Would you say this is a universal right?

[Speculator]

1) Hello, Monsieur Speculator. Let me introduce myself: I am a woman who is neither Republican nor Democrat, thus, I am neither left-wing nor right wing. I don't relate to or claim any political party.

2) In the post you referenced above, I used the word "bigoted" but did not once reference your name or allude to you; yet, you came back and responded to said post as though I was talking about you (with whom I have not once conversed during my entire 3 year tenure on this forum). Which would lead a reasonable person--like myself--to believe that you thought I was referring to you. Now, why would you think I was calling you bigoted...? No one else came in and accused me of such.

3) I am an English major with two degrees: a BA in English Lit and an MA in Secondary Education. I don't need a dictionary; I am a dictionary. Just to verify, let me give you an example:

bigoted (big-uh-tid) -adjective
* hopelessly intolerant of any beliefs, opinions, or background that differs from one's own.

Here's another:
paranoid (pare-uh-noid) -adjective
* a state of the word "paranoid"
* of, like, or affected by paranoia

Also, I used my second degree to teach for many years, so I'm well-versed in how to deal with children. That having been said: Have a good, good day, sir :wave2:.

You think a couple of degrees makes you smart?

Let me remind you that a certain George W.Bush graduated from an Ivy League University. Half the checkout girls in the UK also hold degrees, and they're still working for the national minimum wage.

I hope the kids you teach are more impressed with your certificates!

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Gay people don't have a right to be not discriminated against in civil society, this has nothing to do with their gayness, nobody should hold this right imo. Telling people that they "cannot descriminate" is another way of fencing them in removing their ability to make their own decisions. In other words it reduces net freedom and has the complete opposite effect of what was really intended. This is trouble with most ideas with good intentions.

A society where individuals are free to discriminate is empirically freer than a society that denies its citizens those rights. We're talking about the very foundations of democracy, concepts like freedom of association or private property, without those basic rights there is no freedom, so it's essential that we uphold the individual's right to choose.

Telling people that they're not allowed to discriminate against X is only a stone's throw away from complete state control in all private decision making, and once the precent has been set it can be used for pretty much anything.

That's a perversion of the concept of freedom. You advocate a world in which people should be free to deprive one another of their freedoms on a discriminatory basis.

In any case gay people, indeed all human beings have the right not to be discriminated against on a variety of essentially spurious grounds, this is one of the fundamental human rights which underpin all human rights law.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You think a couple of degrees makes you smart?

Let me remind you that a certain George W.Bush graduated from an Ivy League University. Half the checkout girls in the UK also hold degrees, and they're still working for the national minimum wage.

I hope the kids you teach are more impressed with your certificates!

She smarter than you, chump.

 

[Speculator]

That's a perversion of the concept of freedom. You advocate a world in which people should be free to deprive one another of their freedoms on a discriminatory basis.

In any case gay people, indeed all human beings have the right not to be discriminated against on a variety of essentially spurious grounds, this is one of the fundamental human rights which underpin all human rights law.

Being free to discriminate is not a perversion of freedom, however the removal of it is.

It's like saying that in order to protect private property we have to remove people's right to dispose of it as they wish, it undermines the very concept of private property.

Given the choice I prefer the expansion of freedom, you prefer it's contraction. That's ok, but don't start calling me nasty words!

 

[Speculator]

She smarter than you, chump.

That maybe so, but it has nothing to do with her university education.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Being free to discriminate is not a perversion of freedom, however the removal of it is.

It's like saying that in order to protect private property we have to remove people's right to dispose of it as they wish, it undermines the very concept of private property.

Given the choice I prefer the expansion of freedom, you prefer it's contraction. That's ok, but don't start calling me nasty words!

You can back paddle all you like and try to dress your prejudices up in conceptual conceits and philosophy that doesn't change the fact that you're merely peddling a tired old hate ideology. But since you seem to want to call a spade a spade and enjoy boiling things down to brass tacks why do you object to being called homophobic when you manifestly are?

How is calling you what you proudly are the same as me calling you nasty words?

 

[Countryguy63]

Mr Speculator:
I was wondering why you are here. 186 posts so far, 185 in the politics Forum. You do realize this is primarily a BIG DICK website with a large amount of gay men as members.
Perhaps you would feel more at home at
Latest Articles
or Stormfront - White Nationalist Community ?????

It's pretty easy to figure out.

Hasn't anybody read his signature?

 

[Industrialsize]

Gay people don't have a right to be not discriminated against in civil society, this has nothing to do with their gayness, nobody should hold this right imo. Telling people that they "cannot descriminate" is another way of fencing them in removing their ability to make their own decisions. In other words it reduces net freedom and has the complete opposite effect of what was really intended. This is trouble with most ideas with good intentions.

A society where individuals are free to discriminate is empirically freer than a society that denies its citizens those rights. We're talking about the very foundations of democracy, concepts like freedom of association or private property, without those basic rights there is no freedom, so it's essential that we uphold the individual's right to choose.

Telling people that they're not allowed to discriminate against X is only a stone's throw away from complete state control in all private decision making, and once the precent has been set it can be used for pretty much anything.

So, do you think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an error?

 

[Tee&A]

You think a couple of degrees makes you smart? !
Let me remind you that a certain George W.Bush graduated from an Ivy League University. Half the checkout girls in the UK also hold degrees, and they're still working for the national minimum wage.
I hope the kids you teach are more impressed with your certificates!

What I think, sir, is that you completely missed the point. I did not state my education as a reference to my comprehension skills in general; I referenced my education as an allusion to my comprehension of the English language after you intimated that I didn't know what the word "bigot" means. It's almost algebraic: inference+accusation = reference to education to disprove inference.

Second, no, I don't believe my degrees make me "smart"; some of the most brilliant minds in history have never stepped foot inside a college or university. What I do believe is that college gives one indoctrination but life gives one education, so it is of no matter to me that anyone is "impressed" with my education. My education does prove, however, that I had the werewithal to commit to and meet the requirements of 6 years of applied study in English, so--impressive or not--I do hold those credentials and can reference them as I please; that is my right.

Also, I no longer teach; I got tired of dealing with "the system" and after years of paying my dues I--frankly--sold out. Such is my cross to bear. But I did have the privilege of touching a lot of children's lives during my tenure as an educator, and I can assure you that most of the children I interacted with that were from broken homes yearned to be in a stable environment and they could have cared less what gender the owners of that stable environment were. Children are funny that way.

Look: we could go back and forth all day long, but what would be the point? To prove that one of us has longer stamina in huffing and puffing and blowing our flats down? To prove that one can "one up" the other? That would be vapid. Besides that, this thread would lose all the edifying value it was intended to have.

Good day, sir.

 

[maxcok]

bigot:

a narrow-minded, prejudiced person. -- Your Dictionary

one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. -- American Heritage Dictionary

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. -- Merriam-Webster

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion. -- Wikipedia
........................................................................

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, and nationalism.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". Jews are understandably intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether. Both reactions can be classified as forms of cognitive dissonance. -- word IQ

I'm very happy to put my hand up and be counted for being completely intolerant of your intolerance.

:raises hand: Speaking as one who has at times been cast into hot water for being "intolerant of intolerance", even at times on this board, I am very glad to see this distinction recognized.

Anyone who expects this new (?) forum troll to respond with any measure of honesty when his positions are questioned, challenged, or clearly rebutted will wait in vain. Instead, he will deliberately deflect, misquote, spin what you say out of context, and employ any dishonest tactic he can to provoke a reaction. He will insult you, and when you respond he'll complain that you are "off-topic". I'm not even convinced he holds his bigoted positions as strongly as he pretends. I do know that he is an intentionally provocative and inflammatory troll.

It seems to me that the poster's bad behavior is clearly indicative of "general trolling" as referenced in the ToS. He's not entirely stupid though. He knows how to skate right up to the edge and then pull back, just as he did in his "reasonable" debate with Aconitum. I have no doubt that if he is reprimanded, he will protest indignantly (and disingenuously) that it is his ideology that is being censored, not his intentionally trollish behavior.

From my own encounters and observing his interactions with others I have come to the following conclusions: Like so many hardcore bigots, he is a small, pathetic, self-loathing, hateful individual - consumed with anger and desperate for attention in any form. His purpose is not honest reasonable debate on any level, quite the contrary. His primary goal is stirring up shit, goading others to react, and thereby feeding his insecure ego with an illusion of self-importance. I have no doubt he does exactly the same on other boards, and I find his sudden appearance here and his full-bore bigotry a little suspect to say the least.

Mr Speculator:
I was wondering why you are here. 186 posts so far, 185 in the politics Forum. You do realize this is primarily a BIG DICK website with a large amount of gay men as members.
Perhaps you would feel more at home at
Latest Articles
or Stormfront - White Nationalist Community ?????

Once again, the concise voice of common sense:

That, and he's a troll just getting off on offending as many as he can.

It's pretty easy to figure out. Hasn't anybody read his signature?

and then there's the new avatar . . . odd choice for a Brit, dontcha think?

 

[Speculator]

You can back paddle all you like and try to dress your prejudices up in conceptual conceits and philosophy that doesn't change the fact that you're merely peddling a tired old hate ideology. But since you seem to want to call a spade a spade and enjoy boiling things down to brass tacks why do you object to being called homophobic when you manifestly are?

How is calling you what you proudly are the same as me calling you nasty words?

Since when does individual freedom in decision making amount to little more than "hate ideology"? I think this says more about you and your take on human nature than it does about my creed. Are you that bitter you'd happily rob your fellow neighbour of the opportunity to pursue his own version of happiness? It seems like a heavy price to pay just to prevent others from doing something that you may disapprove of. If you want a one way ticket to a homogeneous, stagnant society with a deeply unhappy populous then you're arguing for all the right things. Well done, comrade.

 

[Speculator]

So, do you think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an error?

Yes.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No surprises there.

 

[Speculator]

:raises hand: Speaking as one who has at times been cast into hot water for being "intolerant of intolerance", even at times on this board, I am very glad to see this distinction recognized.

Anyone who expects this new (?) forum troll to respond with any measure of honesty when his positions are questioned, challenged, or clearly rebutted will wait in vain. Instead, he will deliberately deflect, misquote, spin what you say out of context, and employ any dishonest tactic he can to provoke a reaction. He will insult you, and when you respond he'll complain that you are "off-topic". I'm not even convinced he holds his bigoted positions as strongly as he pretends. I do know that he is an intentionally provocative and inflammatory troll.

It seems to me that the poster's bad behavior is clearly indicative of "general trolling" as referenced in the ToS. He's not entirely stupid though. He knows how to skate right up to the edge and then pull back, just as he did in his "reasonable" debate with Aconitum. I have no doubt that if he is reprimanded, he will protest indignantly (and disingenuously) that it is his ideology that is being censored, not his intentionally trollish behavior.

From my own encounters and observing his interactions with others I have come to the following conclusions: Like so many hardcore bigots, he is a small, pathetic, self-loathing, hateful individual - consumed with anger and desperate for attention in any form. His purpose is not honest reasonable debate on any level, quite the contrary. His primary goal is stirring up shit, goading others to react, and thereby feeding his insecure ego with an illusion of self-importance. I have no doubt he does exactly the same on other boards, and I find his sudden appearance here and his full-bore bigotry a little suspect to say the least.



Once again, the concise voice of common sense:

and then there's the new avatar . . . odd choice for a Brit, dontcha think?

Sounds like somebody had a tip off. Can you stop calling me a troll please, as you well know name calling breaches the forum rules:

Name calling or petty insults will not be tolerated and will result in action being taken.

Surely the mods wouldn't allow one rule for poor old Speculator and one for Maxcok, would they?

 

[Drifterwood]

You have the right to think whatever you want Spec. This right does not continue to actions or words, written and spoken, that then adversely impact upon another human being.

This community will be generally rather intolerant of your views, whilst sadly acknowledging that they are still held in some circles. The majority here will find your views on this issue somewhat retarded and will happily exercise their right to tell you so.

I find your view prosaic, and essentially irrational as I tried to point out above.

 

[maxcok]

Sounds like somebody had a tip off. Can you stop calling me a troll please, as you well know name calling breaches the forum rules:

Surely the mods wouldn't allow one rule for poor old Speculator and one for Maxcok, would they?

I will call a troll a troll, and I'm hardly alone in that assessment. I will also call you a racist, a white supremacist, a sexist, and a homophobe - a bigot if ever there was one. That's neither "name calling" nor "petty insults". Those are accurate descriptors derived from what you've proudly stated in your own words. Go ahead and deny it, and I'll happily link to your posts where you prove it. I'm very good at that btw, so you might not want to test me. Why here's one I could link, but why don't I just quote it instead:

I used to be an utter libtard on the matter, like Vinylboy. The gov't at the time were trampling all over Muslims' rights, even taking one young muslim woman to court for writing "dangerous" poetry. Then after sitting next to an American at work for a year or so he showed me the error of my ways and coaxed out my inner "racist", I fought it initially but he was quite persuasive. I don't think the label racist is very helpful though, it has all sorts of negative connotations and is a bit of mental roadblock for libtards, they can't get passed it.

I'm actually a culturalist. I believe that some cultures are superior to others and your cultural background (or ideology if you will) is far more important than a trivial issue such as skin colour. That means I tend to write off certain countries as well as the people living within them with sweeping generalisations, but life's too short to worry about the odd bit of stereotyping.

All cultures have their downsides, but some have a lot more than others. I would have no hesitation in putting white anglo-saxon culture near the top of the list, but to paraphrase Churchill, only because it's the least worst option.

Shall I also list the instances where you've called me and other posters names, Mister Doth-Protest-Too-Much? I could begin with the top of this thread, where - entirely unprovoked - you called me an "ignorant fool".
So you can stuff your usual spin and deflection along with your false indignation, troll.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's always "name calling" when the titles are more accurate than one lead on.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Since when does individual freedom in decision making amount to little more than "hate ideology"? I think this says more about you and your take on human nature than it does about my creed. Are you that bitter you'd happily rob your fellow neighbour of the opportunity to pursue his own version of happiness? It seems like a heavy price to pay just to prevent others from doing something that you may disapprove of. If you want a one way ticket to a homogeneous, stagnant society with a deeply unhappy populous then you're arguing for all the right things. Well done, comrade.

:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: Oh you got me! :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: "Comrade"?! Really? :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: I wet myself laughing as I type through the tears of mirth.:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

Yes I'm a Commie because I believe that all human's should be recognised in their right not to be unfairly or unreasonably discriminated against. :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:


You've gone from just plain old offensive, to comic in one fell swoop. :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

Like I said you can dress things up how you like, ultimately it's pretty apparent that your views have nothing to do with a rational philosophical weltanschauung.

 

[Industrialsize]

So, do you think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an error?

Yes.

No need for any further discussion. Spec has revealed his true nature.

 

[maxcok]

No need for any further discussion. Spec has revealed his true nature.

In spades, and long before this.