ilovefuzz.com

trouble loves me

dubkitty wrote:you assume that disagreeing with you = "ignorant." and that it then follows that people who, in so disagreeing, should "shut the fuck up." this is logically defective. it's also not a given that simply because you have a large number of gay friends, that their opinions or yours are automatically correct; gay peoples' opinions and positions can be as ill-informed, self-serving, or dishonest as those of any other interest group, and gay political and social opinion is not monolithic. you might also reflect on whether the lives and experiences of the people, age cohort, and area you're familiar with are representative of the wider country as compared to, say, the city of Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area i've lived in. things aren't nearly as black and white as you think they are.

LGBTQ =/= Gay. I think that was his point. In other words...


I could take this one is so many directions.

Since we're talking semantics, I think "tolerate" or "toleration" is a shitty word to use when it comes to differences in race, sex, religion or sexual preference.

It's like saying "you can be/fuck/worship however you want and as much as it pains me, I'll put up with you".

tol·er·ate
   [tol-uh-reyt]
verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2.
to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3.
Medicine/Medical . to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4.
Obsolete . to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.

tuffteef wrote:trouble loves me

that's because you love trouble.

and gave it a VERY thorough seeing-to the other day. by that i mean in bed. and by in bed i mean fucked it silly buggers left from Sunday.

well done!

This thread should be closed, and I don't think it's initial purpose should have been discussed to begin with.
Edit: Blegh whatever, doesn't really matter

I dunno...i think "tolerance" is all anyone has a right to ask for. you don't have a right to be liked, or accepted, or loved, or endorsed because of who you are, or what you do, or where you do or don't put your thingy. you just aren't that special, no matter what they told you in primary school. being loved is not a human right. being respected isn't, either.

i mean, it's not like heteronormative people spend their lives getting affirmed by the culture, y'know.

dubkitty wrote:I dunno...i think "tolerance" is all anyone has a right to ask for. you don't have a right to be liked, or accepted, or loved, or endorsed because of who you are, or what you do, or where you do or don't put your thingy. you just aren't that special, no matter what they told you in primary school. being loved is not a human right. being respected isn't, either.

Yeah, I was referring more to the "tolerators" priding themselves for their tolerance.

maybe. on the one hand, people of various religions tolerate societal practices which are abominations against their religions and/or deities. on the other, urban people move into rural areas and complain about the smell of agricultural operations which predate their presence.

dubkitty wrote:the fact that the cities are larger and more diverse, and that i lived in them over a long period of time, isn't irrelevant to the distribution of opinion. i'm assuming your friends are young, activist, and relatively ignorant because you seem that way, and in general "activism" is a naive pastime of "the youth"...only college kids with no real life responsibilities have time for that shit. you asked.

you sound overly jaded and really haughty in your opinion, as well as going back on the faulty age=experience/knowledge bit which is logically incorrect, so thats why you're ignorant. as for activism, thats an easily refuted bit of fake snark that you can just go to any old rally to see. activism and who participates in it goes by passion, not age. thinking that it does is flat out wrong. and you're assuming that sanfran and chitown are more diverse than cleveland without ever having lived there yourself.

Gearmond wrote:i believe i made a post about how discrimination of discrimination ultimately promotes overall tolerance, and how its not really a catch-22 that most people seem to think it is.

think of it like weeding weeds that removes plants that make it difficult for other plants to grow (most invasive species for example). being tolerant of intolerance is being tacitly intolerant yourself.

yes, you did, and it was cheap sophistry then too, easily turned on you thus: your views are obviously intolerant of religion. therefore your views must not be tolerated, and can be driven from the field of discourse under the banner of promoting overall tolerance. in fact, expect radical Muslims to make precisely that argument, as they're already doing in some European countries in arguing against gay rights. how do you solve a problem like sharia?

[/quote]

there was no sophistry to be had, and your example is flatly a straw man, particularly because it umbrellas all atheists into radical abolitionists. moreover its an example of philosophical discourse and not applicable position of social conventions like gay rights. as are the radical muslims in said countries. not all atheists are intolerant of religion (non-beliefe != intolerance) and gay rights don't infringe upon religions said gays don't follow anyways. by your logic me eating pork is being intolerant of jewish tradition. which is not correct. my logic is still correct.

and by the by most countries are combatting sharia law by you know... not tolerating it

and you were perfectly permissed to go when you said you were leaving yourself, but apparently you'd rather express your outdated grouchy old man position on the world.

and you don't sound "really haughty"? the difference is, i've actually lived, not just read shit in college textbooks.

regarding your counter-argument, i never said anything about athiesm; i was referring to your contention that religious views of gay rights were <i>a priori</i> intolerant and thus to be excluded from discussion. this is equally true of your gay-rights-centric opinion of religious views. your "logic" is not even logic. and the position on the world you think is clever and new was tired and outdated back in the days of Beardsley and Fitzgerald. there's nothing new about being a liber-teen.

dubkitty wrote:regarding your counter-argument, i never said anything about athiesm; i was referring to your contention that religious views of gay rights were <i>a priori</i> intolerant and thus to be excluded from discussion.

How could it possibly NOT be intolerant to express and lobby for a position that a certain segment of society should be denied civil rights?

dubkitty wrote:and you don't sound "really haughty"? the difference is, i've actually lived, not just read shit in college textbooks.

never said i didn't. again you're projecting a false sense of quality of experience upon yourself that doesn't exist. you're not smarter or more well versed in these issues. you're just old.

regarding your counter-argument, i never said anything about athiesm; i was referring to your contention that religious views of gay rights were <i>a priori</i> intolerant and thus to be excluded from discussion. this is equally true of your gay-rights-centric opinion of religious views. your "logic" is not even logic. and the position on the world you think is clever and new was tired and outdated back in the days of Beardsley and Fitzgerald. there's nothing new about being a liber-teen.

you mentioned atheism with your counter example of "not being tolerant of religion". i said that his views (which are intolerant of gay marriage) should be excluded and ignored, not religious views entirely. you had no reason to assume and project that on to me. for someone who claims to be logical you sure made a leap right there. gay rights do not exclude religious views in any capacity but the most extreme. it contradicts their views, but again so does me eating this delicious pulled pork. but as i said before, thats not an issue of tolerance.

hah! what the fuck do the roaring 20's jet set have to do with my opinions at all other than a grasp at some straw from a jaded grumpy old man to discredit my opinion? nothing.

theres nothing new about it, but newness doesn't have anything to do with it now does it? no. it doesn't.

dubkitty wrote:and you don't sound "really haughty"? the difference is, i've actually lived, not just read shit in college textbooks.

You think you're an authority because you're an old washed up fucktard. In fact, your age shows how out of touch you are. You don't fit in. You don't relate to the community. I'm guessing you just like trolling for replies because you can't have much in common with anyone here. Maybe you can find some freep site you can live on.

Gearmond wrote:

dubkitty wrote:and you don't sound "really haughty"? the difference is, i've actually lived, not just read shit in college textbooks.

never said i didn't. again you're projecting a false sense of quality of experience upon yourself that doesn't exist. you're not smarter or more well versed in these issues. you're just old.

regarding your counter-argument, i never said anything about athiesm; i was referring to your contention that religious views of gay rights were <i>a priori</i> intolerant and thus to be excluded from discussion. this is equally true of your gay-rights-centric opinion of religious views. your "logic" is not even logic. and the position on the world you think is clever and new was tired and outdated back in the days of Beardsley and Fitzgerald. there's nothing new about being a liber-teen.

you mentioned atheism with your counter example of "not being tolerant of religion". i said that his views (which are intolerant of gay marriage) should be excluded and ignored, not religious views entirely. you had no reason to assume and project that on to me. for someone who claims to be logical you sure made a leap right there. gay rights do not exclude religious views in any capacity but the most extreme. it contradicts their views, but again so does me eating this delicious pulled pork. but as i said before, thats not an issue of tolerance.

hah! what the fuck do the roaring 20's jet set have to do with my opinions at all other than a grasp at some straw from a jaded grumpy old man to discredit my opinion? nothing.

theres nothing new about it, but newness doesn't have anything to do with it now does it? no. it doesn't.

It sounds to me like you two are debating which of you is more knowledgeable about the gay debate without actually presenting arguments for yourselfs, with two minor excoptions, and instead are criticizing the other person. And these are really just ad hominem attacks anyway where you aren't even discussing the original thing you disagreed over.

And gearmond it really does sound like your saying that if someone is intolerant in a way that is contradictory to the way in which I'm intolerant then their argument should not be included. Which really kindof kills any kind of debate on the issue.

And can some of these drama threads be combined so I don't have to read three threads to keep up on this feud.