Stop the Oil or be Politicallly Correct?
- Thread starter Bodaddio
- Start date
So you're saying that I'm straight? Even if I like wieners in my butt? I think that maybe you are just trying to change the facts in order to validate your own victim mentality.
Last edited:
:thinking: Seriously? You thought I said you were straight? Some folks on here REALLY need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension. You're first up, Mister Buildington.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III
Experimental Member
Hey, you put yourself in a situation that can cause harm to yourself then thats on you. Do you know something I don't don't? Who decided that humans bodies were not designed to read books, wear clothes or shave?
Call me crazy but if I need something done I want the best person working for me I could give a shit less if I agree with him on homosexuality or anything else for that matter.
If your home is going up in smoke you're not going to screen the firemen. You have to learn to prioritize sometimes.
While the comparison was probably a tad extreme, it still stands. Sick people of any stripe, whether they be homophobes, racists, OR child rapists, cannot be allowed into positions of prestige, ie government committees. I can see your point- child rapsts should be in jail anyway...but all the aforementioned people ARE sick. While someone has the right to be a racist and a homophobe, they dont have the right to live free from consequences.
From your previous post:
"I was only pointing out that it seems that ONLY straight people seem to have a problem with this guy getting booted."
You are literally a crazy person.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Your thinking is wrong on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin.
Starting with the medical...pedophilia is a clinical mental illness, defined and described in DSM-IV, so yes, those individuals are truly sick. Your labeling the others alongside this red herring is just your attempt to demonize those you find disagreeable by association.
Homophobia and racism are not clinically defined nor recognized as illnesses. While you may not care for their respective viewpoints, there is no ground for you to label them as being sick...no matter how many actual illnesses you attempt to lump in beside them in discussion. These are, quite simply, people you disagree with.
Moving on to the bill of rights, the First Amendment is pretty clear about the importance of protecting free expression, and centuries of case law bear this out. I believe Dr. Katz has ample room to bring suit on such grounds, considering he was terminated from a government job based on his expression (historical, no less) of personal and political views. That's only the tip of the iceberg, though...when you talk about forbidding people from holding public duties based on your arbitrary disagreements with their social viewpoints, equal protection and due process come into play as well.
It sucks for you that you don't like what these people might say, but I think you need to take a hard look at what it means to be American before you fire off with any more of this fascist conjecture.
How did you get "ALL straight people seem to have a problem..." from "ONLY straight people have a problem..." I mean, it's not just semantics. One does NOT logically follow the other. You literally are a moron.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
HG does have a valid point, TomCat84...
Although I wouldn't want to work with someone that I know is homophobic or racist, it's not my place to deny them work or their right to say anything. As long as their beliefs and actions don't impede on other people's liberties then why should I care if the guy standing next to me hates me for sleeping with men or because I'm black?
It's when people use their hatred to oppress others that gets to me, and it works both ways. To be honest, we want to allow these people the ability to at least say what is on their mind regardless of how hateful it is. At least then, when we want to engage in our own personal and private business, we know exactly who not to approach.
Although I wouldn't want to work with someone that I know is homophobic or racist, it's not my place to deny them work or their right to say anything. As long as their beliefs and actions don't impede on other people's liberties then why should I care if the guy standing next to me hates me for sleeping with men or because I'm black?
It's when people use their hatred to oppress others that gets to me, and it works both ways. To be honest, we want to allow these people the ability to at least say what is on their mind regardless of how hateful it is. At least then, when we want to engage in our own personal and private business, we know exactly who not to approach.
Just getting posts mixed up. I apologize. Wanna apologize for calling me crazy?
D_Fiona_Farvel
Account Disabled
Exactly. Obviously in the minority here, but, I advocate separation of the public and private sphere, particularly in an era where smoking a joint, chasing some tail (yes, I'm crass), or expressing a contrary opinion can exclude or discourage an otherwise capable person from taking on a leadership role.At this rate, we'll hippie-love ourselves right into extinction.
Attempting to remove everything offensive or adversarial, especially when indirect, such as blogs, interviews, email, research, etc., from daily life is impractical. That any employer or the U.S. government would attempt such, especially while we continue to benefit from Nazi technology and hold up our slave-owning forefathers as exemplars is incredibly insincere.
If we can separate George Washington, Friedan, King, FDR, or others from their moral shortcomings, if one may deem them so, to recognize their deeds, the same should apply to all other people. Continuing this capitulation to hurty feelings or indirect offense, when, essentially, none exists with regard to professional behavior, is a slippery slope to placing the mediocre and only morally inoffensive in positions of power.
Take GWB, for example, in the wake of Clinton part of his winning platform was that he loved his wife and never cheated - whether he was actually a shit candidate or not was a lesser concern. Pardon me while I decline to offer my assent in establishing an environment that supports such simplistic perspectives. :no:
SilverTrain
Legendary Member
So much focus on the "politically correct" angle. But I stand by the point that a distraction is a distraction, and often intolerably so.
Hell no, you're obviously mentally disturbed and have a persecution complex.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
^^ Is that any better than being a charlatan who intentionally fabricates false statements?
D_Fiona_Farvel
Account Disabled
Perhaps better than using some incident from a previous thread - I'm guessing - to attack a poster whose conversation one's not involved?
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
This has nothing to do with anything from a previous thread, but more like an intentionally fraudulent signature/quote that someone has been adamantly using and forged my name to for months now. And last time I checked, it's still there.
