Man arrested for refusing to leave the bedside of his sick partner

[3rdnlng]

That's...sorta what I said. However, the only person attributing special treatment to gays here is: WeComeInPeace.

 

Specifically, for WCIP to be right, ALL gay people must act alike at all times: all of them are perfect angels who never do anything wrong. That is his logical position, or, that is a premise that his position is based on. That is also, inconveniently for WCIP: bigotry.

 

Now, in WCIP's obviously F'ed up little head, there's nothing wrong with that, and he might even refer to himself is being "sensistive", since he is doing his level best to empathize his way through this. But, that's the trouble: when all you do is empathize...you don't do any thinking. And that's why he's failing at logic here. Can't do logic without thinking.

 

In the real world, and in the world where logic matters, WCIP has argued himself into an untenable position.

 

All that remains is whether he recognizes it.

 

And really, it could be worse, he could be running around here telling us all that we are the bigots...for thinking, rather than emoting like him.

 

 

I don't disagree with your basic premise but the irony of "The King of the Emoticons" looking down on "emoting" is hilarious.

Edited April 16, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[Jim in Anchorage]

All right. I will lay my cards on the table. I could give a s*** about some queer ass faggot. I don't care what those freaks do, just don't expect me to approve of it.

[DC Tom]

All right. I will lay my cards on the table. I could give a s*** about some queer ass faggot. I don't care what those freaks do, just don't expect me to approve of it.

 

Can we at least expect you to agree they have a right to determine who gets to be with them in the hospital?

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Can we at least expect you to agree they have a right to determine who gets to be with them in the hospital?

Who was having the hissy fit though?

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

Can we at least expect you to agree they have a right to determine who gets to be with them in the hospital?

Sure you got the right poster?

[DC Tom]

Sure you got the right poster?

 

Yeah.

 

But I've also got $5 riding on "no."

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't disagree with your basic premise but the irony of "The King of the Emoticons" looking down on "emoting" is hilarious.

Do you know the emoticon story? Do you think all these are by accident? Or better, what is my propensity for wiseassery?

 

I will tell you this time only. There is a poster, who is still here, who demanded I insert more emoticons in my posts. It was after ~ my 20th post here. Ever since, I have been obliging him. I doubt he will ever cop to it, but, every time he reads anything I write, he has to live with the knowledge that it is he who perpetrated the swarm on you all.

All right. I will lay my cards on the table. I could give a s*** about some queer ass faggot. I don't care what those freaks do, just don't expect me to approve of it.

So...you tolerate...but don't approve? This post reminds me of a south park episode, sort of.

 

And, isn't a queer fagoot = a double negative? (Or double absolute positive, if you are We Come in Peace?)

[We Come In Peace]

No. You said if it was a "family" [i guess that's code for gay marriage] it would be just another day, settle down folks.

Yes. If their marriage was legally recognized, there would be no story. It certainly wouldn't have hit the news because, as B has said, this kind of thing happens with families a lot in hospitals. The only reason this is a news story is because of the angle regarding gay marriage.

 

But because the jackass in question is not married to the patient, he was ejected for being a ass, and rightfully so. But you feel if they if where a "family" he just would have got a SHHH please sir keep it down.

I never said nor implied that he would have gotten a "SHH please keep it down".

 

All right. I will lay my cards on the table. I could give a s*** about some queer ass faggot. I don't care what those freaks do, just don't expect me to approve of it.

You're a sad, sad, little man.

 

That's...sorta what I said. However, the only person attributing special treatment to gays here is: WeComeInPeace.

No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true. I never attributed special treatment to anyone in this thread. It's merely something you attributed to me because you are more interested in hearing yourself speak than listening to others.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

Do you know the emoticon story? Do you think all these are by accident? Or better, what is my propensity for wiseassery?

 

I will tell you this time only. There is a poster, who is still here, who demanded I insert more emoticons in my posts. It was after ~ my 20th post here. Ever since, I have been obliging him. I doubt he will ever cop to it, but, every time he reads anything I write, he has to live with the knowledge that it is he who perpetrated the swarm on you all.

 

So...you tolerate...but don't approve? This post reminds me of a south park episode, sort of.

 

And, isn't a queer fagoot = a double negative? (Or double absolute positive, if you are We Come in Peace?)

I don't know what a fagoot is, but a queer fagot is no different then calling a Italian slimy grease ball. It just a way of emphasizing the point. I don't watch south park, tolerating but not approving is wrong? Do I have to like them also?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't get it... Why the hateful language? Why do you care who another person likes to !@#$? If you object because you think it's "icky", are you equally hateful about fat people or ugly people !@#$ing?

[We Come In Peace]

I don't know what a fagoot is, but a queer fagot is no different then calling a Italian slimy grease ball. It just a way of emphasizing the point. I don't watch south park, tolerating but not approving is wrong? Do I have to like them also?

You are a sad, sad, little man.

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

You are a sad, sad, little man.

 

I don't know if you thought that video would be a jab at me, but I found it funny as hell.

[We Come In Peace]

I don't know if you thought that video would be a jab at me, but I found it funny as hell.

Not a jab.

[Chef Jim]

I don't know if you thought that video would be a jab at me, but I found it funny as hell.

 

You may have found it funny as hell but probably not like most of us did.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

You may have found it funny as hell but probably not like most of us did.

Do I care? Coming from a guy that fantasizes about running over homeless people and bicyclists?

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't know what a fagoot is, but a queer fagot is no different then calling a Italian slimy grease ball. It just a way of emphasizing the point. I don't watch south park, tolerating but not approving is wrong? Do I have to like them also?

No. You are exactly right here, in terms of having an equitable position. I was just goofing...as I am wont to do.

 

But, back to the equitable thing: tolerating( to include having class, being respectful...which does not include the invective you posted above), but at the same time, absolutely refusing to accept gay people, is the very defintion of equity. It is absolutely fair. In fact it is the definition of equitable. And, equity is supposed to be the predicate for our law.

 

You, going out to purposely embarrass or harass gay people, is unfair. But, it's equally as unfair as WCIP demanding that you accept gay people.

 

Freedom, at its most basic level, it the ability to say "this ain't for me". Notice: that's not saying "this ain't for you", or worse, if you are WCIP: "I think that this should be for you, because I've decided your views are unimportant, because I've decided they are immoral". There's a fundamental difference there. Just a slight one.

 

If you are truly free, then you have the right to say "I don't accept this", without a single consequence.

 

This is why: before I support anything, I support liberty. Just imagine if we all had to live every aspect of our lives based on WCIP's understanding of the world, and petulant, naive, moralizing.

 

No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true. I never attributed special treatment to anyone in this thread. It's merely something you attributed to me because you are more interested in hearing yourself speak than listening to others.

I said it once, and then it was misinterpreted, so I clarified.

 

Not a shock that you can't see the distinction.

 

The funny part is: you don't see the basic logic I applied, using your own words. Go back and read your posts. Then read mine. They are your words, I just exposed them to logic....and that's when they fell apart.

 

So, really? I wasn't listening to myself at all, was I? After all, I had to listen to your words, in order to use them against you.

 

But, please, keep talking, I am hoping this turns into an "epic PPP thread". It has all of the makings.

Edited April 17, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[We Come In Peace]

You, going out to purposely embarrass or harass gay people, is unfair. But, it's equally as unfair as WCIP demanding that you accept gay people.

Show me where I ever said anyone has to accept gay people.

 

I'll wait.

 

I said it once, and then it was misinterpreted, so I clarified.

 

Not a shock that you can't see the distinction.

 

The funny part is: you don't see the basic logic I applied, using your own words. Go back and read your posts. Then read mine. They are your words, I just exposed them to logic....and that's when they fell apart.

You did not expose my words or thinking to logic, you invented your own interpretation of them and then stated them as facts. They are not. Please show me where I ever said you have to accept gays.

 

I'll wait.

 

 

So, really? I wasn't listening to myself at all, was I? After all, I had to listen to your words, in order to use them against you.

And yet, you've yet to show me "my" words. You've only used your own -- which are poorly constructed, poorly thought out and hilariously inept.

 

But, please, keep talking, I am hoping this turns into an "epic PPP thread". It has all of the makings.

You're right it does. But only in the sense that it shows how truly ignorant you are.

 

Not that there was any doubt of that earlier.

[OCinBuffalo]

Show me where I ever said anyone has to accept gay people.

Your entire premise is: if they were married, then this wouldn't be happening. Those are your words.

 

Married means: we, as society, accept that lifestyle as = to our own, because, as such, marriage would then imply an equivalent status.

That is acceptance. Legislated acceptance. That is not toleration.

 

Show me where you understand the difference between tolerance, and acceptance.

 

I won't wait, because I have to go to the gym and chase a particularly fine POA, and, and I know that you're too much of a moron to understand the difference between words that may sound similar, but are not the same.

 

How do I know? Easy:

"the lion's share of Democrat big donor $ money"

'=

"the lion's share of Democrats".

 

But you think they mean the same thing.

You did not expose my words or thinking to logic, you invented your own interpretation of them and then stated them as facts. They are not. Please show me where I ever said you have to accept gays.

 

I'll wait.

That's exactly what I did. You still don't see it do you? Well, I have no more time for this idiocy. Go back and re-read your own posts in this thread, never mind mine, for now. Now ask yourself: where in those posts do you account for the possibility that:

1. The guy is an a-hole, before he is gay, straight or anything?

2. The other guy's family are a-holes, before they are anti-gay?

3. The family is perfectly fine with their son's lifestyle choices, they just hate this particular guy?

4. anything other than the guy being gay, might be the #1 driver of this situation.

 

You stated, mutliple times, that the driver is gayness here.

 

I took all your words, as I just did above, and applied case logic to them. (well, I got lazy and just sorted lumped the rest under #4, because that's the point anyway)

And yet, you've yet to show me "my" words. You've only used your own -- which are poorly constructed, poorly thought out and hilariously inept.

So, now I just did. "And, yet"? This is the first time you've asked for this. Unlike you, who still can't answer a question when asked 5 times in another thread, I have no problem responding immediately. Of course it's a lot easier for me because I know I'm right, and you're an unmitigated moron.

You're right it does. But only in the sense that it shows how truly ignorant you are.

 

Not that there was any doubt of that earlier.

Keep talking...I have to go, but the last thing I want is for you to stop. It's working nicely so far, just keep running your idiocy, as I'm fairly certain I know where this is headed, and it'll be quite funny, for me, when I am done with you.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I don't get it... Why the hateful language? Why do you care who another person likes to !@#$? If you object because you think it's "icky", are you equally hateful about fat people or ugly people !@#$ing?

I never said I "hated" anyone. I am not going to go down to the gay parade and throw rocks. But I sure hell ain't going there to cheer them on.

 

And yes I would vote no on gay marriage ballot.

[meazza]

I never said I "hated" anyone. I am not going to go down to the gay parade and throw rocks. But I sure hell ain't going there to cheer them on.

 

And yes I would vote no on gay marriage ballot.

 

Personally id get rid of heterosexual marriage.

 

Us grease balls spend too much money on this ****.