The Debate Hall Social Thread

[KrazyGlue]

Right, I get that, I'm just explaining why there's a difference.

 

[Dre89]

Ok but I doubt that the people who overreacted against me rationally thought out that distinction as the reason, and justification for their insults.

I just find the psychology of it all interesting.

 

[Lythium]

Dre, do you actually believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Just curious.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

So dude, do u hate gays?

 

[Dre89]

I do actually believe it.

There's been one or two debates between me against virtually the entire DH, but I was told to stop posting in them because other people couldn't keep their emotions and insults in check.

Read those debates before you assume I hate gays or think gays are inferior or something like that.

I'm hesitant to reveal my view because of how quickly I get judged and stereotyped, and accused of things I don't do at all.

Bob- No I don't hate them. Just as I don't hate addicts, atheists, fideists, seculars, pro choicers, casual sex people, or just anyone who supports an act I disagree with.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

So your like the total by the bible christian?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's the same as two uncommitted heteros casually having sex.

The reason why I disagree with the homosexual act is the exact same reason I disagree with the contraception or casual act, yet the reaction is totally different.

It wouldn't make any sense to support uncommitted hetero sex, yet condemn committed homosexual sex.

Edit- Fixed the mistake in my last sentence.

Again, the issue is less what you're arguing with and more what causes you're arguing against.

 

[Aesir]

I love logical fallacies

 

[Sucumbio]

"casual sex people" lol promiscuous-havers ... **** buddies! >< nvm.

I'll be the one to say it: you reasoning, Dre. It's insulting to everything I know to be right. It doesn't matter that you look at gays in the same light as unmarried couples. It's irrelevant to me, because that very mentality I find incredibly out-dated. Marriage? Pft, a waste. It's only use is for tax benefits. You don't HAVE to be married. Before "God." To "consecrate" your Love for another. You CAN, and if you do, fine. You'll be socially accepted; Dre. will accept you (so long as you're not gay). But in the end, who gives a ****? God? Ok, just in case He is real, maybe it's a good idea to marry a member of the opposite sex before having sex, never masturbate, never have extramarital sex, never use contraception... live the purely puritanical way, like in the 1600's all fire and brimstone. (Note: I'm not implying you're Christian or a fundamentalist, it just so happens that your pathways into darkness are quite well-aligned with that forefront.) I mean no insult in this post, of course. I do however hope that it is clear. In -my- eyes (and I will speak for no other on this) your very precept is classic homophobia, reasoned, calculated and coldly delivered. The fact you admittedly have gay friends tells me that either your friends of weak character, or they don't know your mind on this.

May I ask why this was even brought up by you? Again? I thought we'd moved on from this. Or is it the fact that we asked you to STFU and you didn't like that, so now you're gonna come into the DH every now and then to dredge it back up? If that's your plan, let me save you the time and promise you that it's about as stale as your rhetoric, and I for one hope this is the last we'll hear of it.

kthxbi

 

[Dre89]

I appreciate that you refrained from insulting me, and you kept your post civil.

But you're still committing the appeal to consequence fallacy. We were actually discussing this in class the other day, that people will tell you you can't argue against homsoexuality, simply because homosexuals get offended, as if that somehow makes their position automatically right. The discussion in class is what got me thinking about all this aagin.

What annoys me is not that you guys disagree with me, it's that I was told to stop posting, because you guys couldn't keep your emotions and insults in check. I shouldn't be punished for other peoples misbehaviour.

Everyone has strong feelings on certain issues. Everyday here I see people insulting a religion, which while I no longer affiliate with it myself, it is still very close to me. I have strong feelings about abortion too., and people talk about it here like it's nothing. Yet you never see me letting my emotions boil over and start insulting everyone. I've been giving you guys that curtousy for so long, yet the one time I say something on which people feel strongy about, everyone lets rip.

Let me ask you this. I criticised the act of homsoexuality, and your wife, who is affiliated with this act, was offended. So she felt that that gave her a right to call my names, when I had never even said anything to her.

Now she has frequently criticised religion. Now if that offends me, does that give me a right to go and call her names now? How would you like it if I started calling your wife ignorant and stupid?

I understand that you guys feel strongly about the issue. There are plenty of issues here I feel strongy about, which get criticised on a far more frequent basis than homsexuality, yet I lways remained civil. I shouldn't be told to stop posting if you guys can't keep yourselves civil. If you don't have the ability to keep your personal feelings in check you shouldn't be in the DH. You can't use the fact that you can't keep them in check as a reason for someone else to give up their argument, or as an excuse to insult people.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Dre, as a general rule, if something is offensive, don't say it, unless there is a good reason for it. If what you're going to say is going to produce a massive flamewar, don't say it. The moderators don't want to have to deal with massive flamewar, and it just degrades the community as a whole. Hence, that is why we asked you to stop with this anti-homosexuality business, because it gives people a reason to flame, and nobody likes flaming.

You don't go on to Smashboards and say things like "SSBB was better than Melee", even if it is a valid opinion. It's just going to incite flaming, and general hatred of people within the community and nobody likes that.

Get the picture?

 

[Dre89]

But it was in a debate, where it was relevant to the topic. Once people knew my position, they asked me to argue it.

So because some people are offended, were not allowed to argue the other side?

In that case, I find atheism offensive, so no one is allowed to argue it, yet I'm allowed to argue theism, totally unchallenged.

People criticise the Church here all the time. That can be deemed offensive, so now people can't criticise that either?

I made a rational, non personal, non insultive argument, which I was asked to do, and was relevant to the thread. You shouldn't be in the DH if you have an issue with someone doing that.

I mean, what was the point of having the thread in a debate hall if people won't be allowed to argue one side?

 

[Aesir]

Dre if people are giving you grief like that, just claim they have sex with farm animals.

/president Johnson tactics.

 

[Dre89]

Actually why wouldn't you guys allow sex with animals under your moral position?

If you're happy to kill animals, it doesn't seem that they have rights that need to be respected.

 

[Aesir]

Actually why wouldn't you guys allow sex with animals under your moral position?

If you're happy to kill animals, it doesn't seem that they have rights that need to be respected.

They have rights that should be protected, I would absolutely argue that, you shouldn't just go out and kill something because you want to, it needs to be reasonable.

 

[Deleted member]

Animals have rights, and you aren't allowed to just murder them. They are however, allowed to be killed for their meat, but then you also have to take them out with the least pain to them.

 

[Reaver197]

To be fair to Dre, I personally find the idea of shutting down an argument just because of personal offense or a broach of a party's sensibilities to be unjust and indicative of not being able to sufficiently argue or have confidence in their own case.

Isn't part of the point of debate hall to discuss what are controversial topics, something that will undoubtedly air some disagreeable stances? People should be allowed to, within reason of course, say what they wish to say, no matter how vehemently we disagree with them. Of course, we are free to say whatever we want in response, what is makes us think of them, why they're wrong, or any other criticism or opinion we can muster. But to muzzle someone's voice on a topic just because you don't like what they're saying is a detriment to everyone's ability to speak freely.

However, on the flip side, Smashboards is private property. It is at the admins' and mods' prerogative to decide what is appropriate to post about here or not.

 

[Sucumbio]

Smashboards is private property. It is at the admins' and mods' prerogative to decide what is appropriate to post about here or not.

This.

We run a T for Teen website, with posters ranging from all walks of life; gay, straight, bi, black, white, so forth and so on. We have nothing against healthy debate. But you'll never get away with arguing that Hitler was doing good by murdering 6 million Jews. Or that blacks should have been shipped back to Africa when slavery was abolished. Or that gays are "evil" (notice the quotes, since Dre.'s definition of "evil" isn't the same as everyone else's.)

... you're still committing the appeal to consequence fallacy. We were actually discussing this in class the other day, that people will tell you you can't argue against homsoexuality, simply because homosexuals get offended, as if that somehow makes their position automatically right. The discussion in class is what got me thinking about all this aagin.

That's just it. You're not just arguing about a position. It's an ethical question.

...an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

What annoys me is not that you guys disagree with me, it's that I was told to stop posting, because you guys couldn't keep your emotions and insults in check. I shouldn't be punished for other peoples misbehaviour.

This is probably the fourth such instance in which you've allowed more than 2 weeks to go by before bringing something back up again, and as usual, you've either conflated, exaggerated, or outright gotten wrong, the goings on of the original incident. For the record, you were asked to not post your opinions on homosexuality because they were deemed inappropriate for SWF. It had nothing to do with anyone's emotions.

To clarify and as a comparison: most God-debates on SWF end in a locked topic. Why? Because they dissolve into bitter discourse (flaming) and that is simply not tolerated. I liken your stance on gays to a 19th century plantation owner who's reasoned their treatment of their slaves is just, because their slaves have no souls, and are therefore not human. Both your stance and theirs is not only completely wrong, but insulting to a fault, and absolutely fodder for flames, and creating a hostile environment. If you want to make an Anti-Gay user group, by all means, do it. Just don't do it on SWF, because we've far too many gay posters and pro-gay members here to allow such things.

Let me ask you this. I criticised the act of homsoexuality, and your wife, who is affiliated with this act, was offended. So she felt that that gave her a right to call my names, when I had never even said anything to her.

Actually I've indulged and re-read your short spat with spookyskeptic. Basically she called you on your position and you moved on to the DH thread. And yes, she started getting insulted by your position (because she's gay, and your position is insulting to gays [and non gays alike].)

Now she has frequently criticised religion. Now if that offends me, does that give me a right to go and call her names now? How would you like it if I started calling your wife ignorant and stupid?

Depends on how she does it. If she were to say that Christians are unnatural and therefore evil because eating a stale wafer and sipping on grape juice to celebrate the cannibal devouring of a god-man is a perversion of human nature, then I'd fully expect her to be called ignorant.

Anyway I think I've fully demonstrated for you how you were out of line. If you really cannot accept it, you can always complain to forum support. But I can see the future. It's your complaint, being passed around the back room with a giant HA HA HA stapled to the top. Seriously, you have no leg to stand on. You'll never successfully convince anyone here that arguing against homosexuality is acceptable discourse for SWF. That's like trying to convince someone it's okay to talk to them about how they're going to hell because their parents never got married. Sure it's a "valid" position according to some religions. But is it appropriate? Of course not.

 

[Dre89]

I dont believe in hell.

And no I don't think gays are evil, or anymore evil than anyone else us. Stop quoting me out of context.

With regards to the SWF rules, it's not as if I started a thread in the Proom trying to convert people to my position. It was in a homosexuality thread which I did not make, and I was asked to defend my position.

Secondly, your defense of your wife does not stand. It would be no different if she was a drug addict and I had criticised drug abuse.

There is no difference between my criticism, and her criticism of religion.

Are you saying that in a debate hall, if
we criticise an act, a person who has committed that act is entitled to insult
the criticiser?

 

[Deleted member]

Stop RIGHT there.

YOU are the one that brought up the actual debate in the PRoom topic if it is right/wrong to be gay etc.

the original topic was on countries making laws against homosexuals.

EDIT
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10418390&postcount=12
and onward

 

[Namaste]

Stop RIGHT there.

YOU are the one that brought up the actual debate in the PRoom topic if it is right/wrong to be gay etc.

the original topic was on countries making laws against homosexuals.

EDIT
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10418390&postcount=12
and onward

Those are basically the exact same thing. That's like saying a discussion about whether or not it's ok to do drugs is in no way related to a discussion about the legality of drugs.

 

[Deleted member]

except that the original topic was "what if homosexuality was made illegal in your country", not if it should be made illegal.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, I'm begging you -- please do NOT keep bringing up the homosexuality thread. I personally don't have a problem with you arguing you position, but you should realize by now that whenever you mention that **** thread, the social thread goes into chaos. Can we PLEASE stop talking about the homosexuality thread? Can we have everyone sign a treaty or something to not talk about it?

 

[Deleted member]

I gotta say I'm kinda siding with Dre. on this one. While he's certainly bigoted, he's allowed to be bigoted. He's allowed to debate that. I don't care if this is privately owned; it's a debate hall and his opinion still counts, as ignorant as it is.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I believe that too. But he just keeps bringing up the same old topic over and over again, and he KNOWS it's going to cause mayhem. While I don't think he should be prevented from posting in the homosexuality thread, he really needs to stop bringing it up.

 

[Deleted member]

It doesn't matter if his opinion is offensive; he's correct in his defense that outright blanket-banning anything offensive is ridiculous. He already outlined common standpoints that one could construe to be offensive, but is looked at as legitimate (like religious critiques).

Dre.: condemn away, you crazy fool!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But it was in a debate, where it was relevant to the topic. Once people knew my position, they asked me to argue it.

So because some people are offended, were not allowed to argue the other side?

In that case, I find atheism offensive, so no one is allowed to argue it, yet I'm allowed to argue theism, totally unchallenged.

People criticise the Church here all the time. That can be deemed offensive, so now people can't criticise that either?

I made a rational, non personal, non insultive argument, which I was asked to do, and was relevant to the thread. You shouldn't be in the DH if you have an issue with someone doing that.

I mean, what was the point of having the thread in a debate hall if people won't be allowed to argue one side?

Yes, however, saying that homosexuality is immoral is going to produce problems. It's going to annoy a whole lot of people and cause copious amounts of flaming. In fact, it already did. Do you want to re-light the bushfire? It doesn't matter that it's within your right to express your opinions, the Mods and Admins want a good community that's not full of flaming, so that's why they've asked you to stop.

Let me give you another example, it's like walking into a church during a service wearing a shirt that says, "There is no god", while shouting, "Christians are all wrong!". It's going to annoy a lot people and it's just not very nice. You should have the right to do it, but you shouldn't do it. They'll ask you to leave the premises, and I think they're perfectly justified in doing so.

And honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you're trolling us.

And then you compare Spookyskeptic to a drug addict? That's nasty Dre, that's nasty. Homosexuality is not something you choose to be. Your choice of sexuality is not made rationally, or really even consciously. The choice may not even be made at all, it may be predetermined, ie. born gay. However, at any rate, it's not something you just choose to be, like you choose to do drugs. It's different.

 

[Dre89]

Paprika, no I didn't start a homosexuality debate in the Proom. I just posted in the "is something bothering you thread?" saying it bothers me how there is intolerance on both sides. I made it pretty clear I didn't want a debate there. People were throwing their opinions, but I didn't argue against them or anything.

Secondly, with regards to the PG thread, my first post there was actually relevant to the OP. I said if homosexuality was wrong, it should be illegal. Because of that, people assumed I was against homosexuality, and asked me to defend my position.

Krazy- The reason why I brought it up is because we were discussing the fallacy applied by pro homsoexuals (or at least some of them anyway), in which they apply appeals to emotion to make the opposition look bad, and believe that simply the fact that gays will be offended means it's wrong to argue against it.

The second reason was to address the issue here of whether it's right to prevent someone from posting (if they are posting rationally), simply because someone else gets offended.

And the third reason was to assess who has the license to throw insults around. Spookyskeptic, being affiliated with the act I criticised, felt that such an affiliation gave her a right to insult me, despite me never having said anything to her. Religion gets criticised far more frequently here than homsoexuality, so does that give me a license to insult everyone who criticises it?

It wouldn't matter if this was from a homosexuality thread or a drug thread, it doesn't have to do with the specific topic. I'm just trying to address some fundamental issues and hyprocricies with what goes on here in the DH.

 

[Dre89]

Yes, however, saying that homosexuality is immoral is going to produce problems. It's going to annoy a whole lot of people and cause copious amounts of flaming. In fact, it already did. Do you want to re-light the bushfire? It doesn't matter that it's within your right to express your opinions, the Mods and Admins want a good community that's not full of flaming, so that's why they've asked you to stop.

Let me give you another example, it's like walking into a church during a service wearing a shirt that says, "There is no god", while shouting, "Christians are all wrong!". It's going to annoy a lot people and it's just not very nice. You should have the right to do it, but you shouldn't do it. They'll ask you to leave the premises, and I think they're perfectly justified in doing so.

And honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you're trolling us.

And then you compare Spookyskeptic to a drug addict? That's nasty Dre, that's nasty. Homosexuality is not something you choose to be. Your choice of sexuality is not made rationally, or really even consciously. The choice may not even be made at all, it may be predetermined, ie. born gay. However, at any rate, it's not something you just choose to be, like you choose to do drugs. It's different.

What the hell I never compared Spooky to a drug addict, stop misquoting me.

You may not chose to be homosexual, but you chose to do the act, just like you chose to do drugs. The act is the only thing I'm criticisng. That's my point, my criticism of the homosexual act operates in the exact same way as a criticism of doing drugs. It also operates the exact same way that Spooky criticises religion, yet you don't see her getting in trouble, or you don't see me insulting her.

Secondly, the difference between me and the Church guy is that I was behaving within the rules of the DH, I was totally respectful. Again, I made a post relevant to the OP, and then was asked to defend my view on homosexuality.

The Church equivalent would be like some guy asking the atheist after Mass to defend his view.

You guys make out that I'm in the wrong, but this is only an issue because it was you guys that couldn't keep your emotions and insults in check. This wouldn't have been an issue if you guys didn't resort to anger and insults, so stop making out that I'm the villain.

 

[Namaste]

Yeah I have to side with Dre that he shouldn't have been told to not respond if he was being respectful in his discussion. I don't actually know what threads you guys are talking about, but really learn to talk to people about subjects you both don't agree it.

 

[Reaver197]

You should have the right to do it, but you shouldn't do it.

I couldn't help but notice this glaring bit right here. You have the right to do something, but you still shouldn't do it? What? Just because people find it annoying, or inconvenience them, or that it's not "that nice"?

Please find something more concrete to justify your position. From that point of view, though I know it's something you did not mean to intimate, the civil rights movement would've never gotten anywhere if they were afraid of "annoying" people.

I know for the most part, being annoying and less than nice generally won't win anyone to your side or opinion, but sometimes you have exercise your rights despite being viewed as being dickish or annoying because of it. In the current culture of things, and some of brazen attempts to stuff religion into the government, or the school curriculum, sometimes things like that are exactly whats needed to call attention to the issue and possibly help rectify it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It doesn't matter if his opinion is offensive; he's correct in his defense that outright blanket-banning anything offensive is ridiculous. He already outlined common standpoints that one could construe to be offensive, but is looked at as legitimate (like religious critiques).

Dre.: condemn away, you crazy fool!

Make no mistake, I completely agree. But from a practical standpoint, this should be brought up in forum support, because bringing it up in the social thread is going against the purpose of the thread, not to mention all the mayhem that occurs. If he wants to defend his right to free speech, it ought to be done via PMs to Suc or posts in Forum Support.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What the hell I never compared Spooky to a drug addict, stop misquoting me.

Secondly, your defense of your wife does not stand. It would be no different if she was a drug addict and I had criticised drug abuse.

Speaks for itself.

You may not chose to be homosexual, but you chose to do the act, just like you chose to do drugs. The act is the only thing I'm criticisng. That's my point, my criticism of the homosexual act operates in the exact same way as a criticism of doing drugs. It also operates the exact same way that Spooky criticises religion, yet you don't see her getting in trouble, or you don't see me insulting her.

Oh okay. But homosexuality can be a form of love between two members of the same sex. Participating in it, is different to doing drugs.

Secondly, the difference between me and the Church guy is that I was behaving within the rules of the DH, I was totally respectful. Again, I made a post relevant to the OP, and then was asked to defend my view on homosexuality.

Again, I think the Atheist in that hypothetical situation was totally respectful. He wasn't insulting anyone and he was just stating his justified opinion. ie. Christians are all wrong, because they believe in God.

The Church equivalent would be like some guy asking the atheist after Mass to defend his view.

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

You guys make out that I'm in the wrong, but this is only an issue because it was you guys that couldn't keep your emotions and insults in check. This wouldn't have been an issue if you guys didn't resort to anger and insults, so stop making out that I'm the villain.

You're not in the wrong. If they're the ones getting angry, they're in the wrong. However, you probably shouldn't do something to provoke them. It's called staying out of trouble.

I couldn't help but notice this glaring bit right here. You have the right to do something, but you still shouldn't do it? What? Just because people find it annoying, or inconvenience them, or that it's not "that nice"?

Please find something more concrete to justify your position. From that point of view, though I know it's something you did not mean to intimate, the civil rights movement would've never gotten anywhere if they were afraid of "annoying" people.

Well, it's called being a nuisance. You shouldn't do it. And it's for little good reason. It's not like the civil rights movement who stood up for their rights. It's criticising homosexuals on an internet forum. You're not going to make it stop, it's not going to get anyone anywhere, and all it's going to do is cause a whole lot of trouble.

I know for the most part, being annoying and less than nice generally won't win anyone to your side or opinion, but sometimes you have exercise your rights despite being viewed as being dickish or annoying because of it. In the current culture of things, and some of brazen attempts to stuff religion into the government, or the school curriculum, sometimes things like that are exactly whats needed to call attention to the issue and possibly help rectify it.

I'm all for being annoying for good reason. However, like I said, criticising homosexuals on an internet forum isn't really good reason. At least in my opinion.

 

[Dre89]

Speaks for itself.

Oh okay. But homosexuality can be a form of love between two members of the same sex. Participating in it, is different to doing drugs.

Firstly, sex, heterosexual or homsexual, isn't always an act of love. Secondly, how is it different to drugs? You desire the homsoexual act, so you do it, just like an addict does the drug because he desires it.

Regardless, the point was to highlight the inconsistencies in people's reactions. If I were to criticise drug use, everyone is ok with it. But when I criticise the homsoexual act, in the exact same way, everyone loses their cool.

Again, I think the Atheist in that hypothetical situation was totally respectful. He wasn't insulting anyone and he was just stating his justified opinion. ie. Christians are all wrong, because they believe in God.

If he's talking in Church he's being disrespectful, and not complying with Church rules.

Secondly, that's someone entering an evironemnt, trying to change other people's views. I was asked to present mine, and never had the intent of converting anyone to my position.

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I'm saying that with regards to the above scenario, the equivalent of how I went about my argument would be like the atheist guy not talking during the mass, and then being asked to defend his position, because remember, I only did it because I was asked to.

You're not in the wrong. If they're the ones getting angry, they're in the wrong. However, you probably shouldn't do something to provoke them. It's called staying out of trouble.

Again, I made a post relevant to the OP, and then I was asked to defend my position.

Well, it's called being a nuisance. You shouldn't do it. And it's for little good reason. It's not like the civil rights movement who stood up for their rights. It's criticising homosexuals on an internet forum. You're not going to make it stop, it's not going to get anyone anywhere, and all it's going to do is cause a whole lot of trouble.

Again, I only did it because I was asked to provide my argument. And for the one hundreth time, I'm not criticisng the person, I'm criticising the act.

I'm all for being annoying for good reason. However, like I said, criticising homosexuals on an internet forum isn't really good reason. At least in my opinion.

Being "annoying" because you were asked to by the people who were subsequently annoyed seems like a legitimate reason to me.

 

[Deleted member]

we are now debating about pie.

no really, either stop the debate of this subject or take it back to the original topic. the social thread is not the place.

 

[Lythium]

Nice mini-modding.

Blueberry pie is obviously the best. Blueberries are also quite good for your health, especially in wild species, blueberries contain anthocyanins, other antioxidants and various phytochemicals possibly having a role in reducing risks of some diseases.

 

[blazedaces]

Nice mini-modding.

Blueberry pie is obviously the best. Blueberries are also quite good for your health, especially in wild species, blueberries contain anthocyanins, other antioxidants and various phytochemicals possibly having a role in reducing risks of some diseases.

Agreed, I love blueberry pie for that reason... plus it's delicious. But apple pies would also include many health benefits, especially if you include the skin which contains the anti-oxidants...

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

a la mode for me. it can be pretty much any pie, though, but as long as it's got a nice big scoop of vanilla ice cream I'm down. Mmmm. pie.

 

[Reaver197]

Well, it's called being a nuisance. You shouldn't do it. And it's for little good reason. It's not like the civil rights movement who stood up for their rights. It's criticising homosexuals on an internet forum. You're not going to make it stop, it's not going to get anyone anywhere, and all it's going to do is cause a whole lot of trouble.



I'm all for being annoying for good reason. However, like I said, criticising homosexuals on an internet forum isn't really good reason. At least in my opinion.

I was mostly referring to your given example of the atheist going to church, not so much the homosexual argument. I can definitely sympathize with the feeling, though.

Though, I feel that the two are slightly different in a way. Religious beliefs and associations are merely beliefs that people subscribe to, so when you criticize them, you're not criticizing the people, just the ideas themselves (hopefully, at least). However, with sexuality, when you criticize it, you're not criticizing some abstract idea a person has bought into, you're criticizing part of their personality, an aspect of their physiological and neurological identity.

So, there is the pitfall, and you have to understand why that probably is fundamentally different to attack someone's sexuality versus their religious preference.

@Sucumbio, you ever get the Apple Pie ice cream from Cold Stone? Stuff is like crack for me. Can't get enough.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Pumpkin pie is the best.

If you disagree, I will take you to shadow Moses island and CG your *** off