CosmicBills Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It depends on how strongly he believes in it. Sometimes its worth sacrificing a few perks to speak one's true mind. If more people grew a !@#$ing sack and rolled their eyes at the petty whining and begging for grievances that any and every group in this country that can claim some form of marginalization jumps on head first, we'd have a lot stronger society. I guess the difference is you see discrimination as being harmless. History has shown that it's not. Discrimination, in any form, is caused by either ignorance and/or fear. Two things that religious literalists depend on to make sense of their world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Manny is a religious literalist (by his own admission). Even if he wasn't, using religious texts as an excuse to hate anyone is not only ignorant, it's lazy and the breeding ground for violence. I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with here, but whatever, I don't really disagree with the basic gist of what you're saying. I still have a problem with your use of "ignorant" though. I guess the difference is you see discrimination as being harmless. History has shown that it's not. Discrimination, in any form, is caused by either ignorance and/or fear. Two things that religious literalists depend on to make sense of their world. That's not it. It's not that discrimination is harmless. It's that not all discrimination is equal, and regardless of my indifference to gay behavior, I find it more offensive to besmirch a guy for simply saying he doesn't agree with the lifestyle as long as he's not advocating hurting anyone or forcibly depriving them of their rights. It's called tolerance, not acceptance, and it works both ways. Edited May 16, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Sorry, no link, but how stupid is Manny Pacquiao for saying such a thing? I guess Mayweather will be the fan favorite if the dream match ever does go down, now. What's more outrageous to me, and this thread is a case in point, is how everyone is worked up about the gay thing while the country is going into the shitter. And you actually think that coward Mayweather will ever be a fan favorite? He can and he did, but he has to be ready to face the repercussions. He can loose out on advertising dollars and lose fans. Is that worth it? Again, what fans will he lose? Gays don't watch boxing. Generally speaking. 99% of the straight out there either don't know what he said or couldn't give a shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with here, but whatever, I don't really disagree with the basic gist of what you're saying. I still have a problem with your use of "ignorant" though. That's not it. It's not that discrimination is harmless. It's that not all discrimination is equal, and regardless of my indifference to gay behavior, I find it more offensive to besmirch a guy for simply saying he doesn't agree with the lifestyle as long as he's not advocating hurting anyone or forcibly depriving them of their rights. It's called tolerance, not acceptance, and it works both ways. Tolerance means having concern for others whose interests and practices differ from your own. It also means a freedom from bigotry. Religious literalists, by definition, do not practice tolerance in any capacity other than to their own kind. Stating that someone doesn't have the right to marry their other half because they're of the same gender isn't preaching tolerance. It's preaching bigotry. It's divisive rather than unifying. Someone who serves in an elected office as well as being a minister and arguably the second best pound for pound fighter in his sport absolutely deserves to be raked over the coals for saying something so hateful and ignorant and using religion as the rational or excuse for having that kind of hate in his heart. What's more outrageous to me, and this thread is a case in point, is how everyone is worked up about the gay thing while the country is going into the shitter. And you actually think that coward Mayweather will ever be a fan favorite? What's amazing to me is that you fail to see the connection to the "gay thing" and the "country going into the shitter". The two issues are related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 1. Tolerance means having concern for others whose interests and practices differ from your own. It also means a freedom from bigotry. Religious literalists, by definition, do not practice tolerance in any capacity other than to their own kind. Stating that someone doesn't have the right to marry their other half because they're of the same gender isn't preaching tolerance. It's preaching bigotry. It's divisive rather than unifying. Someone who serves in an elected office as well as being a minister and arguably the second best pound for pound fighter in his sport absolutely deserves to be raked over the coals for 2. saying something so hateful and ignorant and using religion as the rational or excuse for having that kind of hate in his heart. This is just plain wrong. Tolerance means you tolerate. You don't have to like it, you just don't interfere with it. It works both ways meaning if you want people to tolerate your lifestyle, you have to tolerate the fact that they find it disgusting. 2. "Ignorant" does not mean something you disagree with; it means something that you should know that you don't. And while I may agree with you that it's silly to take your cues from a second hand account of the unconfirmable opinions of a never seen invisible man in the sky, it doesn't necessarily mean one is unfamiliar with the subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) I believe pacman can take Mayweather , if there is anyone who has the combination of speed, quickness, strength, stamina, chin and relentlessness to defeat Mayweather it's pacman Edited May 16, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This is just plain wrong. Tolerance means you tolerate. You don't have to like it, you just don't interfere with it. It works both ways meaning if you want people to tolerate your lifestyle, you have to tolerate the fact that they find it disgusting. 2. "Ignorant" does not mean something you disagree with; it means something that you should know that you don't. And while I may agree with you that it's silly to take your cues from a second hand account of the unconfirmable opinions of a never seen invisible man in the sky, it doesn't necessarily mean one is unfamiliar with the subject matter. 1. That's not the definition of tolerance. It's not the literal definition or the philosophical one. Tolerance means adopting a permissive view of practices or opinions or people different than you. Permissive view. 2. I'm aware of what ignorant means. It means lacking knowledge. Anyone who is a religious literalist (in any form or denomination) is practicing ignorance because they are, by definition, arriving at their conclusions without any personal knowledge. Instead, they rely on texts that were written by man, not God, and holding them up to be factual rather than exploring the issue themselves and arriving at their own conclusions. That's not truth at all, that's ignorance. Worse, it's organized ignorance which has been historically abused by monsters and tyrants and cost the lives of untold millions throughout the eons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 1. That's not the definition of tolerance. It's not the literal definition or the philosophical one. Tolerance means adopting a permissive view of practices or opinions or people different than you. Permissive view. 2. I'm aware of what ignorant means. It means lacking knowledge. Anyone who is a religious literalist (in any form or denomination) is practicing ignorance because they are, by definition, arriving at their conclusions without any personal knowledge. Instead, they rely on texts that were written by man, not God, and holding them up to be factual rather than exploring the issue themselves and arriving at their own conclusions. That's not truth at all, that's ignorance. Worse, it's organized ignorance which has been historically abused by monsters and tyrants and cost the lives of untold millions throughout the eons. if you haven't seen Book of Eli, you should. I think you'd probably like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 1. That's not the definition of tolerance. It's not the literal definition or the philosophical one. Tolerance means adopting a permissive view of practices or opinions or people different than you. Permissive view. Actually, that's what he said. He was just more of a dick about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I believe pacman can take Mayweather , if there is anyone who has the combination of speed, quickness, strength, stamina, chin and relentlessness to defeat Mayweather it's pacman Maybe 2 years ago when he was juicing and still in his prime. Not anymore. Both fighters are on the downside of their career but Mayweather is probably the hardest working professional athlete in the world and one of the most impressive physical specimens the sport has ever seen. Pacquaio had a chance to beat him, but that window has closed. He knows it, which is why he's running. Actually, that's what he said. He was just more of a dick about it. You're right. Which makes me more of a dick for arguing it. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Maybe 2 years ago when he was juicing and still in his prime. Not anymore. Both fighters are on the downside of their career but Mayweather is probably the hardest working professional athlete in the world and one of the most impressive physical specimens the sport has ever seen. Pacquaio had a chance to beat him, but that window has closed. He knows it, which is why he's running. He's not running, Mayweather wanted him to retake the drug test, the test which pacman had already took , so it was Mayweather who backed out of he first match, the vast majority of ringside analysts agree with that. Now Mayweather wants a 60/40 split, that's the holdup. Pacman has a damn good shot at beating Mayweather, not to mention cotto exposed Mayweathers vulnerabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Tolerance means having concern for others whose interests and practices differ from your own. It also means a freedom from bigotry. Religious literalists, by definition, do not practice tolerance in any capacity other than to their own kind. Stating that someone doesn't have the right to marry their other half because they're of the same gender isn't preaching tolerance. It's preaching bigotry. It's divisive rather than unifying. Someone who serves in an elected office as well as being a minister and arguably the second best pound for pound fighter in his sport absolutely deserves to be raked over the coals for saying something so hateful and ignorant and using religion as the rational or excuse for having that kind of hate in his heart. What's amazing to me is that you fail to see the connection to the "gay thing" and the "country going into the shitter". The two issues are related. How so? If people don't have jobs. Discontent in the streets. The last thing your going to worry about is same sex marriage, the LBGT or whatever the fug that nonsense is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How so? If people don't have jobs. Discontent in the streets. The last thing your going to worry about is same sex marriage, the LBGT or whatever the fug that nonsense is. I heard that one before ... but it was back in November of 1938. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Being gay is wrong, according to PAC, but apparently sex with 10 year olds, which is rampant in the Phillipines, is ok. Perhaps he should tackle that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Actually, that's what he said. He was just more of a dick about it. So, if someone wants a certificate allowing him to put his dick up someone's ass our Federal government should give it to them? The Federal government has no authority over dicks up asses. The states may, but that is questionable. Regardless, are you idiots more interested in what consulting adults do than the somewhat more serious issues we have in this country? Being gay is wrong, according to PAC, but apparently sex with 10 year olds, which is rampant in the Phillipines, is ok. Perhaps he should tackle that issue. Missed it. Any links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So, if someone wants a certificate allowing him to put his dick up someone's ass our Federal government should give it to them? The Federal government has no authority over dicks up asses. The states may, but that is questionable. Regardless, are you idiots more interested in what consulting adults do than the somewhat more serious issues we have in this country? "Shut the !@#$ up, you moron" is all the response this deserves. So...shut the !@#$ up, you moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 "Shut the !@#$ up, you moron" is all the response this deserves. So...shut the !@#$ up, you moron. That or you could refer him to Lawrence v. Texas and just show that the federal government actually is concerned with dicks in asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So, if someone wants a certificate allowing him to put his dick up someone's ass our Federal government should give it to them? The Federal government has no authority over dicks up asses. The states may, but that is questionable. Regardless, are you idiots more interested in what consulting adults do than the somewhat more serious issues we have in this country? Missed it. Any links? http://gvnet.com/childprostitution/Philippines.htm http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/humtrafconf2/22/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 That or you could refer him to Lawrence v. Texas and just show that the federal government actually is concerned with dicks in asses. Last I checked, the Supremes didn't exactly grant federal approval of sodomy in that case. Merely rejected the state's criminalization of it. Which, however you choose to characterize it, is still a far cry from 3rdnlng's absolutely pathetic and mis-aimed attempt at argument by hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Last I checked, the Supremes didn't exactly grant federal approval of sodomy in that case. Merely rejected the state's criminalization of it. Which, however you choose to characterize it, is still a far cry from 3rdnlng's absolutely pathetic and mis-aimed attempt at argument by hyperbole. Certainly sounds like they have some "authority" over dicks up asses no? Federal approval..federal protectoin...whatever... Anyway I just jumped to the end of this topic...not trying to start any riff raff in this topic have no spare calories to burn on PacMan's thoughts on gays. Maybe his singing career but not this... Edited May 17, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts