LGBT community

[samiscool51]

Just now, mrzoltowski said:

Awww! Teddy bears protect from monsters ... keep him close!

his name is kevin....  he protects us from the bogeyman and jack skellington from entering our bedroom while we sleep

although the bear sometimes sits on sam's side of the bed and sam sleeps on me and i wake up the next morning with her on me sleeping....

[mrzoltowski]

3 minutes ago, samiscool51 said:

his name is kevin....  he protects us from the bogeyman and jack skellington from entering our bedroom while we sleep

although the bear sometimes sits on sam's side of the bed and sam sleeps on me and i wake up the next morning with her on me sleeping....

Ours gets squished right between me and my husband ....

[samiscool51]

1 minute ago, mrzoltowski said:

Ours gets squished right between me and my husband ....

thats the way i want ours to sit, but during the night i think sam moves it to her side of the bed so she can sit closer to me, it always ends up with her sleeping on me and the bear on her side, its that or the bear can move by itself and moves sam closer to me so it has enough room to plot our demise or something

[mrzoltowski]

Just now, samiscool51 said:

thats the way i want ours to sit, but during the night i think sam moves it to her side of the bed so she can sit closer to me, it always ends up with her sleeping on me and the bear on her side, its that or the bear can move by itself and moves sam closer to me so it has enough room to plot our demise or something

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, Nicholatian said:

My boyfriend doesn’t have the freedom to tell his family or his peers in Indonesia that we’re more than just business partners, because Islam frowns upon homosexuality quite candidly… and it’s not in our best interest to be flagrant about it until we become more unreliant because of that. If we were both Americans, maybe that would be a different story…

I think many PC/SJW feminists and lgbtq groups in America would rather pay attention to proper pronoun use and blame everything on crappy American foreign policy instead of recognizing that homophobia has a lot to do with religious doctrines that were taken extremely. 

Spoiler

Regressive Left logic: 

 

Criticize ✝️ or ✡️: you're a champion of freethought and human rights 

Criticize ☪️: you're a bigoted, racist, cis-male white supremacist (looking at you Cenk Uygur and your army of TYT progressives)

2 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

though most of this probably falls on deaf ears here in the West. People are disgruntled here, they’ve fallen for the lie that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence – they have no wherewithall to see how good they’ve got it and try to appreciate it in the slightest. It’d be pretty pointless for me to invite them to think of how insane it would be if we were jailing governors because of squirrely allegations that he might’ve said something bad about Islam here in the US, lol. My partner gets to listen to that on the nightly news in Jakarta.

Is there any way he can move to America to be with you? 

[captain_to_fire]

4 hours ago, mrzoltowski said:

I have a teddy bear called Theodore (Theo or Cookie Bear for short) ... Yes I anthropomorphise him ... I dont care, hes my friend!

 

3 hours ago, samiscool51 said:

his name is kevin....  he protects us from the bogeyman and jack skellington from entering our bedroom while we sleep

although the bear sometimes sits on sam's side of the bed and sam sleeps on me and i wake up the next morning with her on me sleeping....

I guess I'm not too old to get a teddy bear to tuck me in before I go to bed ? 

[captain_to_fire]

4 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

This was my sister’s favourite toy since she was about 3 years old:

 

We got it from a thrift shop in Guyandotte, WV… she had that thing for years, until a teacher at her school decided to take all of her dolls into the garbage disposal because “they were a distraction”. We bought her another one in mint condition later on and mailed them to her, only to get a phone call where she told us we “probably shouldn’t send [her] any more plushies”.

@Daring

[Nowak]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

@Daring

Firepix is alright. Snowpix? Real shit.

[handymanshandle]

 

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

 

We’ve got some absolutely monumental plans for that, and month-by-month we iron out more details for it all. We’re going to do so much more than move him out here, believe me ?

Yay! ?

[Volbet]

10 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

A country I can think off is Saudi Barbaria. While them and ✝ extremists both hate the gays, the worst thing ✝ extremists can do is shame a gay teen into committing suicide thanks to that pesky 1st Amendment whereas extremists in Saudi Barbaria can get away with throwing gays off of buildings. The other one wants a caliphate while the other wants "no separation between church and state".

While I can agree on a practical level, there still things to be said about the christian right-wing , is that they don't currently hold any tangible political or judicial power wherein they can practice a politcal theology.

 

That's why the seperation of church and state is so important (atleast in the US), since you do have characters in fundamentalist christian circles that have preached the execution of gays, muslims and atheists (look up Steve Anderson and Brian Fisher if you don't believe me).

 

This is why it can e seen as important to still question and combat fundamentlist christianity in the US, since there still are religious nutjobs seeking political power.

 

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race. I live in a country where religion play little to no practical role. 

According to some surveys there are around 85% atheists in my country.

 

I also think you took my comment a bit too serious. 

It was just meant a dumb satirical joke, ment to point out the fallacy of legal freedoms being equated with personal freedoms.

 

18 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

You asked for how they limit freedom of speech. This is just one of the ways. You asked me to prove my point and I did, you did not ask me to get information to list every instance of this. My links proved they limited speech when it comes to talking about those two issues. Having a different healthcare plan doesn't make you more free compared to another country as both let you have healthcare and that's not what this is about. Also  because healthcare is more important to you doesn't change the fact that Europe and Canada limit the speech and freedoms of its citizens in the two most important ways speech and the right to bare arms everything else is a non issue compared to these two things as it's the building block of a free society.

The issue that arise when you try to quantize "freedom" in this manner, is that you end up creating an ouroboros. 

What does your freedom of speech matter if you're dying of a disease, or why would you want to bear arms if you can't put food on the table?

Also, you're acting as if any and all individual rights are soley affecting the individual. What if a person wants to be free from living in a society where everyone has access to firearms?

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, Volbet said:

I also think you took my comment a bit to serious. 

It was just meant a dumb satirical joke, ment to point out the fallacy of legal freedoms being equated with personal freedoms

My bad. My therapist once said I need to chill and not be serious all the time. 

1 hour ago, Volbet said:

 

That's why the seperation of church and state is so important (atleast in the US), since you do have characters in fundamentalist christian circles that have preached the execution of gays, muslims and atheists (look up Steve Anderson and Brian Fisher if you don't believe me).

 

This is why it can e seen as important to still question and combat fundamentlist christianity in the US, since there still are religious nutjobs seeking political power.

 

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race. I live in a country where religion play little to no practical role. 

According to some surveys there are around 85% atheists in my country.

I agree. However, all I want to point out is that all flavors of extremism is bad but none at the moment does it worse than the extremists in Middle East. In America, extreme right wing Christians are pretty much throttled in their extremism by the first amendment.

 

The problem however rises with the left too. Many liberals have succumbed from protecting individuals to protecting feelings to the point they want speech to be throttled too (see the appalling explanation of being a PC here). Many liberals and leftists have gone into equating a certain religion with a race and multiculturalism as if the two are immutable and equate true freedom of expression to being a jackass which is not the case. Hence, being politically correct isn't about being nice and polite. It's about limiting the words you say and have a myopic thought process just to appease a majority or minority. 

[Volbet]

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

I agree. However, all I want to point out is that all flavors of extremism is bad but none at the moment does it worse than the extremists in Middle East. In America, extreme right wing Christians are pretty much throttled in their extremism by the first amendment.

Ranking extremists that way is really an exercise in meaninglessness. 

Who do we characterize as extremists and when do we consider actions extreme? And are those actions then counted on the severity of by the numbers of people commiting them?

 

For example, on what metrics do we consider fundamentalist muslims more extreme or worse than, say, nationalist, extremist buddhists or extremist hindus?  

 

Also, if we are to stay in the US, then why aren't we having a conversation about extremism inspired by right-wing political ideologies?

That is the leading cause of terrorism in the US as of right now. 

And leat we forget people like Alexandre Bissonnette in Canada and Anders Breivik in Norway.

The point is (i guess) that radical ideas is a part of any ideologi. For every million people believing in something you'll have 1 person that'll take that to an extreme.

 

Our conversation should not be about who's worse than who. For every example you can give of a radical muslim group someoe can mention a radical left-wing or right-wing group, or maybe even a christian, jewish or Buddhist one.

Terrorism, extremism and dumb ideas are bad no matter who holds them. 

 

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

The problem however rises with the left too. Many liberals have succumbed from protecting individuals to protecting feelings to the point they want speech to be throttled too (see the appalling explanation of being a PC here). Many liberals and leftists have gone into equating a certain religion with a race and multiculturalism as if the two are immutable and equate true freedom of expression to being a jackass which is not the case. Hence, being politically correct isn't about being nice and polite. It's about limiting the words you say and have a myopic thought process just to appease a majority or minority. 

I think I've again been pulled into a different conversation.

Honestly, the whole PC/outrage/snowflake culture and counter culture is really uninteresting to me. It was news 4 years ago, and now the conversation is just treading water. 

As far as I can tell, the two sites of the debate has pretty much congregated and are both looking more and more alike. 

Both sides seems to have gazed into the abyss and have fought with monsters for too long.

 

Again, it's also something that hasn't affected me in any way. 

Outrage culture haven't taken a root where I live. People simply don't care enough about other people's business for that to happen.

[MadyTehWolfie]

6 hours ago, Volbet said:

While I can agree on a practical level, there still things to be said about the christian right-wing , is that they don't currently hold any tangible political or judicial power wherein they can practice a politcal theology.

 

That's why the seperation of church and state is so important (atleast in the US), since you do have characters in fundamentalist christian circles that have preached the execution of gays, muslims and atheists (look up Steve Anderson and Brian Fisher if you don't believe me).

 

This is why it can e seen as important to still question and combat fundamentlist christianity in the US, since there still are religious nutjobs seeking political power.

 

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race. I live in a country where religion play little to no practical role. 

According to some surveys there are around 85% atheists in my country.

 

I also think you took my comment a bit too serious. 

It was just meant a dumb satirical joke, ment to point out the fallacy of legal freedoms being equated with personal freedoms.

 

The issue that arise when you try to quantize "freedom" in this manner, is that you end up creating an ouroboros. 

What does your freedom of speech matter if you're dying of a disease, or why would you want to bear arms if you can't put food on the table?

Also, you're acting as if any and all individual rights are soley affecting the individual. What if a person wants to be free from living in a society where everyone has access to firearms?

I'm not quantifying freedom. Complete free speech and the right to bare arms is the staple of a free society. You can't equate that to someone wanting someone else to not be free so they don't upset their feels. That's the same argument people use to limit freedoms, not give more of them. You can choose not to bare arms and limit your speech however when you do that to others that's not a free country.

[Volbet]

17 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

I'm not quantifying freedom. Complete free speech and the right to bare arms is the staple of a free society. You can't equate that to someone wanting someone else to not be free so they don't upset their feels. That's the same argument people use to limit freedoms, not give more of them. You can choose not to bare arms and limit your speech however when you do that to others that's not a free country.

At what point did I talk about "fells"?

What I gave was an example of someone being against firearms being readily available to the public. 

To my knowledge firearms do a lot more than hurt feelings. 

 

Also, by saying freedom of speech and the right to own weapons are the staples of a free society, you are quantifying freedom.

You're picking two of many right and freedoms enjoyed across the globe and saying "yep, those are the only only once guaranteeing freedom".

Which is absolutly not the case everywhere.

 

If you were to talk to working class people in the former DDR, they would probably happily trade their freedom of speech for the right to a job they had before the fall of the iron Curtain. 

[PlayStation 2]

 

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, Volbet said:

At what point did I talk about "fells"?

What I gave was an example of someone being against firearms being readily available to the public. 

To my knowledge firearms do a lot more than hurt feelings. 

 

Also, by saying freedom of speech and the right to own weapons are the staples of a free society, you are quantifying freedom.

You're picking two of many right and freedoms enjoyed across the globe and saying "yep, those are the only only once guaranteeing freedom".

Which is absolutly not the case everywhere.

 

If you were to talk to working class people in the former DDR, they would probably happily trade their freedom of speech for the right to a job they had before the fall of the iron Curtain. 

Wanting to ban firearms to live in a society where people can't own them is infringing on their freedom and is not free, never mind how it opens up the people to be oppressed by their government if they so choose. Your limiting other people's freedoms over feelings hence the "feels" comment.

 

That's because freedom of speech and to bare arms is the only thing that makes people being able to uphold their other freedoms possible. If they limit your speech and don't let you own a gun you become a slave to the government and it makes it all that much easier to oppress you, you know like every single communist country in the history of ever.

 

I'd never give up one of my freedoms for a shit paycheck. Freedoms are hard to gain easy to lose and almost impossible to get back.

 

Edit: It maybe a quantification but that doesn't make it less true. A society without these two rights will not and will eventually become less free over time. Just look at what the Nazis did. First thing they did was take away the jews guns and their freedom of speech before shoving my people into gas Chambers.

[Volbet]

On 5/18/2017 at 5:15 PM, MadyTehWolfie said:

Edit: It maybe a quantification but that doesn't make it less true. A society without these two rights will not and will eventually become less free over time. Just look at what the Nazis did. First thing they did was take away the jews guns and their freedom of speech before shoving my people into gas Chambers.

I never said anything to truth value of anything. 

Also, Godwin's law in effect. 

I know this comparison is rather nice to have, but it have very little adherence to facts and is bordering on historical revisionism. 

In a best case scenario what you're doing is counter factual history I.E. mental mastrubation. 

 

The fact of the matter is that very few jews actaully owned a firearm before the rise of the Thrid Reich.

Also, it assumes that the firearms avaiable to the public would be able to combat the weapons available to the military.

 

I'm sorry. but shooting a Hunter drone with a hunting rifle is very ineffective. 

 

On 5/18/2017 at 5:15 PM, MadyTehWolfie said:

Wanting to ban firearms to live in a society where people can't own them is infringing on their freedom and is not free, never mind how it opens up the people to be oppressed by their government if they so choose. Your limiting other people's freedoms over feelings hence the "feels" comment.

 

That's because freedom of speech and to bare arms is the only thing that makes people being able to uphold their other freedoms possible. If they limit your speech and don't let you own a gun you become a slave to the government and it makes it all that much easier to oppress you, you know like every single communist country in the history of ever.

Again, guns don't tend to hurt feelings. They tend to leave very big physical holes in people; rarely emotional holes. 

 

It also raise the quandary again, if the government wanted to oppress you they would probably use means that you could not combat with an AR-15.

A tank, a drone and a fighter jet are all very hard to do any damage to with regular firearms. 

For example, people had the right to own weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and that didn't lead to a glorious revolution and protection of freedom. 

The people in Scandinavia traditionally never had the right to arm themselves, yet they have, historically speaking, had many a revolution and revolt against their opressors. 

 

Lastly, what you seem to very focused on is the "Governemt - People"  - dyanmic.

What about the "people - people" - dynamic?

By the virtue of that outlook, you should also be against the outlawing of slavery, murder and driving over the speed limit, since those rules limit your freedom with the intend of protecting your fellow citizens against the injustices that can be spawned in the "people - people" -dynamic.

 

On 5/18/2017 at 5:15 PM, MadyTehWolfie said:

I'd never give up one of my freedoms for a shit paycheck. Freedoms are hard to gain easy to lose and almost impossible to get back.

And by that we reach our finally. 

You have just now realized what I wanted you to. 

 

YOU do not want to, but that doesn't mean other people don't. The position you're currently in is much different that the position of others.

By virtue you can't talk about "freedom" as a universal concept. Thereby you can't quantize it in any way, shape or form. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

9 minutes ago, Volbet said:

I never said anything to truth value of anything. 

Also, Moore's Law in effect. 

I know this comparison is rather nice to have, but it have very little adherence to facts and is bordering on historical revisionism. 

In a best case scenario what you're doing is counter factual history I.E. mental mastrubation. 

 

The fact of the matter is that very few jews actaully owned a firearm before the rise of the Thrid Reich.

Also, it assumes that the firearms avaiable to the public would be able to combat the weapons available to the military.

 

I'm sorry. but shooting a Hunter drone with a hunting rifle is very ineffective. 

 

Again, guns don't tend to hurt feelings. They tend to leave very big physical holes in people; rarely emotional holes. 

 

It also raise the quandary again, if the government wanted to oppress you they would probably use means that you could not combat with an AR-15.

A tank, a drone and a fighter jet are all very hard to do any damage to with regular firearms. 

For example, people had the right to own weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And that didn't lead to a glorious revolution and protection of freedom. 

The people in Scandinavia traditionally never had the right to arm themselves, yet they have, historically speaking, had many a revolution and revolt against their opressors. 

 

Lastly, what you seem to very focused on is the "Governemt - People"  - dyanmic.

What about the "people - people" - dynamic?

By the virtue of that outlook, you should also be against the outlawing of slavery, murder and driving over the speed limit, since those rules limit your freedom with the intend of protecting your fellow citizens agiant the injustices that can be spawned in the "people - people" -dynamic.

 

 And by that we reach our finally. 

You have just now realized what I wanted you to. 

 

YOU do not want to, but that doesn't mean other people don't. The position you're currently in is much different that the position of others.

By virtue you can't talk about "freedom" as a universal concept. Thereby you can't quantize it in any way, shape or form. 

TL DR I'll be sure to send you money for you to move to NK so you don't have to worry about pesky things like being able to have free speech and the right to bare arms.

[Shakaza]

21 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

TL DR I'll be sure to send you money for you to move to NK so you don't have to worry about pesky things like being able to have free speech and the right to bare arms.

That's kind of a logical extreme, isn't it? If you don't have a counter to what he's said, just admit it and move on, don't resort to fallacies.

[MadyTehWolfie]

29 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

That's kind of a logical extreme, isn't it? If you don't have a counter to what he's said, just admit it and move on, don't resort to fallacies.

I do just everything I say he dismisses so there's no point in arguing with someone who wants to limit people's natural born freedoms like freedom of speech, and if anything his point about a hunting rifle not stacking up against the military only serves to prove that we need less restrictions on guns not more.

[Volbet]

53 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

I do just everything I say he dismisses so there's no point in arguing with someone who wants to limit people's natural born freedoms like freedom of speech, and if anything his point about a hunting rifle not stacking up against the military only serves to prove that we need less restrictions on guns not more.

Yeah, it's weird how a debate usually goes like that. 

Man, if only we could make a point and people would just accept it without questioning its validity.

 

And at what point exactly did I argue for or against anything?

At no point did I take a stand for or against freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. 

I always keep my personal politics out of discussion like this. They tend to just get in the way. 

 

What I am pointing out is the fallacious reasoning you employ when arguing your point and the fallacious (and circular) way you define "freedom". 

 

Also, the point about hunting rifles and drones fit into a larger narative that I atleast tried to paint. 

It all goes back to some of your rights already being limited or even denied (murder, slavery, etc.). 

 

But if you want to argue this, then let's. 

Do you really want, say, land-to-air missles, Tomahawk missles, hand granades, newer automatic weapons or maybe even chemical and nuclear weapons to be readily available to people like Syed Rizwan Farook or Jim David Adkisson? 

Do you really want to make regular social interaction boil down to an arms race?

 

You also seem to assume that a possible revolt would be two-sided. 

I find it really hard to believe that a Volk as diverse as the US' would be able to revolt on a singular ideological front. 

In case of a revolt, firearms would only allow people to shoot other people. 

[chrisholland03]

Moo

 

 

[MadyTehWolfie]

23 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Yeah, it's weird how a debate usually goes like that. 

Man, if only we could make a point and people would just accept it without questioning its validity.

 

And at what point exactly did I argue for or against anything?

At no point did I take a stand for or against freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. 

I always keep my personal politics out of discussion like this. They tend to just get in the way. 

 

What I am pointing out is the fallacious reasoning you employ when arguing your point and the fallacious (and circular) way you define "freedom". 

 

Also, the point about hunting rifles and drones fit into a larger narative that I atleast tried to paint. 

It all goes back to some of your rights already being limited or even denied (murder, slavery, etc.). 

 

But if you want to argue this, then let's. 

Do you really want, say, land-to-air missles, Tomahawk missles, hand granades, newer automatic weapons or maybe even chemical and nuclearr weapons to be readily available to people like Syed Rizwan Farook or Jim David Adkisson? 

Do you really want to make regular social interaction boil down to an arms race?

 

You also seem to assume that a possible revolt would be two-sided. 

I find it really hard to believe that a Volk as diverse as the US' would be able to revolt on a singular ideological front. 

In case of a revolt, firearms would only allow people to shoot other people. 

Eh TL;DR 

[MadyTehWolfie]

12 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

What are you smoking? Isn't the vast majority of Sweden atheist?

Not smoking anything it's been in the news online. Google it before making a comment. They were entertaining the idea to have women wear the Hijab in order to curb "islamphobia".