Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The Mob of Ignorance.

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

OK.  So it's a personal anecdote, not actually based on any facts.

Haha, "controversial".  Bit of an understatement.

Always odd to me when people want anti-gay sentiment coming from other communities dealt with harshly, but handle Islam's anti-gay stance with kid gloves.  

And orthodox Catholics' and other fundamentalists' homophobia is handled gingerly too.

Religion makes people stupid, imo, but it is what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goddess said:

If Islam's teachings and behaviours were even remotely gay-friendly, I might be inclined to believe you.  But it is actually very far away from being a gay-friendly religion.  So yes, I think it is a very big "secret" that Islam loves, accepts and tolerates the LGBQT+ community.  Apparently a secret known only to you.

It wasn't very long ago that gay-friendliness was virtually just as far away anywhere you went on Earth.  It took most societies hundreds of years to develop even a hint of friendliness and there are still merely a few of the more enlightened ones that have extended this to encompass rights and legal protection from...unfriendliness - almost entirely from social religious conservatives.

Anyways it's always good to see our conservatives defending the LGBQT+ community from unfriendly people.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacee said:

And orthodox Catholics' and other fundamentalists' homophobia is handled gingerly too.

Religion makes people stupid, imo, but it is what it is. 

Do these groups actually call for the death of gay people, like Islam does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It wasn't very long ago that gay-friendliness was virtually just as far away anywhere you went on Earth.  It took most societies hundreds of years to develop even a hint of friendliness and there are still merely a few of the more enlightened ones that have extended this to encompass rights and legal protection from...unfriendliness - almost entirely from social religious conservatives.

Anyways it's always good to see our conservatives defending the LGBQT+ community from unfriendly people.

"Conservatives" are the only people that actually protect anyone from anything.

Liberals get useless degrees and work as baristas, living in their parents' basements, or they leech off the system long enough to get on as profs. They don't ever join the military. I don't know a single Lib voter from the military and I'm still in touch with quite a few people. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Goddess said:

So it's a personal anecdote, not actually based on any facts.

And yet you bring up your own "personal anecdotes", equally as devoid of facts, as proof that Muslim men refuse to play nicely with women who have any kind of authority over them.  And you also eagerly accepted as truth Teena's anecdote about her personal experience of Muslims. 

So, why is Jacee's anecdote rejected, while Teena's is not?  Why would you even talk about your anecdotal experience, if such stories are proof of nothing in your mind? 

I'm guessing its because your anecdote and Teena's anecdote reflect badly on Muslims, while Jacee's does not.  Jacee's anecdote suggests Muslims are individuals, some of whom are gay or sympathetic to gays.  You'd rather that everybody viewed Muslims as a monolithic group for whom killing gays was all in a day's worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"Conservatives" are the only people that actually protect anyone from anything.

So you're saying centuries of gay-unfriendliness is actually the fault of liberals and Islamic homophobes are progressive?

Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"Conservatives" are the only people that actually protect anyone from anything.

Liberals get useless degrees and work as baristas, living in their parents' basements, or they leech off the system long enough to get on as profs. They don't ever join the military. I don't know a single Lib voter from the military and I'm still in touch with quite a few people. 

Then you need to get out more, instead of sharing these shortsighted remarks.

My inlaws are a military family and they voted Liberal. They weren't happy about everything on the Liberal platform, but there were more negatives on the Conservative side.

My wife who voted liberal is also well accomplished. She has been working since she was 14, is highly educated and has never worked at a coffee shop. To me, it sounds like you live in a bubble where you consume yourself with labeling people based on caricatures created for people within that bubble. It's a shame that people, in all areas of the political spectrum, consume themselves with these bs labels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"Conservatives" are the only people that actually protect anyone from anything.

Liberals get useless degrees and work as baristas, living in their parents' basements, or they leech off the system long enough to get on as profs. They don't ever join the military. I don't know a single Lib voter from the military and I'm still in touch with quite a few people. 

Every single person I know who voted Liberal is working, and has been working since their teens.  A couple of them hold senior, very well-paying positions not related to education. 

I don't know many people who don't work, come to think of it - and given that ~95% of Canada workforce is employed, with around 60% of them voting progressive (Liberal, NDP, Green), I think your comment is a serious divergence from reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Do these groups actually call for the death of gay people, like Islam does?

Extremists are extremists. What their particular brand of delusional and hateful religion is doesn't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

And yet you bring up your own "personal anecdotes", equally as devoid of facts, as proof that Muslim men refuse to play nicely with women who have any kind of authority over them.  And you also eagerly accepted as truth Teena's anecdote about her personal experience of Muslims. 

So, why is Jacee's anecdote rejected, while Teena's is not?  Why would you even talk about your anecdotal experience, if such stories are proof of nothing in your mind? 

I'm guessing its because your anecdote and Teena's anecdote reflect badly on Muslims, while Jacee's does not.  Jacee's anecdote suggests Muslims are individuals, some of whom are gay or sympathetic to gays.  You'd rather that everybody viewed Muslims as a monolithic group for whom killing gays was all in a day's worship.

I brought it up because YOU guys refuse to accept anecdotal evidence, yet insist we accept your's.  That's YOUR standard - not mine.  When many women are telling stories of being treated horribly by Muslim men, I consider that.  It's YOU who does not.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eyeball said:

So you're saying centuries of gay-unfriendliness is actually the fault of liberals and Islamic homophobes are progressive?

Who knew?

Gay-unfriendiness is just a bully thing. You can be a bully and like welfare cheques or you can be a bully who works hard and doesn't want to pay high taxes. Gay bashing has nothing to do with your political stripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Every single person I know who voted Liberal is working, and has been working since their teens.  A couple of them hold senior, very well-paying positions not related to education. 

I don't know many people who don't work, come to think of it - and given that ~95% of Canada workforce is employed, with around 60% of them voting progressive (Liberal, NDP, Green), I think your comment is a serious divergence from reality.  

It's not impossible to have a job and work hard and still believe everything you see on the CBC or CTV. There are a lot of people who don't actually think for themselves. 

Some of the most accomplished academics are people who learn by rote and lack the ability to disregard anything that is said to them by an authority figure, and it's actually extremely easy to manipulate people's emotions to create lasting memories and polarize their opinions.

Eg, CNN can show you a crying woman, and bring up the topic of rape, and tell you that you just have to believe what she says because she's crying. Never mind that lying under oath in front of Congress is reason enough for her to be completely emotional. She doesn't have to be able to name a place that the rape happened, or even name the year that it happened. She can name witnesses that all have no recollection of her story. She can claim to have no less than 2 phobias as a result of the rape and when it's proven that she doesn't live her life like she really has those phobias people will deny the relevance of that fact. She can be caught openly lying saying things like "I was literally the only person in North America who didn't know that the Republicans offered to fly to meet me with a polygraph and my own lawyers withheld that information from me". At the end of the day, despite the fact that every single shred of actual evidence points to the fact that the accuser is a liar, and that the accused is innocent, people will remain convinced that the fact that she is crying means that he is guilty. 

Millions of people were completely duped by Dr Ford and CNN, just like they were duped by the CBC and CTV into believing that Duffygate was more 20 times more serious than SNC Lavscam (based on the fact that DGate was deemed to be "worthy" of three years of headline coverage while SNC LavScam was only worthy of intermittent coverage over the course of 3 months). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Gay-unfriendiness is just a bully thing. You can be a bully and like welfare cheques or you can be a bully who works hard and doesn't want to pay high taxes. Gay bashing has nothing to do with your political stripe.

But protecting gays does and conservatism is the only thing standing between bullies and gay people.  Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

But protecting gays does and conservatism is the only thing standing between bullies and gay people.  Good to know.

Liberals are against putting people in jail for any length of time and they support every anti-police mob that comes along. If this country was completely run by liberals who would even be a cop? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Liberals are against putting people in jail for any length of time and they support every anti-police mob that comes along. If this country was completely run by liberals who would even be a cop? 

We wouldn't have needed cops to.protect gays if conservatives hadn't said gay people are against nature, and claimed things like gays will target our children and destroy our society.  

We wouldn't need cops now to protect LGBTQ+ if conservatives didn't promote hatred by saying things like "penis=boy and no penis=girl" and that accommodating them will destroy society. 

We wouldn't need cops now to protect immigrants if conservatives didn't claim there were too many who don't "fit in" and that they will destroy our culture. 

Diviseness, led by conservative rhetoric, emboldens verbal and physical attacks against specific groups.  Without hateful conservative rhetoric, we would have a more civil, and civilized, society and less need for policing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We wouldn't have needed cops to.protect gays if conservatives hadn't said gay people are against nature, and claimed things like gays will target our children and destroy our society.  

We wouldn't need cops now to protect LGBTQ+ if conservatives didn't promote hatred by saying things like "penis=boy and no penis=girl" and that accommodating them will destroy society. 

We wouldn't need cops now to protect immigrants if conservatives didn't claim there were too many who don't "fit in" and that they will destroy our culture. 

Diviseness, led by conservative rhetoric, emboldens verbal and physical attacks against specific groups.  Without hateful conservative rhetoric, we would have a more civil, and civilized, society and less need for policing.

 

Those types of crimes are like 0.0001% of all crimes committed.  Try not to misrepresent reality in order to support your argument.  Also it’s rich to hear you so concerned about the LGBT community at the same time as supporting Islam and Muslim immigration.  Thumbs up!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shady said:

Also it’s rich to hear you so concerned about the LGBT community at the same time as supporting Islam and Muslim immigration.

Well, see, unlike conservatives, I don't assume Muslims are all gay-bashing/killing fanatics - and if your claim that those sorts of crime comprise only 0.0001 of all crimes, I'd say my lack of assumption is correct.

Also, unlike conservatives, I don't assume that LGBTQ+ people are mentally I'll, looking for attention or pursuing an agenda to skulk in female washrooms and changerooms.

So please explain to me why conservatives assume people that are "not like them" are up to no no good,  lying or mentally ill?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

We wouldn't have needed cops to.protect gays if conservatives hadn't said gay people are against nature, and claimed things like gays will target our children and destroy our society.  

We wouldn't need cops now to protect LGBTQ+ if conservatives didn't promote hatred by saying things like "penis=boy and no penis=girl" and that accommodating them will destroy society. 

We wouldn't need cops now to protect immigrants if conservatives didn't claim there were too many who don't "fit in" and that they will destroy our culture. 

Diviseness, led by conservative rhetoric, emboldens verbal and physical attacks against specific groups.  Without hateful conservative rhetoric, we would have a more civil, and civilized, society and less need for policing.

"Conservatives" didn't say that gay people are against nature, nor did they attack them or advocate for attacking them. That's your talking point.

"Conservatives" don't say that immigrants don't "fit in" or that they will destroy our culture. That's your talking point. 

The only divisive rhetoric around is coming from the Liberal side. Construction workers are bad, Canadians say too many bad words so a 12 year old girl had to fake a hijab hoax, the only racism that exists is white people being mean to minorities, cops are all racist, white people were the only slave owners in history, it's ok to drive the jews into the ocean, returning islamic state terrorists will be a powerful voice against radicalization, allah plz help me not cuss/kill these cops and white people, etc, etc. These are all perfectly fine comments as far as the left is concerned. They are all divisive, moronic, and unacceptable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, see, unlike conservatives, I don't assume Muslims are all gay-bashing/killing fanatics -  

But you're ok assuming that conservatives are.  I get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Liberals are against putting people in jail for any length of time and they support every anti-police mob that comes along. If this country was completely run by liberals who would even be a cop? 

You're suggesting conservatives put homos in jail to protect them from liberals or is it visa versa?  Is there a policy anywhere you can cite that puts a little more flesh on the picture you're trying to portray for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, see, unlike conservatives, I don't assume Muslims are all gay-bashing/killing fanatics - and if your claim that those sorts of crime comprise only 0.0001 of all crimes, I'd say my lack of assumption is correct.

Also, unlike conservatives, I don't assume that LGBTQ+ people are mentally I'll, looking for attention or pursuing an agenda to skulk in female washrooms and changerooms.

So please explain to me why conservatives assume people that are "not like them" are up to no no good,  lying or mentally ill?  

More lies and stupidity dialamah.

If you go to modern, "civilized" countries like Pakistan which are run entirely by muslims with no input from any minorities whatsoever, or to a place like islamic state where religious "scholars" like al Baghdadi totally run the show, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. I'm not saying that because of my political stripe, I'm saying it because it's true. Can you deny that homosexuality gets you the death penalty in those places? Can you deny that they are controlled entirely by muslims, or that they are controlled by religious scholars? No. Can you deny that if 99% of the people there were against the death penalty for homosexuality there that it wouldn't exist? No. Telling the truth isn't racist or homophobic, it's just telling the truth. Just because you don't like that truth doesn't make it bigoted to tell it.

Homosexuality used to be a crime in all kinds of western countries. We started off in the dark ages like everyone else. We grew out of it. We evolved. We're not better by DNA, we just got on a better (by western standards), less rigid path. 

Quote

Also, unlike conservatives, I don't assume that LGBTQ+ people are mentally I'll, looking for attention or pursuing an agenda to skulk in female washrooms and changerooms.

This isn't a lie so much as your blatant inability to understand something fairly obvious. 

No one is saying that "evry purvurtid godam fagit is tryina git intuh tha washroom ta bugger mah kidz". The point is that male pervs now have a ticket to get into the bathroom with little girls. Up til now, if a man was a perv (I'm assuming that most peds are male but I'm sure that there are some females predators out there, just extremely rare), he could only get into the boys room. Now they can pretend to want to be a girl and go hang out in a stall in the girls room. 

It's not a case of "my daughter was just molested once, it's not that big of a deal". It's a case of "I'd do anything to protect my daughter, and if adults who who are experiencing gender dysphoria are stuck using the one-person-only unisex washroom that's a small price to pay". LGBTQ people should actually understand that and respect the wishes of parents to protect their kids from serious molestation by pedophiles. Safety first, right? We're not talking about getting a sore foot. We're talking about life-shattering events that affect people every day for the rest of their lives.

 

I don't actually think that you're dumb enough to believe all the things that you say dialamah because you have no problem spelling big words. I think that you take the positions that you do because you fit into one of the two main groups of Libs who engage in virtue-signalling: either A] you're a bigot and you want to believe that what you are saying is true, or B] you get a feeling a superiority or some other rush from putting people down and so you jump on every idiotic bandwagon tat comes along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Leviticus 20:13

That's old testament.  The answer is no.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're suggesting conservatives put homos in jail to protect them from liberals or is it visa versa?  Is there a policy anywhere you can cite that puts a little more flesh on the picture you're trying to portray for us?

That's just an intentionally idiotic interpretation of my post which isn't worthy of a serious response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WestCanMan said:

That's just an intentionally idiotic interpretation of my post which isn't worthy of a serious response.

No, its a logical conclusion of following your idiotic suggestion that only conservatives protect gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...