which case, I can engage that person in a debate on why it shouldn't have happened. Or is this not a forum for engaging debate?

 

[KittenKoder]

yes, I understand that.

Why would that change My opinion or belief that I should stand up against racism where ever I find it?

Well, then why don't you specifically ask the OP rather than putting forth a general question such as "why couldn't the op..." which results in the type of answer you just received, which is obviously unsatisfactory? Not to mention it's a downright silly question if you know what type of board you're on, as you just stated.

Methinks you and Joyce are going to make friends *real* quick if simple word in a title got under your skin...

Because a general question like, "Why couldn't the OP" in his/her own thread may or may not elicit a response from said OP in which case, I can engage that person in a debate on why it shouldn't have happened. Or is this not a forum for engaging debate?

What difference would it make either way?

 

[Darkwind]

Well, then why don't you specifically ask the OP rather than putting forth a general question such as "why couldn't the op..." which results in the type of answer you just received, which is obviously unsatisfactory? Not to mention it's a downright silly question if you know what type of board you're on, as you just stated.

Methinks you and Joyce are going to make friends *real* quick if simple word in a title got under your skin...

Because a general question like, "Why couldn't the OP" in his/her own thread may or may not elicit a response from said OP in which case, I can engage that person in a debate on why it shouldn't have happened. Or is this not a forum for engaging debate?

What difference would it make either way?

I like to keep forum topics in the public arena and keep PM's for more casual conversations.

 

[KittenKoder]

Because a general question like, "Why couldn't the OP" in his/her own thread may or may not elicit a response from said OP in which case, I can engage that person in a debate on why it shouldn't have happened. Or is this not a forum for engaging debate?

What difference would it make either way?

I like to keep forum topics in the public arena and keep PM's for more casual conversations.

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

 

[Darkwind]

What difference would it make either way?

I like to keep forum topics in the public arena and keep PM's for more casual conversations.

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Okay.

I try and keep things civil. But if you wish to show your ignorance by hiding behind some bluster, then I'll bid you a good night.

I really don't owe you an answer to anything I do.

 

[KittenKoder]

I like to keep forum topics in the public arena and keep PM's for more casual conversations.

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Okay.

I try and keep things civil. But if you wish to show your ignorance by hiding behind some bluster, then I'll bid you a good night.

I really don't owe you an answer to anything I do.

No, but you said you wanted to know why the OP used a "bad word" and I asked why it would matter so much ... you wanted to debate it, so tell us, what difference it would make?

The OP made a stretch based on an article they posted, but there is still truth to it, so why is it you have a problem with a word they used?

 

[Darkwind]

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Okay.

I try and keep things civil. But if you wish to show your ignorance by hiding behind some bluster, then I'll bid you a good night.

I really don't owe you an answer to anything I do.

No, but you said you wanted to know why the OP used a "bad word" and I asked why it would matter so much ... you wanted to debate it, so tell us, what difference it would make?

The OP made a stretch based on an article they posted, but there is still truth to it, so why is it you have a problem with a word they used?

Because words matter and it would have taken no effort at all to convey the tone of the article without having to resort to the slander.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay.

I try and keep things civil. But if you wish to show your ignorance by hiding behind some bluster, then I'll bid you a good night.

I really don't owe you an answer to anything I do.

No, but you said you wanted to know why the OP used a "bad word" and I asked why it would matter so much ... you wanted to debate it, so tell us, what difference it would make?

The OP made a stretch based on an article they posted, but there is still truth to it, so why is it you have a problem with a word they used?

Because words matter and it would have taken no effort at all to convey the tone of the article without having to resort to the slander.

Well, first, words only matter when you want them to ... you do know that the word humbug is a very vulgar word to, and highly offensive ... if you know what it means that is. Also, the article itself has that title, so Sky Dancer just used the same title ...

Words said without their meaning are just words, and any word used with the same meaning is just as bad. For instance, saying the word crap means little in a docile conversation, but is no less offensive than saying shit when used as a "swear word". Context is everything, and Sky Dancer is not one to actually use a word as an insult, joke perhaps, but never as an insult. So when someone like her says it, it's no different than looking it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.

 

[Darkwind]

No, but you said you wanted to know why the OP used a "bad word" and I asked why it would matter so much ... you wanted to debate it, so tell us, what difference it would make?

The OP made a stretch based on an article they posted, but there is still truth to it, so why is it you have a problem with a word they used?

Because words matter and it would have taken no effort at all to convey the tone of the article without having to resort to the slander.

Well, first, words only matter when you want them to ... you do know that the word humbug is a very vulgar word to, and highly offensive ... if you know what it means that is. Also, the article itself has that title, so Sky Dancer just used the same title ...

Words said without their meaning are just words, and any word used with the same meaning is just as bad. For instance, saying the word crap means little in a docile conversation, but is no less offensive than saying shit when used as a "swear word". Context is everything, and Sky Dancer is not one to actually use a word as an insult, joke perhaps, but never as an insult. So when someone like her says it, it's no different than looking it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.

Except this is the exact reason why our children are failing in school, relationships, interactions and life.

When we regulate words to just sounds that really don't mean anything, then nothing really means anything. Then we can justify and manner of poor behavior..

"I love you" is just words and I can't be held responsible for our child.

"Turn that knob to 'ON'" means nothing when giving oxygen to an elderly patient who may just die.

Yeah, these are extreme examples, but I ask you. Go to a place where blacks are congregated and say, "Hey ******, was up?" and then tell Me how that word is just "sounds".

Words have meaning. Without the meaning, we could not even begin to communicate because we would have no common reference by which to judge the sounds we were making or the symbols were were scratching on that paper.

Sorry, but words do have meaning and people have the ability to think critically and it really requires no effort see that.

Now, i have to work in a few hours and its time for Me to bail. I'll check back to see if the OP decided to reply or not.

Have a good morning.

 

[KittenKoder]

Because words matter and it would have taken no effort at all to convey the tone of the article without having to resort to the slander.

Well, first, words only matter when you want them to ... you do know that the word humbug is a very vulgar word to, and highly offensive ... if you know what it means that is. Also, the article itself has that title, so Sky Dancer just used the same title ...

Words said without their meaning are just words, and any word used with the same meaning is just as bad. For instance, saying the word crap means little in a docile conversation, but is no less offensive than saying shit when used as a "swear word". Context is everything, and Sky Dancer is not one to actually use a word as an insult, joke perhaps, but never as an insult. So when someone like her says it, it's no different than looking it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.

Except this is the exact reason why our children are failing in school, relationships, interactions and life.

When we regulate words to just sounds that really don't mean anything, then nothing really means anything. Then we can justify and manner of poor behavior..

"I love you" is just words and I can't be held responsible for our child.

"Turn that knob to 'ON'" means nothing when giving oxygen to an elderly patient who may just die.

Yeah, these are extreme examples, but I ask you. Go to a place where blacks are congregated and say, "Hey ******, was up?" and then tell Me how that word is just "sounds".

Words have meaning. Without the meaning, we could not even begin to communicate because we would have no common reference by which to judge the sounds we were making or the symbols were were scratching on that paper.

Sorry, but words do have meaning and people have the ability to think critically and it really requires no effort see that.

Now, i have to work in a few hours and its time for Me to bail. I'll check back to see if the OP decided to reply or not.

Have a good morning.

No, they fail because no one teaches them that words are not as important as actions.

 

[JBeukema]

Choice or not, it's not normal.

Normality is defined as either that which one is familiar with (therefore being highly subjective and absolutely no consequence) or that which is common. Homosexuality is common in many species. This is simply a rehashed 'it's unnatural' argument, which besides being inherently fallacious (Naturalistic Fallacy), has been shown repeatedly to be not factually accurate.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, first, words only matter when you want them to ... you do know that the word humbug is a very vulgar word to, and highly offensive ... if you know what it means that is. Also, the article itself has that title, so Sky Dancer just used the same title ...

Words said without their meaning are just words, and any word used with the same meaning is just as bad. For instance, saying the word crap means little in a docile conversation, but is no less offensive than saying shit when used as a "swear word". Context is everything, and Sky Dancer is not one to actually use a word as an insult, joke perhaps, but never as an insult. So when someone like her says it, it's no different than looking it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.

Except this is the exact reason why our children are failing in school, relationships, interactions and life.

When we regulate words to just sounds that really don't mean anything, then nothing really means anything. Then we can justify and manner of poor behavior..

"I love you" is just words and I can't be held responsible for our child.

"Turn that knob to 'ON'" means nothing when giving oxygen to an elderly patient who may just die.

Yeah, these are extreme examples, but I ask you. Go to a place where blacks are congregated and say, "Hey ******, was up?" and then tell Me how that word is just "sounds".

Words have meaning. Without the meaning, we could not even begin to communicate because we would have no common reference by which to judge the sounds we were making or the symbols were were scratching on that paper.

Sorry, but words do have meaning and people have the ability to think critically and it really requires no effort see that.

Now, i have to work in a few hours and its time for Me to bail. I'll check back to see if the OP decided to reply or not.

Have a good morning.

No, they fail because no one teaches them that words are not as important as actions.

No they fail because children are no longer taught that their actions must match their words. That is what character is about.

But then, that is what we get for allowing the state to teach our children morals.

 

[JBeukema]

The State teaches ethics, not morals

 

[Darkwind]

The State teaches ethics, not morals

No, it teaches morals and dresses it up to appear to be ethics. It also has no right to teach either at any level below the University level.

Either way, that is a discussion for a different thread and I don't have a lot of time right now to sit down and talk about it.

 

[JBeukema]

The State teaches ethics, not morals

No, it teaches morals and dresses it up to appear to be ethics.

Incorrect. The state can only teach ethics, that which acceptable and that which is not. Morals cannot be taught, but are inherent and subjective. Morals can be influenced in impressionable young children, but the parents and family, as well as their social network have the child for years before the child attends public schools, and for many more hours after that. These influences are much strong that than the State at influencing the development of the moral instinct and the way it is influenced. The state is most effective and addressing ethics in the US, not morals. Remember also that the State is nothing but the elites from among the People and that the schools (where the3 state has the most influence over children) reflects the will of the People as a whole, as it is managed primarily at the local level.

It also has no right to teach either at any level below the University level.

There is no option, and your assertion is foolish. To deny the State to teach ethics would mean that children could not be punished for assaulting another student, no rules could be enforced at all, and the system would be in yutter chaos. Those rues about not hitting, playing nice, and 'treat others as you would have them treat you' are all ethics. some things are acceptable in the school setting, and others are not. The schools must be able to set and enforce such limits. In doing so, they will be teaching the children the ethics of what is and what is not acceptable in the environment of the school.

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't like the term ******. I did feel like one when I wasn't permitted to use sick leave to take my partner to a medical procedure.

I did express that feeling and got the board of directors to change the employment policy to include domsstic parnterships.

I just wish civil domestic parnterships carred the same state to state clout that a civil marriage contraact does.

I'm sorry that you felt like a ******--do you think you were treated like one too ?
( Is ****** now a catch all phrase we can use if we feel that life has been unfair to us or do you think it might be a word we should avoid ? )

I didn't uee the term aloud at work. When this happened I felt badly, and unfairly treated, devalued as a human being,

Homos devalue themselves as human beings

They engage in animalistic sub-human behavior

No wonder people treat them as less than human

 

[JBeukema]

They engage in animalistic sub-human behavior
?

Demonstrate that homosexuality is 'sub-human' behavior