http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425718/posts?page=1

Were you there, Chev? ;)
By the way, just notice the looks of the leftist protesters. Now looking at the beautiful and decent looking Polish families, rallying for morality and family values leaves no doubt as to whom is right and who is misguided. Seriously, if I looked the least like any of those leftist protests I would be pretty frustrated as well...

I'm not a big fan of the All-Polish Youth. I'm generally distrustful and resentful towards any political organisations aimed at young people. I don't like the idea of using babies and children for display in political manifestations.

And those lefties looked like real fascists. ;)

Of course, I still say a big no to gay marriage and adoption and demonstrations are much needed, I think. So don't think I'm against the idea. I just prefer to stay away from the All-Polish Youth. Any aggressive youth subcultures, anyway.

[ November 13, 2005, 17:27: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I always wonder why those morons from All-Polish Youth call themselves "All-Polish" ? I don't support those close to fascism organization neither do 99,99% of my friends.
The subject of homosexual mariages and adoptions should be discussed in seperate thread.

Poland :thumb:

Your society and its values are being undermined by a contemptible band of people. But some stand up to that threat, it would seem.

Go Polish lefties. :thumb:

I have confidence in the Polish people; they will know a wolf in sheep's clothing for what it is.

Poland [thumbs up]

Your society and its values are being undermined by a contemptible band of people. But some stand up to that threat, it would seem.

Go Polish lefties. [thumbs up]

I have confidence in the Polish people; they will know a wolf in sheep's clothing for what it is. I think you are a bit confused on Poland's values and society. Just a hint, it has nothing to do with Amsterdan. ;)
By the way, these leftist look like some punk losers. I would certainly not be proud standing on their ranks. :D

I'm simply disappointed in both sides. No attempt to find common ground or explain their positions; just a big "screw you" to the other side. This ought to set resolution (whichever way it goes) back a few months at least. :rolleyes: Youth like these simply have too much free time on their hands. (Look who's talking. :shake: )

The only way this cr*p is ever going to stop is if these primates settle down enough to hammer out an agreement that neither side is happy with. (Both sides being happy would be ridiculously unlikely, given their extremism, but the other side being unhappy ought to be enough of a trade-off.)

I'm simply disappointed in both sides. No attempt to find common ground or explain their positions; just a big "screw you" to the other side. Shouldn't their looks alone make clear who is right, and who is not? :D


The only way this cr*p is ever going to stop is if these primates settle down enough to hammer out an agreement that neither side is happy with. (Both sides being happy would be ridiculously unlikely, given their extremism, but the other side being unhappy ought to be enough of a trade-off.) Maybe I dont quite follow you, but aint that an extremely silly solution? Making an agreement that none side is happy with - if that is even possible! - just for not letting either side have the upper hand?! How would that solve anything? Avoiding conflicts is always the worst solution to problems, because they always end up catching you ahead.

I think you are a bit confused on Poland's values and society. Just a hint, it has nothing to do with Amsterdan.
By the way, these leftist look like some punk losers. I would certainly not be proud standing on their ranks. Perhaps I am. Then again I have been many times to the Netherlands, but never to Poland.
Are you saying this display there is the logical conclusion of the Polish society and mindset?

Punk losers. I would like to think the Polish can muster more than a few autonomous groups to oppose those flag-waving hordes.
Dont tell me it isnt so. :cry:

Perhaps I am. Then again I have been many times to the Netherlands, but never to Poland.
Are you saying this display there is the logical conclusion of the Polish society and mindset?

Punk losers. I would like to think the Polish can muster more than a few autonomous groups to oppose those flag-waving hordes.
Dont tell me it isnt so. [crying] You are going to have to ask Chevalier and Undertaker here, but by reading what they have said, these All-Polish Youth does not - crap :D - the Polish society. In the other hand, their opposers seem to reflect much less, nonetheless.
Adding to what some Polish pals have told me, these leftists seem to have absolutely no bearing in the Polish society. But then my friends are a bit harsher than Chevalier and Undertaker and probably support the All-Polish Youth. :D

First time I hear of that militant lefty tribe. :shake:

By the way, these leftist look like some punk losers. I would certainly not be proud standing on their ranks. That's pretty much the same thing as I would say about those Russian rightist marchers you posted about in another thread earlier. ;)

Personally I think all these marches and parades are waste of time but it's their right to do it as long as they do so peacefully. Too often than not there are however radical elements involved and some sort of violent outbreaks appear sooner or later. I'll try to influence my government through democratic processess rahter than walking down the streets carrying signs with idiotic punchlines, but each to their own I suppose.

These nationalist youth movements do not worry me much since I'm quite confident that with most it's just a passing trait of rebelling against the society, be you rightist or leftist. Some may stay in their camps but those will in the end be a minority. In western democracies very little room is given for uncompromising attitudes and policies.

Shouldn't their looks alone make clear who is right, and who is not? This from the limburger. :rolleyes: IMHO, they ALL have at least a passing acquaintance with the ugly stick. ;)

Maybe I dont quite follow you, but aint that an extremely silly solution? Well, if you ask a stupid question, you should be ready for a stupid answer. :p

Making an agreement that none side is happy with - if that is even possible! - just for not letting either side have the upper hand?! How would that solve anything? Avoiding conflicts is always the worst solution to problems, because they always end up catching you ahead. Because both sides are clearly vindictive on the average, sticking it to the other side might be enough for them to stop behaving like ninnies for a while. Of course both sides will still push for their agenda, but at least they'll have a focusing document that they can bring to the negotiating table. That way they can keep their petty concerns out of the streets and in debate halls where they belong.

Morgoroth,

Those Russians protesters looked anything but punks. Anyway, while it is true most young leftists are just going through a rebellious phase, and usually grow out of it, most rightist are much more committed and serious our cause, and desertions in our ranks are pretty rare.

There's nothing wrong with gay people, it's their choice at the end of the day, and any demonstrations are ignorant and small-minded IMO. They need more important things to fill their sad lifes with and should leave gay people alone.

I find it a tad bit strange that people place so much emphasis on how the different sides (or their representatives in this particular instant) look. It's pretty prejudiced and shallow to brand someone something because they look like "punks."

Anyway, while it is true most young leftists are just going through a rebellious phase, and usually grow out of it, most rightist are much more committed and serious our cause, and desertions in our ranks are pretty rare.That's one of the reasons I think right wing extremism is more scary.

Those Russians protesters looked anything but punks. Anyway, while it is true most young leftists are just going through a rebellious phase, and usually grow out of it, most rightist are much more committed and serious our cause, and desertions in our ranks are pretty rare. From what I've seen they both come more moderate and the extreme ideas are eventually forgotten both will certainly maintain their core leftist or rightist values but the extremism disappear.

And the youngsters participating in the Russian protest sure looked like complete punks too, but protesting youngsters tend to be complete punks no matter on what side they are. You can have your opinion of course but to me they are all the same.

Ah, those scrubbed faces. Those clean clothes. The colorful peasant costumes. So like those parades in Nuremburg and Berlin--or was it Moscow--back in the good old 1930's. The posters change, but the mind-set stays the same.

The posters change, but the mind-set stays the same. As does the message, "You're not like us, so we don't like you."

*cheers the punks/other 'leftist' protesters*

You people whinge too much about dress sense :p They even look quite good for punks (comparative to punk dress styles, not ones that you think are appropriate :p )
If they're the people willing to get out there and protest against homophobia - I'm all for them. Were I in Poland, I would have loved to have joined them (and no, I don't look punk in the slightest...)

It's funny that so many children too young to make educated decisions for themselves are with the 't3h g4y is b4dzor!' crowd - yay indoctrination and using young children for political goals...

I find it a tad bit strange that people place so much emphasis on how the different sides (or their representatives in this particular instant) look. It's pretty prejudiced and shallow to brand someone something because they look like "punks."
Not really. If they look like stupid losers, I expect them to act accordingly.
I can almost smell them from behind my screen. They are ugly, they cant dress. Everything about them scream "I am a stupid loser".
I can only expect they act out of frustration for their pitiful and pathetic lives.

That's one of the reasons I think right wing extremism is more scary. Commitment makes nothing scary. Bad ideas do.
------------------------------------------------------

From what I've seen they both come more moderate and the extreme ideas are eventually forgotten both will certainly maintain their core leftist or rightist values but the extremism disappear. Extremism certainly fades away with time, but mostly because the smarter find better ways to fight for which they believe in.
I know for certain rightist seldom abandon their ideology, while marxist teenagers often become self centered and well off middle class people.


And the youngsters participating in the Russian protest sure looked like complete punks too, but protesting youngsters tend to be complete punks no matter on what side they are. You can have your opinion of course but to me they are all the same. I think we are giving different definitions of punk. If you mean the typical stupid twit, then it is up to you, but I am refering myself more to the classical definition of punk - you know, as in clothes and looks. Unless you think people marching with Orthodox banners have anything to do with the punk movement?
---------------------------------------------------

Ah, those scrubbed faces. Those clean clothes. The colorful peasant costumes. So like those parades in Nuremburg and Berlin--or was it Moscow--back in the good old 1930's. The posters change, but the mind-set stays the same. As does the message, "You're not like us, so we don't like you." That is indeed a very smart strategy - and I mean it for real. Accuse everyone marching for conservative ideas to be potencial nazi genociders. It surely will make the whole world look down on them.
--------------------------------------------------


It's funny that so many children too young to make educated decisions for themselves are with the 't3h g4y is b4dzor!' crowd - yay indoctrination and using young children for political goals... Children are oppressed by leftist ideas daily on schools and by the mass media, so why not? It certainly is better that the parents are "forcing" their views on their children - whom are the only ones with that right; till they are grown ups - than letting the UN do...

Ridiculous. (aimed at demonstrations)
It's their lives, don't tell them how to live it. They have every right to live how they want as you do to live yours.

Accuse everyone marching for conservative ideas to be potencial nazi genociders.That's not what was done, either by myself or Cernak.

Parse the posts, if you're skeptical.

Good news that there are people willing to act against these "gay-right paraders." If there were a similar protest in Finland, I wouldn't mind joining in. :)

Hmm, gee, I wonder if the photographer just might have, say, chosen the most anti-social looking people at the counter-protest as a way of making the counter-protest easy to dismiss....

Actually, most punks (as opposed to skinheads) tend to be very gentle people, I've found...

So standing up for traditional morals is out of fashion? I never gave a damn about fashion either. I'm glad to see people encouraged to stand for traditional morals, and welcome such movements. Maybe they need one in Ontario. Damn I wish I'd have thought of that when the gays went to the Canadian Human rights comission to force the mayor of London to declare a Gay Pride weekend. Compete with a Straight pride weekend and see the **** hit the fan...

But this wasn't a "straight pride" parade, it was an anti-gay one. Whole different ballpark.

Was this parade just trying to tell people how much they hate gays, or did it actually have some practical goal in mind?

Nah, it's more of a rally of a bunch of twits who haven't realized that it's the year 2005, and that a few things have changed since the dark ages. :shake:

That's not what was done, either by myself or Cernak.

Parse the posts, if you're skeptical. Cernak's post certainly drew a parallel between these people and the nazis.
Yours was quoted only as a complement.
---------------------------------------------------

Nah, it's more of a rally of a bunch of twits who haven't realized that it's the year 2005, and that a few things have changed since the dark ages. [grinning, shaking head]
Got love those "this is 2005 people" type of "arguments". They are just so, well, lacking of any substance.

Not really, the world has evolved you know. Gay people are widely accepted as normal human beings now, with rights and everything, believe it or not. It was a little different somewhat 30 years ago, when it was still kind of a taboo, but like i said, it's 2005 now, things have changed. Substance enough for you now ?

These protestors live in the past, what are they going to do ? Keep rallying against something that already exists and is just as normal as a ham and cheese sandwich ? What a waste of time.

I agree with Pac man, it's a waste of time and quite ridiculous. What exactly is wrong with gay people? As I said before, it's their choice and nothing to do with anyone else.

What gays do within their bedroom walls is of no concern to me. It is a whole different thing that they keep pushing their agenda into society.
There are places children have to undergo a class on homossexualism - talking about using children for political/ideological agendas - not to mention their parades being thrown at us, stupid laws which give them privilegies, having to see the most pushing of them almost having sex in the streets etc.
That being said, it is still not enough to convince me. For starters, the situation in Holland is not the same as in Russia, Poland or Serbia - well, the last gay parade there was not too successful - so unless you suffer from the western self righteous reasoning, that the West is the mirror and sole representative of the world, you cant say this is something which "already exists".
Furthermore, just because a phenomenon is going on, does it mean we can not fight against it, if we hold it as wrong and un-moral? Now that is defeatism.

There are places children have to undergo a class on homossexualismI don't suppose you have a link to back up that statement ? I think you mean that children are being tought that gay people are not monsters or anything. They're not trying to teach them how to become little gay kids. That wouldn't be tolerated anywhere.

so unless you suffer from the western self righteous reasoning, that the West is the mirror and sole representative of the world, you cant say this is something which "already exists"What's that supposed to mean ? You don't think there's gay people where you live ? That there's no homo's in Serbia or Russia ? There may be more of them than you like, but i guess they don't come out of the closet as fast as overthere, for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, just because a phenomenon is going on, does it mean we can not fight against it, if we hold it as wrong and un-moral? Now that is defeatism.You're absolutely right Don Quichotte. Oh look...isn't that a windmill overthere ? Now jump on your ass and charge. Never surrender !

I don't suppose you have a link to back up that statement ? I think you mean that children are being tought that gay people are not monsters or anything. They're not trying to teach them how to become little gay kids. That wouldn't be tolerated anywhere.
Children should not undergo these kind of classes, period. Doing so is the ultimate proof schools are no longer educational places anymore, but rather places children go to suffer ideological brainwashing.

What's that supposed to mean ? You don't think there's gay people where you live ? That there's no homo's in Serbia or Russia ? There may be more of them than you like, but i guess they don't come out of the closet as fast as overthere, for obvious reasons.
That means western situation does not reflect the whole world. As simple as that.

You're absolutely right Don Quichotte. Oh look...isn't that a windmill overthere ? Now jump on your ass and charge. Never surrender ! Was that supposed to be sarcastic? I think germans who fought against nazis, the Russians who fought against communism were all just a bunch of delusional Don Quichottes.

Children should not undergo these kind of classes, period. Doing so is the ultimate proof schools are no longer educational places anymore, but rather places children go to suffer ideological brainwashing.I ask you again...do you have a link to back that statement up, because frankly, i think you're just making this up. Come up with proof of such schools, or drop it.

That means western situation does not reflect the whole world. As simple as that.Again you're avoiding the question. Are you THAT scared to find out that there's hundreds of thousands of homosexual slavs on this planet ? Does that burst your bubble of nationalistic pride ? It doesn't reflect the western situation, it reflects gays everywhere. They exist, and they won't go way, wheter you like it or not. Might just as well accept it.

Was that supposed to be sarcastic?Does a bear crap in the woods ?

Children should not undergo these kind of classes, period. Doing so is the ultimate proof schools are no longer educational places anymore, but rather places children go to suffer ideological brainwashing. Absolutely; the ideological brainwashing should be done at home, not in schools. If that means more homophobes, then that's just the way that society leans. (That may sound sarcastic, but in this case I'm dead serious.)

I think germans who fought against nazis, the Russians who fought against communism were all just a bunch of delusional Don Quichottes. They sure were, but not in the way you're taking it. Don Quixote tilted at windmills, which he had no chance of "defeating" (due to size and damage issues), and which were able to sweep him aside without even trying. The same idea can be applied to shrinking minorities, which, in this "progressive" world, you are.

The true sadness of Quixote was that he was the only one seeing things 'as they really were', but as the minority he is labeled as the delusional one. The 'truth' is subjective, and wholly dependant on the majority. For the same reason, gays were delusional when they thought that they would be accepted, but somehow they managed to hang on, and now it is the other side that is delusional. Times change, and dinosaurs become extinct; but that's no reason not to fight for survival.

I salute your charge, Svy Quixote, and hope you have more luck than your ancestor (if only for diversity's sake). :)

'Idealistic brainwashing'... come on, what are you talking about? I have never known homosexuality to even come up at schools and even if it did it wuld just be say that gay people are just (shock horror!!!) normal human beings just like me and you. This is not 'idealistic brainwashing' (wtf?) this is just the truth and nothing more. Gay people aren't immoral monsters or anything of the sort, just normal people. They shouldn't even be separated like this.
I don't kow what you have against homosexuals, but you are an unbelievably argumentative person with very strange and out-dated views if you don't mind me saying so.

I ask you again...do you have a link to back that statement up, because frankly, i think you're just making this up. Come up with proof of such schools, or drop it.
That is what my friend had to undergo in San Francisco: "tolerence classes", "re-education" centers and Homosexual Studies classes in school. I will ask him if he has any link for that, although I doubt, since this is something he had to go through, instead of reading somewhere. Anyway, I will let you know when he gives me any feedback.

Again you're avoiding the question. Are you THAT scared to find out that there's hundreds of thousands of homosexual slavs on this planet ? Does that burst your bubble of nationalistic pride ? It doesn't reflect the western situation, it reflects gays everywhere. They exist, and they won't go way, wheter you like it or not. Might just as well accept it. ... Well, I will try to put it politely, which is hard, considering the fact you can not understand my point which is crystal clear, and I am repeating for the third time already: gays exist here, just as in the West; in the other hand, their acceptance and status is fairly different from where you live. Thus, your claim that "this is 2005, this is how things are" does not apply here. Is that clear enough?
----------------------------------------------------


Absolutely; the ideological brainwashing should be done at home, not in schools. If that means more homophobes, then that's just the way that society leans. (That may sound sarcastic, but in this case I'm dead serious.) If you hadn't put that in parenthesis, I would have never guessed you are serious, which is surprising, since we agree on that 100%.
Although I have said that many times before, I will do so again: Education should be the role of the civil society, not the state; in this case, what UN intellectuals believe to be the proper education and upbringing of children.
Of course the parents will tell their children which they hold as true, but that is exactly the roles of parents! The day the state takes this role away from parents, civil society freedom will be reduced to zero, and we will be living in a totalitarian state, per see.

They sure were, but not in the way you're taking it. Don Quixote tilted at windmills, which he had no chance of "defeating" (due to size and damage issues), and which were able to sweep him aside without even trying. The same idea can be applied to shrinking minorities, which, in this "progressive" world, you are. In that sense, I am glad to be called Don Quixote. ;)
I am indeed in the minority, but I see things reversing somewhat. Well, only time will tell, that is for sure.

The true sadness of Quixote was that he was the only one seeing things 'as they really were', but as the minority he is labeled as the delusional one. The 'truth' is subjective, and wholly dependant on the majority. For the same reason, gays were delusional when they thought that they would be accepted, but somehow they managed to hang on, and now it is the other side that is delusional. Times change, and dinosaurs become extinct; but that's no reason not to fight for survival. Except for the thruth being subjective - opinions are, not the thruth, but I realise you put it between " " for a reason - I think your quote is fair enough.
That is life, two - or multiple - sides fight to have the upper hand, and whoever wins gets the spoils. I dont see a problem with that, and only our commitment and self sacrifice will alone tell if we are victors or losers.


I salute your charge, Svy Quixote, and hope you have more luck than your ancestor (if only for diversity's sake). [Smile] Hehe, that is nice of you to say - even if not at all sincere ;) but let me remind you we overthrew communism in the end.
Since we are in the subject, let me throw a phrase that I so enjoy from a great American mind, H.L. Mencken:

There is a moment in the life of any honest man, that he shall hoist the black flag and start to cut throats. ---------------------------------------------------

'Idealistic brainwashing'... come on, what are you talking about? I have never known homosexuality to even come up at schools and even if it did it wuld just be say that gay people are just (shock horror!!!) normal human beings just like me and you. This is not 'idealistic brainwashing' (wtf?) this is just the truth and nothing more. Gay people aren't immoral monsters or anything of the sort, just normal people. They shouldn't even be separated like this.
I don't kow what you have against homosexuals, but you are an unbelievably argumentative person with very strange and out-dated views if you don't mind me saying so. Gays might as well not be monsters, but they do seem prone for un-moral and perverted behaviour. I dont oppose their existance, but I oppose their public displays of homosexualism.
And yes, today it is so common to have homosexualism thrown at our faces. I dont support that crap.

If they look like stupid losers, I expect them to act accordingly.
I can almost smell them from behind my screen. They are ugly, they cant dress. Everything about them scream "I am a stupid loser".That's pretty superficial. I hardly think people's fashion sense has all that much to do with whether they're losers or not. And I'm not defending any particular 'look' here. It's just pretty short-sighted to just up and decide who looks like a stupid loser.

Commitment makes nothing scary. Bad ideas do.Put the two together and you have right-wing extremism.

That is what my friend had to undergo in San Francisco: "tolerence classes"Just what is wrong with tolerance? Who knows, maybe those classes keep a couple of fruitcakes from commiting acts of violence.

Education should be the role of the civil society, not the state; in this case, what UN intellectuals believe to be the proper education and upbringing of children.
Of course the parents will tell their children which they hold as true, but that is exactly the roles of parents! The day the state takes this role away from parents, civil society freedom will be reduced to zero, and we will be living in a totalitarian state, per see.Pretty much, yeah. But there's also a thing called equality. If parents don't teach their children to treat people as equals, it results in discrimination at best, and at worst some extreme actions that wind them up in jail.

Gays might as well not be monsters, but they do seem prone for un-moral and perverted behaviour.Just where does this idea come from? How are they un-moral? Who are they harming? Unless this is some kind of a religious issue.

I dont oppose their existance, but I oppose their public displays of homosexualism.I oppose a great many things myself - adverts on the street, demonstrations I don't agree with, whatever. But I can tolerate them. It's not my private planet.

I don't support it either, i just accept the fact they are around. It's not my cup of tea either, but to each his own i always say. The gaypride parades and especially the gay olympics are way over the top in my opinion. They have struggled so long to get recognition, to be treated as equal human beings, but with outbursts like that they put themselves right back in an awkward spotlight.

The gay olympics is just a perverse gathering of party animals, they're not even real athletes. I think if i were gay, and a reasonable good athlete, i would try to compete in the normal olympics, and not in an orgy like the gay olympics. I remember when i had to be in Amsterdam for my work, when the gay olympics were held there. Me and my coworker saw the weirdest things, gays kissing eachother openly, licking eachother from head to toe, i even saw a couple having sex in an alley. Those are not things i wish to see either, and as far as i'm concerned they stop them from organizing events like that in the future, because it has nothing to do with sports in the first place.

But other than that, i don't care what they stuff in eachothers pooholes, i just don't want to see it in public. :shake:

The kissing thing isn't weird (heterosexual couples kiss in public all the time) and licking is only over the top if it's in private areas like the chest or bottom (though I personally wouldn't do that at all, it's still a personal preference). But having sex in an alley is definitely public lewdness, and they should have been arrested for that.

I agree that some of the demonstrations that the (public) gay community holds are doing more harm than good to their cause, but I consider the people in them to be not unlike the KKK. Just a bunch of screwballs who want exclaim their separatism in the loudest way possible. I'm not about to look down on all gay people because of the actions of a few any more than I would look down on "white" people because of the KKK, or "black" people because of the Black Panthers (though I may be misinformed about the last one, what I've heard still fits with my point).

Ultimately, separate ceremonies like the Gay Olympics or the Latin Grammies or whatever are simply trying to provide equality NOW. Doesn't work quite that way, but eventually a minority can be accepted and start to win in the "regular" competitions. At that point it soon becomes obsolete (the black Oscars spring to mind, though that's still a judgement call).

It's not my private planet. Exactly. But that doesn't stop some people (Svy :p ) from wanting their own private nations.

Cernak's post certainly drew a parallel between these people and the nazis.It did indeed. Not quite the same as saying, "They're all potential Nazi genociders," however.

Not to mention the parallel was also made to the Soviets.

That's pretty superficial. I hardly think people's fashion sense has all that much to do with whether they're losers or not. And I'm not defending any particular 'look' here. It's just pretty short-sighted to just up and decide who looks like a stupid loser. I just think that people who look bad - in all aspects - have a big reason to act out of frustration, and acting out of frustration cam lead to some serious problems.
I think looks give a good headline.

Put the two together and you have right-wing extremism.
I could say just as much for leftism...

Just what is wrong with tolerance? Who knows, maybe those classes keep a couple of fruitcakes from commiting acts of violence. The problem is the brainwashing the children are going through, not tolerance itself.

Pretty much, yeah. But there's also a thing called equality. If parents don't teach their children to treat people as equals, it results in discrimination at best, and at worst some extreme actions that wind them up in jail. Still that does not rule out the role of the parents.

Just where does this idea come from? How are they un-moral? Who are they harming? Unless this is some kind of a religious issue.
Read Pac Man's description of their "Olympic Games". There is evidence enough to claim they are prone to perverted behaviour everywhere, but yet people refuse to admit so, all in the name of not being "bigots".
I have never seen such display in the real Olympic Games, just as I do not see people doing so in this Warsaw rally - now, in gay parades it is a whole different matter.

I oppose a great many things myself - adverts on the street, demonstrations I don't agree with, whatever. But I can tolerate them. It's not my private planet. Yes, what they do within their walls is not my problem. Anything beyound that it is.
---------------------------------------------------

Exactly. But that doesn't stop some people (Svy [Razz] ) from wanting their own private nations. UN intellectuals want the whole world for themselves/their ideas, what is the problem with me wanting just my Nation? ;)
----------------------------------------------------

It did indeed. Not quite the same as saying, "They're all potential Nazi genociders," however.

Not to mention the parallel was also made to the Soviets.
If they can be compared to nazis, they might as well be potencial nazi genociders...

I just think that people who look bad - in all aspects - have a big reason to act out of frustration, and acting out of frustration cam lead to some serious problems.
I think looks give a good headline.So are they frustrated because they look bad, or what? And look bad in who's eyes? It's all subjective.

The problem is the brainwashing the children are going through, not tolerance itself.So tolerance is not a problem, but teaching people tolerance is horrible brainwashing?

Still that does not rule out the role of the parents.That's right, it doesn't *rule out* the role of the parents. But if schools didn't teach people any ground rules of how to behave around others, there'd be even more violence and anarchy all over than there is now. Not all parents do such a hot job, you know. If daddy says gays should be towed behind a truck dragging them face down on the asphalt, is the society 'brainwashing' people when it says gays should be treated fairly?

Read Pac Man's description of their "Olympic Games".I did. It wouldn't be publicly accepted if straight people did the same, so it's no surprise gays doing it doesn't get accepted. But does it mean all gays are like that? You could just as easily say all straight people are violent whackos because there are straight football hooligans.

In a way I can understand the behavior in the 'Gay Olympics.' Drunk on freedom, getting absorbed in the group mentality and not really thinking anymore. The same thing can happen to heterosexuals, you know. Straight people have orgies too. If some loud bunch made a big issue of how it's 'bigotry' that we're not allowed to have orgies publicly, soon there very well might be public straight orgies. The phenomenon is not so much about whether people are homo- or heterosexual.

Yes, what they do within their walls is not my problem. Anything beyound that it is.Well, if someone has a problem with people having problems with gays not staying in the closet and walking with eyes downcast, they're going to be just as convinced of themselves being right as you are. And then everybody will be screaming "I am right!" "No, *I* am right!" Wouldn't it be better to just try to get along?

UN intellectuals want the whole world for themselves/their ideas, what is the problem with me wanting just my Nation?That the UN intellectuals type of tolerant ideas don't harm anybody. Wanting an anti-gay state harms gay people.

Are the tolerant ideas restricting your right to hate gays? Well, laws restrict my right to murder too. Don't I feel oppressed.

That is indeed a very smart strategy - and I mean it for real. Accuse everyone marching for conservative ideas to be potencial nazi genocide It is a smart strategy, since it's the same as calling those who march for the liberal ideas "Marxist" or "communist."

That is what my friend had to undergo in San Francisco: "tolerence classes" I underwent a similar class presented by a large American corporation. There goes the idea of "state run propaganda and brainwashing"

[ November 16, 2005, 16:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

So are they frustrated because they look bad, or what? And look bad in who's eyes? It's all subjective. Not it is not. You can certainly play with relativism ideas as much as you want, but the fact is they look quite bad and stupid.

So tolerance is not a problem, but teaching people tolerance is horrible brainwashing?
The way it is taught it is.

That's right, it doesn't *rule out* the role of the parents. But if schools didn't teach people any ground rules of how to behave around others, there'd be even more violence and anarchy all over than there is now. Not all parents do such a hot job, you know. If daddy says gays should be towed behind a truck dragging them face down on the asphalt, is the society 'brainwashing' people when it says gays should be treated fairly? Schools should teach children, and maybe give some basic grounds of morality, but it should never be a gathering place for spreading liberal propaganda.

I did. It wouldn't be publicly accepted if straight people did the same, so it's no surprise gays doing it doesn't get accepted. But does it mean all gays are like that? You could just as easily say all straight people are violent whackos because there are straight football hooligans.
The fact is this kind of behaviour seems to be fairly more frequent amongst homos.

In a way I can understand the behavior in the 'Gay Olympics.' Drunk on freedom, getting absorbed in the group mentality and not really thinking anymore. The same thing can happen to heterosexuals, you know. Straight people have orgies too. If some loud bunch made a big issue of how it's 'bigotry' that we're not allowed to have orgies publicly, soon there very well might be public straight orgies. The phenomenon is not so much about whether people are homo- or heterosexual.
If Heteros have orgies within their walls, it is our own problem.
I dont see we doing so out in the open like in these poor excuses for "gay olympic games" and gay parades.
Everything else is especulation.

Well, if someone has a problem with people having problems with gays not staying in the closet and walking with eyes downcast, they're going to be just as convinced of themselves being right as you are. And then everybody will be screaming "I am right!" "No, *I* am right!" Wouldn't it be better to just try to get along?
Then we will have a conflict, and one side will come out as a victor, as everything in life. Trying to "get along" is nonsensical and weak to me, if I can not comply with the other side stance.

That the UN intellectuals type of tolerant ideas don't harm anybody. Wanting an anti-gay state harms gay people.

Are the tolerant ideas restricting your right to hate gays? Well, laws restrict my right to murder too. Don't I feel oppressed. Yes, because UN intellectuals just want the best for all human beings. How is it that I am so blind I can not see their humanistic purposes?
----------------------------------------------------



It is a smart strategy, since it's the same as calling those who march for the liberal ideas "Marxist" or "communist."
Except that being called a nazi is the worst offense possible, and enough to discredit one's claim completely.
Being regarded as a commie or marxist will, at most, make people think you are an uthopian person, "although with a good heart, and who fights for a noble cause, even if impractical in the real world".
There is an abyss of difference.

I underwent a similar class presented by a large American corporation. There goes the idea of "state run propaganda and brainwashing" It does not have to be a state run program. Hell, no one does a better job than NGOs - most of which are financed by the UN.

Being regarded as a commie or marxist will, at most, make people think you are an uthopian person, "although with a good heart, and who fights for a noble cause, even if impractical in the real world".
Yes, except that Stalin was a communist. As was Mao.... One can have liberal ideas and ideology and NOT be a communist, or a Marxist for that matter.

BTW, that diversity class was here in Houston, Texas, hotbed of the religious right - not "San Francisco."

Yes, except that Stalin was a communist. As was Mao.... One can have liberal ideas and ideology and NOT be a communist, or a Marxist for that matter.
Yes, but they are all leftists. Regardless, that was not my point, which was accusing someone of being a commie is hardly a strategy people use to discredit people's views, since in the collective imaginary being a commie is not a bad thing. In the other hand, accuse someone of being a nazi and he becomes the worst scondrel ever, and his views are worthless and disconsidered a priori. I can certainly see a strategy being applied here.


BTW, that diversity class was here in Houston, Texas, hotbed of the religious right - not "San Francisco." Meaning? I dont know the content of your class, so I can't say the motivations behind it. I know which was all about the San Francisco one though - which was told to me by my friend - and that surely was a pure mental brainwashing.
Even if Houston is a "hotbed of religious right", it does not mean there are no leftist groups doing their typical propaganda there, by the way.

Not it is not. You can certainly play with relativism ideas as much as you want, but the fact is they look quite bad and stupid.I could also assume that because of your typos/misspellings ('especulation?') you are uneducated and stupid, but that would make no more sense than judging people whose looks I don't like, now would it? The only 'fact' is that they look bad and stupid *to you.* It's not absolute.

Trying to "get along" is nonsensical and weak to me, if I can not comply with the other side stance.Good luck trying to deal with the rest of the world.

Schools should teach children, and maybe give some basic grounds of morality, but it should never be a gathering place for spreading liberal propaganda.First of all I hardly think of it as propaganda. But how about right wing propaganda? Would you have a problem with that? Oh, right - the right wing is *right.* How thoughtless of me.

The fact is this kind of behaviour seems to be fairly more frequent amongst homos.The key word here is 'seems.' And if you did some research on criminal records, among cases of exhibition/public indecency you'd pretty surely find more heteros than homos. Not to mention cases of sexual violence.

Yes, because UN intellectuals just want the best for all human beings. How is it that I am so blind I can not see their humanistic purposes?I won't make claims about the UN specifically. But I really don't see the harm in striving for tolerance and equality. What else is it, a gay conspiracy to overthrow heterosexuality?

Except that being called a nazi is the worst offense possible, and enough to discredit one's claim completely.
Being regarded as a commie or marxist will, at most, make people think you are an uthopian person, "although with a good heart, and who fights for a noble cause, even if impractical in the real world".
There is an abyss of difference.Seeing as not so long ago the US regularly executed its citizens who were suspected of being communists, the abyss is not so deep. You're tweaking the definitions and imagery to your benefit there, mixing commie with hippie.

I could also assume that because of your typos/misspellings ('especulation?') you are uneducated and stupid, but that would make no more sense than judging people whose looks I don't like, now would it? The only 'fact' is that they look bad and stupid *to you.* It's not absolute. You can assume whatever you want, but the most logical assumption would be that English is not my mother language.

Good luck trying to deal with the rest of the world. Not the rest of the world, just a small bit.

First of all I hardly think of it as propaganda. But how about right wing propaganda? Would you have a problem with that? Oh, right - the right wing is *right.* How thoughtless of me.
Except that right wing propaganda is hardly spread in mass media, much less in schools.

The key word here is 'seems.' And if you did some research on criminal records, among cases of exhibition/public indecency you'd pretty surely find more heteros than homos. Not to mention cases of sexual violence.
Not "seems", it simply is. Their "olympic games" and parades are a good indication.

I won't make claims about the UN specifically. But I really don't see the harm in striving for tolerance and equality. What else is it, a gay conspiracy to overthrow heterosexuality? The problem is that this is just an undercover for things much more important and in-deepth than "equality and tolerance".

Seeing as not so long ago the US regularly executed its citizens who were suspected of being communists, the abyss is not so deep. You're tweaking the definitions and imagery to your benefit there, mixing commie with hippie. I am not interested in "not so long ago". The fact is, if you tell someone else you are a commie, he might give you a funny look, but that is it. Try telling him you are a nazi though; it might even ensue an ass beating if they are in numerical disadvantage.

[ November 16, 2005, 18:16: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

Even if Houston is a "hotbed of religious right", it does not mean there are no leftist groups doing their typical propaganda there, by the way. I suppose that one may view any large American corporation as a "leftist group." Anyone is free to label anything as "leftist" whether the particular group thinks it is leftist, or just a group grounded in the reality that a portion of its employees and customers may be "gay" or any other minority. Wait ! :doh: I almost forgot, we are not talking reality here, but ideology.

I suppose that one may view any large American corporation as a "leftist group." Anyone is free to label anything as "leftist" whether the particular group thinks it is leftist, or just a group grounded in the reality that a portion of its employees and customers may be "gay" or any other minority. Wait ! [doh] I almost forgot, we are not talking reality here, but ideology. I dont remember saying your company is leftist. Actually, I specifically remember mentioning I did not know the content of these classes you took, much less the motivations behind it.

You can assume whatever you want, but the most logical assumption would be that English is not my mother language.Missed the point, did we? It's not my first language either and I make typos too. The point was that assumptions like that are just like assumptions made based on appearance - shortsighted and stupid.

Not the rest of the world, just a small bit.In other words, whoever disagrees with you. Of course I didn't mean the entire globe loves gays. I meant that generally it's not a very smart attitude to think that "trying to get along is nonsensical and weak."

Except that right wing propaganda is hardly spread in mass media, much less in schools.There's that 'pro-war/pro-Bush/if you don't agree you're a traitor' -news channel in the US. But I haven't seen much leftist propaganda around - apparently this becomes about what one considers to be leftist propaganda. You apparently see equality for gays as such, I don't.

But you didn't answer the question. Let's phrase it a little differently: *Theoretically,* would you have a problem with right wing propaganda taught at schools, *if* such a thing was to happen?

Not "seems", it simply is. Their "olympic games" and parades are a good indication.Quite a generalization there. It has been estimated recently that 1-6% of the world's population are homosexuals (as opposed to the frequently claimed 10%). Unless there were more than 60 000 000 people present, the Gay Olympics thing is hardly conclusive evidence of how all or even most gay people behave.

Straight people do some pretty nasty things too on a daily basis, but nobody's claiming they do it because "straight people are like that."

The problem is that this is just an undercover for things much more important and in-deepth than "equality and tolerance".Please do share with the rest of us what this secret, hidden, sinister agenda is.

I am not interested in "not so long ago". The fact is, if you tell someone else you are a commie, he might give you a funny look, but that is it. Try telling him you are a nazi though; it might even ensue an ass beating if they are in numerical superiority.Where my brother used to work (less than a year ago) there was this one guy who was quite obviously a neo-nazi, complete with the SS symbols, swastikas and ultra-racist attitude. Nobody harassed him in any way. People gave him funny looks.

@ Svyatoslav,

Except that right wing propaganda is hardly spread in mass media, much less in schools. I take it Fox News is not available where you live? Ask any American - Fox is an entire network dedicated to right wing propoganda, and it is one of the biggest if not the biggest network in the US (by biggest I mean most watched). As for radio you have the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. And the number of right wing propoganda authors are too numerous to mention. As I obviously am not aware of what the media presents in your corner of the world, I cannot speak for them, but to claim that right wing propoganda is hardly spread in the mass media simply isn't true.

@ Everyone else:

I think there is a rather blantant and obvious disconnect here. People the like of Svyatoslav and Gnarrflinger will never change their stance, because in their mind's eye, they possess the moral high ground. If you start with the assumption that homosexualism is amoral and perverse, there's no way to reason from that starting point that it's at the same time a normal, tolerable thing. That's also why Svyatoslav says that teaching children to treat gays equally is brainwashing, because to him that is exactly what is happening. To him, people who are openly homosexual is not a good thing, and thus it is entirely logical to him that you wouldn't want to teach children something that isn't good. Furthermore, since even children have some limited ability to determine right from wrong, the only way you can convince them to accept these not good things is to brainwash them.

The main reason your attempts to sway Svyatoslav have been unsuccessful is not because your arguements lack merit, it is because they are not addressing the basis of his mindset, which is where this reasoning comes from. Unless you can figure out a way to get into his head - a prospect I seriously doubt is possible - then all of your effort will prove futile.

Aldeth: I was wonder when you would come to that conclusion (actually I thought you had given there are fewer responses to Gnarff et al). My whole family believes homosexuality is a sin and can be corrected through faith. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will sway that opinion. No amount of medical evidence or scientific research will convince them that homosexuality is not a sin (weakness of the flesh, they call it).

When I commented that the diversity class I took was here in Houston, which was promoted by the company I worked for, you said:

Even if Houston is a "hotbed of religious right", it does not mean there are no leftist groups doing their typical propaganda there, by the way. So, what did you mean?

People the like of Svyatoslav and Gnarrflinger will never change their stance, because in their mind's eye, they possess the moral high ground. Because, in some of our opinions, it has nothing to do with the moral high ground. It is more a matter of ideology to them. People on all sides pick-and-choose the issues they wish to regard as on the moral high ground. Case in point: abortion is morally wrong because it "kills babies." Yet, war is OK, even if it kills babies. "Life is sacred" and killing is wrong: but the death penalty is Ok, so is the war in Iraq...I could go on with this...

T2B,

Well, one of the reasons I have not been very active in this thread is that is the conclusion I have come to. In order to have a productive arguement, one must come into the arguement either having a neutral viewpoint, or one that is at least open-minded and allows for the possiblity for change. As you correctly point out, such is not the case here.

Taken to a broader context, there is little people like Gnarff and Svy can say to sway other people's viewpoints that homosexualism is normal and should be openly tolerated and accepted. So perhaps the other side is no better.

The main difference I see in the two sides is the "Gay is OK" side puts forths arguements that those on the other side can try to refute. On the other hand the "Gay is not OK" side simply uses the Bible as a starting point, stating that "The Bible says it's wrong" and then, that's the end of the arguement. I cannot state with any conviction which side is right or wrong, because once you enter the realm of religious beliefs, you're never going to get universal agreement. Besides, if you beat your head against a wall long enough, you just may knock it over. :bang:

Because, in some of our opinions, it has nothing to do with the moral high ground.@ Chandos,

I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately, to the people in question, the moral high ground has EVERYTHING to do with it. To think otherwise is to commit a crime against God, which is not an acceptable course of action. Don't get me wrong - I think you are correct, but this doesn't change the fact that they feel the moral high ground is very real and on their side.

[ November 16, 2005, 19:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

If the pro - gay people have a right to have parades and protest something, then the people who oppose them should have the right to have a parade as well. As long as the protests are non-violent and do not violate long standing norms of public decency (ie: neither side should be getting naked) they should be allowed to protest.

I am, as most know, opposed to homosexuality and the trend toward societal acceptance of such as normal behaviour, but at the same time, homosexuals are citizens and have the right to peacefully advocate changes that they wish to see made in their society.

@Aldeth

I am anti-gay and do not care what the bible says. My rationale is that it goes against nature and therefore is unnatural.

@LKD

Very well said.

@ Whomever cares

People that are anti-gay wouldn't have a cause if the pro-gay people would just shut up and live their lives without bothering the rest of us. Nobody will ever gain acceptance by trying to force/legislate it. That is just common sense, acceptance must be earned.

I can easily turn that around and say that people that are pro-gay would have no cause if the anti-gay people would just shut up and stop complaining and caring how gay people live their lives.

Actually, Morgoroth, I really don't care how they live their lives -- if they want sodomize each other, more power to them -- there's a sale on K-Y at the Wal-Mart this week. My problem comes when they want to change the rules and laws by which the society I live in is run. This includes having parades that are disgusting and vulgar by the standards of the vast majority of the society. I feel this way about every group that does this sort of explicit stuff, not just homosexuals (Mardi Gras comes to mind). If a group wants to rent a hall or auditorium and be graphic, more power to them, but not on a public street.

In other words, if they keep their private lives private, I've got better things to do than hassle them. But if they bring this stuff out into the public eye, then I have every right as a citizen to speak out against their public actions.

@ LKD - My comments were more directed towards Svy and Gnarff, not you in particular, but the same reasoning holds for your opinion as well. I will add two words from my previous quote to include your outlook as well:

If you start with the assumption that homosexualism is amoral, unnatural and/or perverse, there's no way to reason from that starting point that it's at the same time a normal, tolerable thing. (new words bolded)

The point is that if you come to the arguement with your mind already made up, there's really nothing anyone can do to change it. I'm certainly not condemning anyone for making a decision about the relative rightness/wrongness of homosexuality at the time they enter into the discussion.

Thanks Aldeth. To make my position a little more clear, I have a problem with a parade on a public street wherein two gay men dry-hump each other on a float as it goes down the street (as has been done during some Gay Pride parades.) I also have the same problem with a hetero man and hetero woman dry-humping each other on a float going down that same public street during some other parade. Either way, it's a public display that would offend the sensibilities of the vast majority of the population. Private wise, have all the consensual fun you want, folks!

Sorry if this enters into the "too much information" category, but are you saying you are opposed to any expression of public lewdness or the performance of sexual acts in public? Because while that seems reasonable, it has nothing to do with being anti-gay or anti-homosexuality, because you're opposed to it regardless of gender.

And I am asking that as a serious question. I do not feel that you have made your position more clear. It started out as being anti-gay, and turned into anti-sex in public, which I think the vast majority of people would openly agree with, regradless of their sexual orientation.

Fair question -- it seems to me that a lot of gays engage in public lewdness, and when they are told that their behaviour is disgusting and inappropriate, they say "if it were two heteros you wouldn't have a problem with it, so you're a bigot and an evil person . . ." you get the idea. I'm launching a pre-emptive strike against that argument by pointing out that the behaviour they are engaging in would be subject to my censure regardless of who is performing it.

That said, while there are some notable examples, heteros do not launch these kinds of parades as often as gays do.

As for being anti-gay, you're right in that I do proceed from the baseline belief that the behaviour is inherently wrong and contrary to God's will. That said, there are literally 1000s of other behaviours that also are inherently wrong and against God's will, and I don't spend time wandering into people's homes uninvited and telling them to smarten up -- I've got my own flaws to fix and my own life to live. It's when they bring their behaviours into the public eye that I get bent out of shape and might go participate in a peaceful, law-abiding anti-gay parade.

Taken to a broader context, there is little people like Gnarff and Svy can say to sway other people's viewpoints that homosexualism is normal and should be openly tolerated and accepted. So perhaps the other side is no better.I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but if Svy or Gnarff could produce credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful, I'd certainly be open to changing my mind.

Missed the point, did we? It's not my first language either and I make typos too. The point was that assumptions like that are just like assumptions made based on appearance - shortsighted and stupid.
It is not me who says that, it is psychology. People who have a problem with themselves - bad looks, unpopularity, etc - are prone to act out of frustration, and acting so usually ensues some bad results. These people certainly fit the criterion of someone who would have many reasons to be frustrated.
I mean, if one of those ugly fat sissie looking parading "guys" could get a half decent looking chick, I am sure they would not have all that much reason to be frustrated and a rebellious leftist activist.
The same for those fat chicks. Looks can certainly indicate many things.
Compare them with that gorgeous and decent looking blondie marching with her small child. That is a whole new business.

In other words, whoever disagrees with you. Of course I didn't mean the entire globe loves gays. I meant that generally it's not a very smart attitude to think that "trying to get along is nonsensical and weak." Let me make this straight. I wont beat the crap out of someone who likes a football team opposed to mine, or who likes X band better than my favourite one, or even someone who preffers Harry Potter to Silmarillion, but then there are some points of view which I simply can not accept, and I do not befriend people who think nothing like me. My friends are all somewhat simillar to me. I think it is weak and nonsensical to get along with those people who share no values with me whatsoever.

There's that 'pro-war/pro-Bush/if you don't agree you're a traitor' -news channel in the US. But I haven't seen much leftist propaganda around - apparently this becomes about what one considers to be leftist propaganda. You apparently see equality for gays as such, I don't. All this forced education on tolerance, "equality", gay rights is propaganda to me, yes. When you hammer those very same concepts in the minds of small children, that is brainwashing.
There is this myth that before these leftist considerations became fashion and mandatory, everyone was upraised taught to hate everything which is not White, Christian and straight, which is simply not true.
With this is mind, people think it is the "right thing to do" to force some artificial and extremist idea of tolerance, which is almost a synonym to PC.


But you didn't answer the question. Let's phrase it a little differently: *Theoretically,* would you have a problem with right wing propaganda taught at schools, *if* such a thing was to happen?
What propaganda? Before this PC leftist hysteria schools were never a place for rightist brainwashing. If the schools were to be as they were before - a place for proper education, instead of ideological indoctrination - it would be perfectly fine to me.

Quite a generalization there. It has been estimated recently that 1-6% of the world's population are homosexuals (as opposed to the frequently claimed 10%). Unless there were more than 60 000 000 people present, the Gay Olympics thing is hardly conclusive evidence of how all or even most gay people behave. What is the point? Give examples to people and they will always say you are generalising. Stereotypes and generalisation don't sprout from the minds of some hateful people with too time on their hands. They always - or mostly - have some true to them.
In this case it is quite clear, and I wish you address it directly. Straight olympic games are sport competitions to show physical prowess; homo olympic games are a poor excuse for degeneration and lewdness. The same is true for gay parades. The same can also be said about homo night clubs - no, I have never been there, but it is quite a common sense amongst people who have been there. If you want to discredit the night club part, because I dont have evidence to support it right now, the gay parades and "olympic games" can not be refuted though.
You can make up whatever excuses you want to, but the fact is one: These games and parades are a poor pretext for lewdness, depravation and degeneration. The same does not happen in the hetero counterparts, thus, it can not be denied homosexual behaviour is far more "agressive" - to put it mildly - than our own.
If you want to further debate this, please provide me some argument as to why this is, instead of accusing me of making "generalizations".

Straight people do some pretty nasty things too on a daily basis, but nobody's claiming they do it because "straight people are like that."
Read above.

Please do share with the rest of us what this secret, hidden, sinister agenda is. Feel free to search my past posts, and this has been extensively debated.

Where my brother used to work (less than a year ago) there was this one guy who was quite obviously a neo-nazi, complete with the SS symbols, swastikas and ultra-racist attitude. Nobody harassed him in any way. People gave him funny looks. I would guess they did not have the physical courage to confront him, or maybe they are just not prone to violence.
However, you wont be honest denying nazis are not looked down with much more despise and contempt than a commies is, at least in our day and age - a hint, being a nazi can get you jailed in many places, being a commie wont get you jailed anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------

Aldeth,

I take it Fox News is not available where you live? Ask any American - Fox is an entire network dedicated to right wing propoganda, and it is one of the biggest if not the biggest network in the US (by biggest I mean most watched). As for radio you have the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. And the number of right wing propoganda authors are too numerous to mention. As I obviously am not aware of what the media presents in your corner of the world, I cannot speak for them, but to claim that right wing propoganda is hardly spread in the mass media simply isn't true. Ok, fair enough, but let me repeat what I have said about FOX and Bush previously.
Sure, FOX and Bush are not leftist, and are regarded as rightist, which I wont address - after all, Bush economical policy is indeed rightist - but then their kind of "rightism" has nothing to do with my ideological world view, and in some way, not even with the more traditional rightist stance.
Before you say I am talking out of my ass, let me fundament my claim. For starters, despite all that Bush has said and promised, the fact is he did not move out against illegal immigrants, and even proposed to regulate their situation. Another example, although the Republicans "own" both the parliament and the White House, what has Bush done against abortion, which is an important issue to the traditional right? Nothing. Isn't it true a good part of the right winged Americans are dissatisfied with Bush dealing in these issues? Furthermore, what is the relation between making wars for israel and rightism?
I just want to repeat I am not calling both Fox and Bush leftist, but I do think their extreme "rightism" is greatly overblowed, and in many times are contrary to the demands of the traditional right.
Well, basically that is it.

As for the moral high ground, my opposers believe the same stuff, if that can be applied to me. Discussing anything with a leftist activist is as much of a waste of time as it is to you debating me.
--------------------------------------------------

When I commented that the diversity class I took was here in Houston, which was promoted by the company I worked for, you said:

quote: Even if Houston is a "hotbed of religious right", it does not mean there are no leftist groups doing their typical propaganda there, by the way.

So, what did you mean?
I mean that Houstoun being a hotbed of the right, does not mean there are not leftist activists out there.
As I said in the same post, I don't know which were the contents of your course, or the motivations behind it, because, although that is a rare sight, these tolerance classes can be something other than typical the leftist idea of what is being tolerant, and can have a neutral ground.
I don't know if the company - the owners, directors whoever - you work in are left leaning. They can be, or they might not be.
It is also a possibility they thought this course was something necessary to do, because of external pressure or whatever. I dont know, I am just assuming.

Because, in some of our opinions, it has nothing to do with the moral high ground. It is more a matter of ideology to them. People on all sides pick-and-choose the issues they wish to regard as on the moral high ground. Case in point: abortion is morally wrong because it "kills babies." Yet, war is OK, even if it kills babies. "Life is sacred" and killing is wrong: but the death penalty is Ok, so is the war in Iraq...I could go on with this... People dont kill deliberately babies in Wars - the ones who do are criminals and should be tried. Death penalty is given to people who have no regards for the lives of others. That is like finding hypocrisy in the reasoning of someone who is pro freedom but also pro jailing - read, taking people's freedom from them - criminals.

Okay, I couldn't sit by and watch any longer. Starting from the end and working my way up!

Death penalty is given to people who have no regards for the lives of others.Does this reek of hypocrisy to you, or is it just me? Realising of course that I'm from a country where Death penalties haven't been used in centuries. Doesn't by killing someone, even if they have no regards for other lives, show that you are of similar thought as they are? Chandos is completely right there, as you have just proven; people only see it when they want to. Selective vision.


Regarding the entire left/right propaganda. Atleast here in New Zealand, right propaganda shines through much more than left. Yes, there are more left extremists. But in saying that, there are a few things that must also be pointed out. First of all, these extremists usually only make a show of themselves during elections - other than that, you never hear of them. Even they are in the extreme minority.

Right propaganda though, even under a centre-left government, is everywhere. Yes, even at schools. Any had to do religous studies at primary school before? Nothing annoyed me more than people trying to force views like that on children. But preeching acceptance and tolerance... you might have mentioned it before, but I can't remember it, but what is wrong with tolerance? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all accepted each other for what we are?


Well done, Svyatoslav, you managed to not answer the question again.
Let me repeat it for you:
*Theoretically,* would you have a problem with right wing propaganda taught at schools, *if* such a thing was to happen? Straight olympic games are sport competitions to show physical prowess; homo olympic games are a poor excuse for degeneration and lewdness.Straight olympic games? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as straight olympic games. The olypic games currently have no sexual restrictions placed on them. Unless things have changed since the Greek Olympics two years back?

Well, I guess I can understand where you're coming from. I mean, been forced to sit infront of the TV (or did they make you go to the stadium where these games were been held?) and watch this gay olympics isn't right. And I'm sure who ever forced you to go and watch that gay parade you're complaining about must have done so at gun point. Prehaps you should report them to the police?

Sarcasim done with - in the end of the day, nothing is forcing any of us to attend those things. If the government were to require every citizen to spend 2 hours a year attending a gay event then prehaps it might be a different matter - but they don't, nor will they ever. Until then, it is perfectly possible to avoid such things if you wish.

Going slightly off the subject, do you consider Animal Rights laws to be 'leftist'?


It is not me who says that, it is psychology. People who have a problem with themselves - bad looks, unpopularity, etc - are prone to act out of frustration, and acting so usually ensues some bad results.No, you are correct there. It is not you who says that. But it IS you who say that they look bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - ever heard that saying before?


And last but not least, my favourite part of all!
I think it is weak and nonsensical to get along with those people who share no values with me whatsoever.Let me throw some examples at you of where people have had similar views. Starting with the extreme: Nazism The apartite system (sorry about the spelling) North vs South Ireland conflict. Paliestin vs Isreal conflict.I could go on, but I think you... let me rephrases that, I HOPE you get the point. Having an inflexable, non-tolerant attitude can only, in the grand scale of things, lead to destruction, violence, etc etc.

People who have a problem with themselves - bad looks, unpopularity, etc - are prone to act out of frustration, and acting so usually ensues some bad results.Sure.

I mean, if one of those ugly fat sissie looking parading "guys" could get a half decent looking chick, I am sure they would not have all that much reason to be frustrated and a rebellious leftist activist.
The same for those fat chicks. Looks can certainly indicate many things.
Compare them with that gorgeous and decent looking blondie marching with her small child. That is a whole new business.Err...Are you looking at the same pictures I am? The only 'negative' things about how those leftist look are the punkish hairdos and the non-photogenic facial expressions. Why would they first get mohawks and then get all frustrated about how bad it looks? I hardly think they themselves feel they look like you say, so I don't think they're frustrated with how 'bad' they look.

Let me make this straight. I wont beat the crap out of someone who likes a football team opposed to mine, or who likes X band better than my favourite one, or even someone who preffers Harry Potter to Silmarillion, but then there are some points of view which I simply can not accept, and I do not befriend people who think nothing like me. My friends are all somewhat simillar to me. I think it is weak and nonsensical to get along with those people who share no values with me whatsoever.By 'getting along' I don't mean befriending. But for example, if you have a business and are deciding which of two applicants you might hire, would you take an unexperienced and uneducated straight guy or an experienced and educated guy who happens to be gay? Or in an important business meeting, would you shun a wealthy client if you found out he was gay? Or if you found out there's a gay teacher in the school your kids go to, would you raise a ruckus or just try to get along? This is the type of thing I'm talking about.

What propaganda? Before this PC leftist hysteria schools were never a place for rightist brainwashing. If the schools were to be as they were before - a place for proper education, instead of ideological indoctrination - it would be perfectly fine to me.I didn't suggest schools were a place of rightwing propaganda before, you know. And you still didn't answer the question, you just said there's no such thing and never were. Fine, maybe not. But what if someone started such just now, how would you feel about it? If schools started to, say, teach kids to avoid homosexuals at all costs because they're sick, dangerous perverts? What would be the results from that?

Give examples to people and they will always say you are generalising.For example, scientific studies, statistics and surveys would be a whole lot more convincing than isolated events.

Straight olympic games are sport competitions to show physical prowess; homo olympic games are a poor excuse for degeneration and lewdness. The same is true for gay parades. The same can also be said about homo night clubs On the 'gay olympics' I agree. Such an event is in quite bad taste and while I myself can't be bothered to get all outraged, I fully understand why such displays are offensive to many people. Such an event would be offensive and in bad taste also if the people involved were heterosexual.

As for homo night clubs...well, I don't think regular straight nightclubs are exactly temples of chastity either. Of course straight clubs come in both classy and smutty varieties, but the principal is the same. I would imagine there are reasonably classy gay clubs too, but I don't really know.

Gay parades probably are intentionally provokative, they wish to shake things up a bit and raise attention and thus awareness. It often works in their disadvantage. I don't like watching dry humps either, but it doesn't shock me. I can go about my business and stay away, like I would stay away from any other demonstration or parade.

On the 'secret sinister aggenda' as I called it:

Feel free to search my past posts, and this has been extensively debated.Would it be this:

civil society freedom will be reduced to zero, and we will be living in a totalitarian stateIn this is the case, I understand the concern but I think it is misdirected. Much more severe examples of such a direction can be seen for example with the US restricting people's rights to put on anti-Bush demonstrations (or so I've heard). Or something similar to that. Surely political correctness has been taken to ridicilous proportions, but I really don't think teaching kids not to hate gays is a step towards a totalitarian rule.

However, you wont be honest denying nazis are not looked down with much more despise and contempt than a commies is, at least in our day and ageMaybe nazis are more despised. One reason for this is probably that many people associate commies with hippies and leftists instead of Stalin's forces. Neo-nazis and racist skinhead groups with similar goals have a reputation of being violent, commies I suppose don't.

As for that guy I mentioned not getting any trouble, it was mainly because nobody cared. People just thought he was a dumbass. I don't think he has to fear of a beating unless he runs into a group of seriously frustrated immigrants.

But the word commie still has a very, *very* negative ring to it especially in America. In Finland too, because of the conflicts with the Soviet Union. The actual point was that just as rightist sometimes get labeled nazi types, leftists get tagged much the same way. The difference in severity is really not *that* large.

Sure, FOX and Bush are not leftist, and are regarded as rightist, which I wont address - after all, Bush economical policy is indeed rightist - but then their kind of "rightism" has nothing to do with my ideological world view, and in some way, not even with the more traditional rightist stance. and

I just want to repeat I am not calling both Fox and Bush leftist, but I do think their extreme "rightism" is greatly overblowed, and in many times are contrary to the demands of the traditional right. Hmmm... This is something that I had not really considered, and I have to admit, my knowledge of European politics is pretty much limited to western Europe. It is entirely possible that the definition of "leftist" and "rightist" differ significantly when speaking to an American, compared to someone from Eastern Europe. Let me assure you though, that to an American, Bush embodies all of the typical "rightist" agenda points. It seems that one of the few things we can agree on when it comes to these definitions is Communism is an example extreme "leftism" while Nazism is an example of extreme "rightism". If we don't at least agree on that, then our definitions aren't similar at all.

But the word commie still has a very, *very* negative ring to it especially in America. In Finland too, because of the conflicts with the Soviet Union. As an American, I would have to agree that commie still is considered much more negative in the U.S. than nazi. No doubt this has to do with the fact that no Americans were sent to concentration camps by Nazis, or had their houses bombed by Nazis, etc. Pretty much the only American killed by Nazis were American soldiers, which makes it "OK" in the sense that in a war situation, you have to expect your adversaries to shoot back.

That having been said, no Eastern European country was involved in two major military conflicts over the past 50 years or so, that were largely concerned with preventing the spread of communism. When you consider Korea and Vietnam, there have been more Americans killed by commies than nazis, so maybe that's where the difference lies. Of course, another major difference is that there are a hell of lot more Americans still alive that fought in Korea and Vietnam compared to WWII.

The more I think about it Svy, I am rather surprised that you view commies as more palatable than nazis. I've already intimated that my knowledge of Eastern European politics and history is limited, but from my limited perspective, I seem to remember that Czekoslovakia was annexed by the Germans prior to the beginning of hostilities in WWII, meaning that it was essentially taken without a fight. Now, no doubt, there were many deaths in Czekoslovakia over the next 6 or so years of Nazi occupation.

Again, from my limited perspective, I seem to remember that Czekoslovakia was part of the Iron Curtain, and under Soviet rule for over 40 years following WWII. One would tend to assume (and be wrong evidently) that this would piss people off after a while. Essentially, unless you come from a family that was in tight with the Communist party, that you would have a much more negative view of communists as compared to nazis.

Rotku,

Most of what you say is recicled stuff I wont bother re answering, so I will just focus on a few points.

Does this reek of hypocrisy to you, or is it just me? Realising of course that I'm from a country where Death penalties haven't been used in centuries. Doesn't by killing someone, even if they have no regards for other lives, show that you are of similar thought as they are? Chandos is completely right there, as you have just proven; people only see it when they want to. Selective vision. Selective vision? What about selective reading? Really, I dont know why I bother... Do you think someone who is pro-freedom and condones the jailing of criminals is also being hipocrital?

Skipping the leftist/rightist stuff which you bring nothing new to...


Well done, Svyatoslav, you managed to not answer the question again.
Let me repeat it for you:

quote:*Theoretically,* would you have a problem with right wing propaganda taught at schools, *if* such a thing was to happen? I pretty much implied schools should be a neutral ground.

Straight olympic games? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as straight olympic games. The olypic games currently have no sexual restrictions placed on them. Unless things have changed since the Greek Olympics two years back?
Straight as in opposed to the specific homosexual one... I will try to be clearer when answering you. :rolleyes:



Well, I guess I can understand where you're coming from. I mean, been forced to sit infront of the TV (or did they make you go to the stadium where these games were been held?) and watch this gay olympics isn't right. And I'm sure who ever forced you to go and watch that gay parade you're complaining about must have done so at gun point. Prehaps you should report them to the police?

Sarcasim done with - in the end of the day, nothing is forcing any of us to attend those things. If the government were to require every citizen to spend 2 hours a year attending a gay event then prehaps it might be a different matter - but they don't, nor will they ever. Until then, it is perfectly possible to avoid such things if you wish. Yes, maybe if they didn't do these kind of things in the middle of the street no one would be forced to watch.

Going slightly off the subject, do you consider Animal Rights laws to be 'leftist'? I think animal rights activists are 99% left leaning, but animal rights are not leftist per see, only a bit too nonsensical most of the times.

No, you are correct there. It is not you who says that. But it IS you who say that they look bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - ever heard that saying before? Sure. Relativism is the pinnacle of civilization. Deceive yourself all you want, but the way these people are dressing and behaving they certainly don't have a very positive image of themselves. I just checked with a few people to see if I was hallucinating things myself, but their opinions was unanimous. Of course you can say they look perfectly normal, for the sake of disagreing with me. Whatever fits you. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

And last but not least, my favourite part of all! Yes, because if I like to get along with like minded people I must be a nazi. You are butchering logics.
-------------------------------------------------

Err...Are you looking at the same pictures I am? The only 'negative' things about how those leftist look are the punkish hairdos and the non-photogenic facial expressions. Why would they first get mohawks and then get all frustrated about how bad it looks? I hardly think they themselves feel they look like you say, so I don't think they're frustrated with how 'bad' they look. Because screwing deliberately your looks like that certainly indicates a very low self steem and self image.

By 'getting along' I don't mean befriending. But for example, if you have a business and are deciding which of two applicants you might hire, would you take an unexperienced and uneducated straight guy or an experienced and educated guy who happens to be gay? Or in an important business meeting, would you shun a wealthy client if you found out he was gay? Or if you found out there's a gay teacher in the school your kids go to, would you raise a ruckus or just try to get along? This is the type of thing I'm talking about.
Why can't I chose an educated and experienced straight guy? The question is ill intentioned to begin with.

I didn't suggest schools were a place of rightwing propaganda before, you know. And you still didn't answer the question, you just said there's no such thing and never were. Fine, maybe not. But what if someone started such just now, how would you feel about it? If schools started to, say, teach kids to avoid homosexuals at all costs because they're sick, dangerous perverts? What would be the results from that? Yes I did. I implied the schools should be a neutral ground, as they have been before.

For example, scientific studies, statistics and surveys would be a whole lot more convincing than isolated events.
Not isolated. Behaviours which keep repeating themselves in all these events.

On the 'gay olympics' I agree. Such an event is in quite bad taste and while I myself can't be bothered to get all outraged, I fully understand why such displays are offensive to many people. Such an event would be offensive and in bad taste also if the people involved were heterosexual. It is a pity a great deal of these homosexuals don't have a problem with being offensive to "many" people.


As for homo night clubs...well, I don't think regular straight nightclubs are exactly temples of chastity either. Of course straight clubs come in both classy and smutty varieties, but the principal is the same. I would imagine there are reasonably classy gay clubs too, but I don't really know. I dont know out of experience myself. Just basing my opinions from word-of-mouth honestly.


Gay parades probably are intentionally provokative, they wish to shake things up a bit and raise attention and thus awareness. It often works in their disadvantage. I don't like watching dry humps either, but it doesn't shock me. I can go about my business and stay away, like I would stay away from any other demonstration or parade. Yes, the intentionally provokative stance is the problem, which they simply ignore.

On the 'secret sinister aggenda' as I called it:

quote:Feel free to search my past posts, and this has been extensively debated.

Would it be this:

quote:civil society freedom will be reduced to zero, and we will be living in a totalitarian state

In this is the case, I understand the concern but I think it is misdirected. Much more severe examples of such a direction can be seen for example with the US restricting people's rights to put on anti-Bush demonstrations (or so I've heard). Or something similar to that. Surely political correctness has been taken to ridicilous proportions, but I really don't think teaching kids not to hate gays is a step towards a totalitarian rule.
I think this anti-Bush prohibition is BS, although I could be wrong.
Parents teaching their children not to hate gays is not totalitarian rule. The state taking away from parents the right to upbring their children as they want, it is pure totalitarism.

Maybe nazis are more despised. One reason for this is probably that many people associate commies with hippies and leftists instead of Stalin's forces. Neo-nazis and racist skinhead groups with similar goals have a reputation of being violent, commies I suppose don't.

As for that guy I mentioned not getting any trouble, it was mainly because nobody cared. People just thought he was a dumbass. I don't think he has to fear of a beating unless he runs into a group of seriously frustrated immigrants.

But the word commie still has a very, *very* negative ring to it especially in America. In Finland too, because of the conflicts with the Soviet Union. The actual point was that just as rightist sometimes get labeled nazi types, leftists get tagged much the same way. The difference in severity is really not *that* large.
If people wrongly associate commies with idealistic and naive people, it just shows someone out there is purposedly giving the wrong message on what commies really are.
Regardless, you just admited my point, which was nazis have a much worse image than commies do, which is totally nonsencial and suspicious.

Because screwing deliberately your looks like that certainly indicates a very low self steem and self image.Or, much more likely, a different idea of beauty than you.

You never had contact with one of them, do you?

Do you think someone who is pro-freedom and condones the jailing of criminals is also being hipocrital?This argument seems strange to me. It's basically saying that either everyone is a hypocrite or no one is. There probably aren't many people here who wouldn't be 'pro-freedom.' But the definition you seem to have placed on being pro-freedom seems to be that pro-freedom people couldn't support any law enforcement at all. Aside from imprisonment and death/violence, the only punishment left would be monetary fines, and they restrict freedom as well. The argument is absurd.

Thinking that killing is wrong, but accepting the use of capitol punishment - it means that the rule that killing is wrong is not absolute and should be applied only when it fits one's interests. With imprisonment the idea is not so much to take away the freedom, but to protect the rest of the society from the criminal in question; to protect the freedom and rights of others. To the society it has the same effect as a death penalty in this sense, but without the killing and with less of a vengeful eye for an eye spirit.

I pretty much implied schools should be a neutral ground.Okay, so finally an answer: rightist propaganda would not be okay either, schools should be neutral grounds. I just don't understand why it's so damn difficult to say "no, rightist propaganda is not okay either."

Not isolated. Behaviours which keep repeating themselves in all these events.Compared to organized studies, surveys and statistics they are isolated. You could just as easily say that black people are thieves and drug dealers, because there have been several cases where they have been just that. But it is not the whole truth or even striving to get as close to the whole truth as possible.

I dont know out of experience myself. Just basing my opinions from word-of-mouth honestly.And this is the problem. I don't know any gay people, so I haven't been able to talk to them to find out what kind of club culture they actually do have. Therefore I don't fling out accusations that their clubs are dens of deprivation.

Parents teaching their children not to hate gays is not totalitarian rule. The state taking away from parents the right to upbring their children as they want, it is pure totalitarism.But what if some parent out there brings up their children not to follow the rules of the society? Teaches them it's perfectly fine to beat up people who are weak and take what they have? If the state steps in and tries to teach the opposite, is it totalitarian thinking? After all, they're restricting the parents' right to bring up their children as murdering animals if they so please.

Why can't I chose an educated and experienced straight guy? The question is ill intentioned to begin with.It is a *hypothetical* question, but it could happen. But let's make the setting a little less extreme. Let's say the position you're looking to fill is very specialized and competent people in the particular area are very rare and hard to find, and only those two people show up. Let's say that they're both competent, but the gay one is slightly more experienced. Which would you hire?

Because screwing deliberately your looks like that certainly indicates a very low self steem and self image.Again you're assuming they too think they're 'screwing their looks' doing that. Yes, I'm playing with relativism here, but that's what looks are all about. Fashions come and go, and now there are more subcultures and different styles than ever. A few decades ago decent people would have been outraged by the kind of clothing people who you consider proper-looking wear. I myself strongly dislike business suits, but I don't go about assuming that people wearing them are desperately trying to prove they're important or something.

Chances are, those punks *like* their punky mohawks and whatnots.

Yes, the intentionally provokative stance is the problem, which they simply ignore.I think they'd get acceptance and their message across better if they were less provokative about it. But also I can understand the mentality: they're sick of being outcasts and treated by the rest of the world as inferiors or perverted monsters. They wish to say they're here and they're not going away so deal with it. They wish to be seen as equals to others, to hold their heads up high even though there are christians proclaiming they'll go to hell. But their methods have conflicting results. Some are shaken up to realize they're just people like the rest of us, others get outraged by the public displays.

It's also hard to see whether the outrage comes from the sexually oriented methods or the message itself. Probably both. They go hand in hand and feed each other. It goes in a circle. Person X thinks gays are sick and twisted, then sees a gay parade and gets angry because he thinks gays should just stay out of sight and live in the closet. And why should they stay in the closet? Because they're putting on public displays and refuse to stay in the closet where they belong! Because the displays are obscene! But the displays are so obscene because people like person X wish to shove the gay people back in the closet, and gay people don't like that. They react by making their displays more obscene and shocking to person X, and person X starts to hate gays even more because of it: Look at that display of obscenity, that's just what those gays are like, that's why they should all be... And so on.

If people wrongly associate commies with idealistic and naive people, it just shows someone out there is purposedly giving the wrong message on what commies really are.
Regardless, you just admited my point, which was nazis have a much worse image than commies do, which is totally nonsencial and suspicious.I think I only admitted it partially, that it's true in some places and among some people. You might also want to look at Aldeth's post just above yours.

I don't know how many of you play D&D games, but it is weird to see such... intolerance in this forums. I mean, can't you see some are "good-neutral", some "lawful good" and others (these gay dudes) "chaotic good"? Of course it's simplified, but the idea is the same... They have different sexual orientations, and that's about it. They're normal, fun and smart, at least the ones I've met. And the fact they're demonstrating is because the State in each country generally doesn't recognise them. They have to fight to adopt a child, same if they want to marry like every heterosexual person. Only because of being homosexual (or bi or whatever).

Most of what you say is recicled stuff I wont bother re answering, so I will just focus on a few points.That's fine - I was just giving my perspective on it! :) Thanks for what answers you have given! I believe that Susipaisti has neatly summed up a lot of what I would have said (although he's done it much better than I could have!), but there's just a few things I'll add.

Yes, because if I like to get along with like minded people I must be a nazi. You are butchering logics.I'm butchering logic, and you're butchering my words. Please go and read what I said again. I was obviously wishful thinking when I said I hope that you got my point there.

Sure. Relativism is the pinnacle of civilization. Deceive yourself all you want, but the way these people are dressing and behaving they certainly don't have a very positive image of themselves. I just checked with a few people to see if I was hallucinating things myself, but their opinions was unanimous. Of course you can say they look perfectly normal, for the sake of disagreing with me. Whatever fits you. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.Yeah, I could say that. But I'm with you in agreeing that they don't look perfectly normal. But once again, I repeat myself. It is just us who think they look bad. I'm sure to them we look bad. And what makes our opinion any more right than theirs?

Yes, maybe if they didn't do these kind of things in the middle of the street no one would be forced to watch.Hmm... what about Christmas paradaes?

[Edited]
Could I ask another question? If, another hypothetical situation, someone was to give you scientific proof, confirmed by all the leading sceintists in that field, that homosexuality was infact good for a person, would you be willing to accept them in society?

I don't know if the company - the owners, directors whoever - you work in are left leaning. They can be, or they might not be.
It is also a possibility they thought this course was something necessary to do, because of external pressure or whatever. I dont know, I am just assuming.
Most corporations are not in the business of political ideology - they are in business to make one thing: money - and lots of it. Thus, if a portion of their customer base is gay or, whatever else, they will take their money as they will anyone else's. They may donate money to politicians, but again that is only because certain politicians are better for business than others - at least they think. Again, it's not a matter of "rigtht" or "left" as I continue to try and explain to you, but a matter of business practice. I don't get why you continue to think it has anything to do with "leftist groups." It's really about money.

Some parties are pragmatic enough to donate to both left and right major parties, sometimes the exact same amount of money. ;)

Or, much more likely, a different idea of beauty than you.

You never had contact with one of them, do you? My fists had, often times.
-------------------------------------------------------

This argument seems strange to me. It's basically saying that either everyone is a hypocrite or no one is. There probably aren't many people here who wouldn't be 'pro-freedom.' But the definition you seem to have placed on being pro-freedom seems to be that pro-freedom people couldn't support any law enforcement at all. Aside from imprisonment and death/violence, the only punishment left would be monetary fines, and they restrict freedom as well. The argument is absurd.

Thinking that killing is wrong, but accepting the use of capitol punishment - it means that the rule that killing is wrong is not absolute and should be applied only when it fits one's interests. With imprisonment the idea is not so much to take away the freedom, but to protect the rest of the society from the criminal in question; to protect the freedom and rights of others. To the society it has the same effect as a death penalty in this sense, but without the killing and with less of a vengeful eye for an eye spirit.
Sorry, but that is BS. The idea is the same: sometimes you have to go against what you hold dear to protect the society, or to simply punish the criminal.
I am not making any greater exception by executing a criminal - if I am against killing - than you are, jailing another criminal - and if you are pro freedom.
And if you might claim to be protecting the society, so can I. That is all there is to it.

Okay, so finally an answer: rightist propaganda would not be okay either, schools should be neutral grounds. I just don't understand why it's so damn difficult to say "no, rightist propaganda is not okay either."
Sorry, I thought I had implied this sufficiently. I will keep that in mind when discussing with you from now on.

Compared to organized studies, surveys and statistics they are isolated. You could just as easily say that black people are thieves and drug dealers, because there have been several cases where they have been just that. But it is not the whole truth or even striving to get as close to the whole truth as possible. No, something which repeats itself is not isolated. There is no defition of isolation that has anything to do with comparison to "organized studies". :rolleyes:
Regardless, noting the constant repetition of events is half a step to giving statistics.
As for the black issue, the statistics say 1/3 of the african population of the US is udergoing one of the phases of the juridical system - imprisonment, warrant, parole or on trial. This is a statistic, thus, not an isolated case, so it must be a true claim to make? All by your logic of course.

And this is the problem. I don't know any gay people, so I haven't been able to talk to them to find out what kind of club culture they actually do have. Therefore I don't fling out accusations that their clubs are dens of deprivation. From the beggining I have said this was an assumption, although I believe it to be a true one, considering all the reports I have heard. It might not be an evidence to preach on others - even because people see what they want to see - but it is good enough to confirm my stance - not itself taken alone, but added to the other evidences that I have.

But what if some parent out there brings up their children not to follow the rules of the society? Teaches them it's perfectly fine to beat up people who are weak and take what they have? If the state steps in and tries to teach the opposite, is it totalitarian thinking? After all, they're restricting the parents' right to bring up their children as murdering animals if they so please.
What if, what if, what if? Don't you ever get tired of hypothesis? Parents may always err - at least in the view of others - when educating their children, but that is no excuse for the state to upbring the children in their instead. Most likely, the state has a much bigger chance to err then the parents do - and a much lesser reason to care for the children then the parents do.
The idea of a totalitarian state is exactly that one: if the civil society can not do properly on their own, we shall make it for them.

It is a *hypothetical* question, but it could happen. But let's make the setting a little less extreme. Let's say the position you're looking to fill is very specialized and competent people in the particular area are very rare and hard to find, and only those two people show up. Let's say that they're both competent, but the gay one is slightly more experienced. Which would you hire?
Again, I can not answer. If I know he is gay, most likely he is one of those "cheerful gays" - I don't know how to call it, but I guess you get the idea, those who behave like women - because if he kept that to himself, I would not know he is gay.
If that was the case, I would not hire him, because those type of gays are harmful to any professional/serious ambient. If he acted properly, I would never know and it would make no difference.

Again you're assuming they too think they're 'screwing their looks' doing that. Yes, I'm playing with relativism here, but that's what looks are all about. Fashions come and go, and now there are more subcultures and different styles than ever. A few decades ago decent people would have been outraged by the kind of clothing people who you consider proper-looking wear. I myself strongly dislike business suits, but I don't go about assuming that people wearing them are desperately trying to prove they're important or something.

Chances are, those punks *like* their punky mohawks and whatnots. I am sure they like their looks. Normal people don't. Keep playing with relativism all the more you want, but people who dress, change their looks and behave in a shock manner like that, to "oppose" the mainstream, have serious self identity and self steem problems, which is not something I came up with.

I think they'd get acceptance and their message across better if they were less provokative about it. But also I can understand the mentality: they're sick of being outcasts and treated by the rest of the world as inferiors or perverted monsters. They wish to say they're here and they're not going away so deal with it. They wish to be seen as equals to others, to hold their heads up high even though there are christians proclaiming they'll go to hell. But their methods have conflicting results. Some are shaken up to realize they're just people like the rest of us, others get outraged by the public displays. Yes, except that I can't understand that logic. They are sick and tired of being seen as outcasts, so they make sure they give even more reasons for people to look down on them. Sure.


It's also hard to see whether the outrage comes from the sexually oriented methods or the message itself. Probably both. They go hand in hand and feed each other. It goes in a circle. Person X thinks gays are sick and twisted, then sees a gay parade and gets angry because he thinks gays should just stay out of sight and live in the closet. And why should they stay in the closet? Because they're putting on public displays and refuse to stay in the closet where they belong! Because the displays are obscene! But the displays are so obscene because people like person X wish to shove the gay people back in the closet, and gay people don't like that. They react by making their displays more obscene and shocking to person X, and person X starts to hate gays even more because of it: Look at that display of obscenity, that's just what those gays are like, that's why they should all be... And so on. They are the only ones to be blamed. If they can only feed the "hate", what can I do?
The best strategy for any group of people who want to improve their image upon society was always to "play along with the societal rules". If you belong to a group of people you know people look down on, make sure you prove your worthy and capacity before you confront people.

I think I only admitted it partially, that it's true in some places and among some people. You might also want to look at Aldeth's post just above yours. I opened a new thread about it and answered him. Furthermore, don't you think it is suspicious that commies are usually viewed as naive and idealistic, rather than the genocidal butchers they are? Misinformation all the way up.
-----------------------------------------------------


I'm butchering logic, and you're butchering my words. Please go and read what I said again. I was obviously wishful thinking when I said I hope that you got my point there.

You are right, there is a good chance that I might also partake in the israelin/palestinian conflict; the Irish issue, or condone the apartheid system.
The idea is the same, if I stick to like minded people, chances are my behaviour will ensue a conflict such as any of the above mentioned.

Yeah, I could say that. But I'm with you in agreeing that they don't look perfectly normal. But once again, I repeat myself. It is just us who think they look bad. I'm sure to them we look bad. And what makes our opinion any more right than theirs? Serial murders also think think their murderers are perfectly fine. NO, I AM NOT comparing both things, but my point is that we can objectively claim someone's el