First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2017, 03:21 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 07:15 AM)AB517 Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 06:54 AM)Vera Wrote:  The part I pulled from your heap of shit (and so, coincidentally did you - out of your ass), as you calling people fags. How exactly is any context gonna make it better?

I've read everything you've shat upon this forum, from the painfully infantile comment about them damned liberals in a completely unrelated thread; I've seen you passively-aggressively and condescendingly insinuate that a member posting about homophobia *must* be secretly gay and all the other lovely (and barely coherent things you've ever polluted this forum with. One third of what you vomit upon the forum is vile, bigoted crap and rest of it makes absolutely no sense (unless maybe to certain mental patients)

I repeat, you bring nothing to this place and your mere presence in it makes it worse. Go away, this is NOT the place for people who, in this day and age, repeatedly use the word fags.

You are not welcome here.

oh, the word 'fag" sent you into a freak storm? and not content. lmao, I am right about you being documented aren't I?

your last freak storm was over words too? not content? you'll have to remind me what word. You pluck out where I said something like "spiritual people's claim of oneness in the system we are in can be supported with empirical observations. In fact, to claim "not all connected" is flat out wrong."

what was the word(s) that pushed your panties all the way up your ass? I can't remember.

either way, I nailed the "your documented 302" didn't I. Yes

Add me to "freak storm" because of your language. Asshole.

Your points aren't compelling, and your language indicates you're a bigot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
10-06-2017, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 03:31 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 03:01 PM)Vera Wrote:  Have you read the rest of his stuff? It's a heap of barely coherent gibberish. Of course there's been no "admission" on my part about a debilitating mental condition (or possibly rabies). His first attempt at being snarky was to call me an adolescent, obsessed with taking selfies, of all things (like I've mentioned in another thread, I've never taken a selfie in my life). Then, apparently, because I find his vile "contribution" to the forum objectionable (if being a stain on it can be called a contribution), I'm in the grip of a freak storm (whatever the hell that means, I don't speak senile conservative-ese)

And no, if you knowingly use a derogatory word to describe someone you DO think of them as inferior. Would you call a black person a monkey? Would you say that someone calling them monkeys is really not racist, just a jerk? Unless, of course, you're barely literate which, granted, is also a possibility in this case.

Actually, yes, I would call someone who used the term "monkey" an automatic racist because the term itself implies they are less evolved than other humans. (That the idea of "less evolved" is scientifically invalid is an entirely different matter.)

On the other hand, if I heard a guy use an outdated word like "colored", I would think they were an asshole, but would not automatically conclude they are racist unless they were using it to say "colored people are inferior to white people", et cetera. Some old man simply saying "back in my day, colored folks didn't have as many rights as they should, and I think that they deserve them" would be insensitive and probably a dick, but the sentence is not racist-- it's the opposite of that.

The terms "queer" and "fag", likewise, while in the former case implying they are not right, and in the latter case coming from a history that developed the term of reminding gay people that they used to be burned alive (on a pile of bundled sticks-- or faggots), have for decades been used as just a generic way to say "gay person". Now they are (rightly) seen as hurtful and derisive, but that does not mean the person hates those groups or considers them inferior, automatically, the way "monkey" would.

I'm sure he's not unaware that the term has derogatory overtones, but you have to understand that he is old, and until very, very recently this was simply the word for a homosexual person especially in the South, even if you didn't think anything bad about people for being gay. That's why I think a better comparison would be an old guy who still uses "colored" instead of "black" or "African-American".

And yes, I have read much AB has posted. I have called him out on several of his posts, in the past, for being ignorant bullshit. And I believe I have previously called him an asshole. But I do not believe he is deliberately racist or homophobic. This is just the sort of typical redneck attitude which says "fuck you if you don't like the way I am or the way I talk", and takes pride in the disdain of others.

You're just feeding his self-righteous dickishness.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 03:37 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
Well, then I'm really not sure which is worse - to use the word because you think others inferior or because you're such a shitty human being, you don't even give a fuck if what you're saying is offensive. Frankly, I think I can understand the former better (not accept, just understand).

And yeah, based on the rest of his stuff, I still believe he's a bigot.

But hey, it's a nice (albeit slightly revolting) change of pace from the usual theist chew-toy fare Rolleyes

[Image: tumblr_n6q9awMXuE1s65ugio1_500.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
10-06-2017, 03:42 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 03:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  On the other hand, if I heard a guy use an outdated word like "colored", I would think they were an asshole, but would not automatically conclude they are racist unless they were using it to say "colored people are inferior to white people", et cetera. Some old man simply saying "back in my day, colored folks didn't have as many rights as they should, and I think that they deserve them" would be insensitive and probably a dick, but the sentence is not racist-- it's the opposite of that.
It is also entirely possible to just be clueless. I am about as northern whitebread as they come in terms of my upbringing, and the only non-derogatory term I EVER heard about African-Americans before my 18th birthday or so was "colored". Also it took me until somewhere in my thirties to realize that "oriental" is no longer considered a polite word. I assure you that in both of these things I was guilty only of a sheltered existence and unasked-for privilege. As soon as I understood how Asians felt about "oriental" and how blacks felt about "colored" or "negro" (despite the latter having for much of my early childhood used those very terms casually themselves, in the news accounts I saw of the civil rights movement) I quit using them. And I would be a dick NOW if I did use those terms. It's all a matter of understanding. People tend to assume too much about motivation when they judge others for using certain labels.

All that said, however, I gotta say, I'm with Vera on this one, the poster she's referring to has exhausted my default assumption of ignorance and/or being well-meaning.
(10-06-2017 03:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm sure he's not unaware that the term has derogatory overtones, but you have to understand that he is old, and until very, very recently this was simply the word for a homosexual person especially in the South, even if you didn't think anything bad about people for being gay. That's why I think a better comparison would be an old guy who still uses "colored" instead of "black" or "African-American".

And yes, I have read much AB has posted. I have called him out on several of his posts, in the past, for being ignorant bullshit. And I believe I have previously called him an asshole. But I do not believe he is deliberately racist or homophobic. This is just the sort of typical redneck attitude which says "fuck you if you don't like the way I am or the way I talk", and takes pride in the disdain of others.

You're just feeding his self-righteous dickishness.
You are nothing, RS, if not evenhanded and fair. More so than I, it would seem. I contend that, old and Southern or not, he's been duly enlightened about the way these terms are used, that the gay community (for example) has a right to accept or reject the use of terms as it sees fit, and from this point on he has no excuse.

On the basis that life is too short to wade through his BS for the occasional reasonable observation, he's now on my short ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
10-06-2017, 03:55 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 03:37 PM)Vera Wrote:  Well, then I'm really not sure which is worse - to use the word because you think others inferior or because you're such a shitty human being, you don't even give a fuck if what you're saying is offensive.

This is well-said. To me, it indicates a (mild breed of, anyway) sociopathy. Normal humans feel anguish at the idea of hurting other humans.

"Yeah, I know the things I say and do are hurtful to others, but I don't care-- that's their problem and if they don't like me for how I am they can fuck off."

Yeah. That's a sociopath. Congratulations, Mr. Sociopath, you've identified yourself for the rest of us.

But a sociopath hates everyone who isn't himself equally, by definition. So I suppose you could call them a bigot toward every group!

Edit to Add: Or you could say that they are the ultimate in equal treatment of everyone... equally shitty. Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
10-06-2017, 04:43 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 03:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 03:01 PM)Vera Wrote:  Have you read the rest of his stuff? It's a heap of barely coherent gibberish. Of course there's been no "admission" on my part about a debilitating mental condition (or possibly rabies). His first attempt at being snarky was to call me an adolescent, obsessed with taking selfies, of all things (like I've mentioned in another thread, I've never taken a selfie in my life). Then, apparently, because I find his vile "contribution" to the forum objectionable (if being a stain on it can be called a contribution), I'm in the grip of a freak storm (whatever the hell that means, I don't speak senile conservative-ese)

And no, if you knowingly use a derogatory word to describe someone you DO think of them as inferior. Would you call a black person a monkey? Would you say that someone calling them monkeys is really not racist, just a jerk? Unless, of course, you're barely literate which, granted, is also a possibility in this case.

Actually, yes, I would call someone who used the term "monkey" an automatic racist because the term itself implies they are less evolved than other humans. (That the idea of "less evolved" is scientifically invalid is an entirely different matter.)

On the other hand, if I heard a guy use an outdated word like "colored", I would think they were an asshole, but would not automatically conclude they are racist unless they were using it to say "colored people are inferior to white people", et cetera. Some old man simply saying "back in my day, colored folks didn't have as many rights as they should, and I think that they deserve them" would be insensitive and probably a dick, but the sentence is not racist-- it's the opposite of that.

The terms "queer" and "fag", likewise, while in the former case implying they are not right, and in the latter case coming from a history that developed the term of reminding gay people that they used to be burned alive (on a pile of bundled sticks-- or faggots), have for decades been used as just a generic way to say "gay person". Now they are (rightly) seen as hurtful and derisive, but that does not mean the person hates those groups or considers them inferior, automatically, the way "monkey" would.

I'm sure he's not unaware that the term has derogatory overtones, but you have to understand that he is old, and until very, very recently this was simply the word for a homosexual person especially in the South, even if you didn't think anything bad about people for being gay. That's why I think a better comparison would be an old guy who still uses "colored" instead of "black" or "African-American".

And yes, I have read much AB has posted. I have called him out on several of his posts, in the past, for being ignorant bullshit. And I believe I have previously called him an asshole. But I do not believe he is deliberately racist or homophobic. This is just the sort of typical redneck attitude which says "fuck you if you don't like the way I am or the way I talk", and takes pride in the disdain of others.

You're just feeding his self-righteous dickishness.

the problem is that I didn't say anything but gays get the same rights as everybody else. and she freaked stormed on a word (fags) and you think that freaking out to the point of being irrational is ok.

But you guys don't care. because its about group think and getting whats right for a person's group. like I claimed to be the case. Yes

and you called me out for "arrogance" when calling conservative liberal thinking a bunch of child like wishful thinking. It remains true. no matter how many children cry that its ok to eat candy all day long, its still not a good idea..

its funny, none of you addressed that she cherry picked part of a line and not the whole line. it didn't matter to any of you that what I said is reasonable, minus one funny word like fagot.

just remember, you guys are attacking me because I said gays get the same rights as everybody else.

and she never addressed, nor did anybody else, that facts of what I said. She uses foul mouth langue and personal attacks and never once addressed what was said with a counter claim.

and you all are on the crazy train. the thinking atheist alright. as long as we think like you we are cool, if not, the facts don't matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 04:57 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 03:42 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 03:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  On the other hand, if I heard a guy use an outdated word like "colored", I would think they were an asshole, but would not automatically conclude they are racist unless they were using it to say "colored people are inferior to white people", et cetera. Some old man simply saying "back in my day, colored folks didn't have as many rights as they should, and I think that they deserve them" would be insensitive and probably a dick, but the sentence is not racist-- it's the opposite of that.
It is also entirely possible to just be clueless. I am about as northern whitebread as they come in terms of my upbringing, and the only non-derogatory term I EVER heard about African-Americans before my 18th birthday or so was "colored". Also it took me until somewhere in my thirties to realize that "oriental" is no longer considered a polite word. I assure you that in both of these things I was guilty only of a sheltered existence and unasked-for privilege. As soon as I understood how Asians felt about "oriental" and how blacks felt about "colored" or "negro" (despite the latter having for much of my early childhood used those very terms casually themselves, in the news accounts I saw of the civil rights movement) I quit using them. And I would be a dick NOW if I did use those terms. It's all a matter of understanding. People tend to assume too much about motivation when they judge others for using certain labels.

All that said, however, I gotta say, I'm with Vera on this one, the poster she's referring to has exhausted my default assumption of ignorance and/or being well-meaning.
(10-06-2017 03:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm sure he's not unaware that the term has derogatory overtones, but you have to understand that he is old, and until very, very recently this was simply the word for a homosexual person especially in the South, even if you didn't think anything bad about people for being gay. That's why I think a better comparison would be an old guy who still uses "colored" instead of "black" or "African-American".

And yes, I have read much AB has posted. I have called him out on several of his posts, in the past, for being ignorant bullshit. And I believe I have previously called him an asshole. But I do not believe he is deliberately racist or homophobic. This is just the sort of typical redneck attitude which says "fuck you if you don't like the way I am or the way I talk", and takes pride in the disdain of others.

You're just feeding his self-righteous dickishness.
You are nothing, RS, if not evenhanded and fair. More so than I, it would seem. I contend that, old and Southern or not, he's been duly enlightened about the way these terms are used, that the gay community (for example) has a right to accept or reject the use of terms as it sees fit, and from this point on he has no excuse.

On the basis that life is too short to wade through his BS for the occasional reasonable observation, he's now on my short ignore list.

ignore observation when it doesn't support a world view. jut like literal theists do. we have literal atheists in our ranks too.

it really proves my point how groupthink, payment, and team colors rule the day over facts. you guys are complaining over a word. well, I guess its more about supporting a contributor then it is a word.
like I said. gays are just like the rest of us.

gays can open their own churches and rip off people just like every other theists. But they will get away with it because guys like you will jump on their side because of them being gay, not how they treat people. literal theist ignore science data when it doesn't match observation and so do literal atheists. literal people, not to mention mentals, are the problem. they put the rest of us in danger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 05:27 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(08-06-2017 09:23 AM)Emma Wrote:  http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/08/uni...er-deacon/

Good for them (the newly appointed deacon) I guess. I can't imagine ever wanting that. Especially after this:

Quote:“There was a conversation of 400 clergy in Texas about whether or not they could prove I was having sex,” Barclay told The Washington Post.

That person is brave, I'll give them that. Driving through to where they want to be, even though they know they aren't wanted by so many. But still- I don't understand the desire to hold to religion when you're a SGM individual.

While I will support a liberal theist and never support a conservative bigoted theist, the fact remains the further back in time you go, the more literally the holy writings were taken by far more.

Religion adapts, not because a real god exists, but because our evolutionary empathy as a species kicks in. I'd rather have a theist interpret an old book of myth to justify inclusion and protection of minorities, than to have other theists use those same writings to justify being dicks to others. Regardless, it still does not change that antiquity is still antiquity and in our modern global world, religion is not a good way to measure political diplomacy much less scientific fact.

It has to be protected because of human empathy, but at the same time it must always be questioned because it can be used for human cruelty.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 05:27 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(08-06-2017 09:23 AM)Emma Wrote:  http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/08/uni...er-deacon/

Good for them (the newly appointed deacon) I guess. I can't imagine ever wanting that. Especially after this:


That person is brave, I'll give them that. Driving through to where they want to be, even though they know they aren't wanted by so many. But still- I don't understand the desire to hold to religion when you're a SGM individual.

While I will support a liberal theist and never support a conservative bigoted theist, the fact remains the further back in time you go, the more literally the holy writings were taken by far more.

Religion adapts, not because a real god exists, but because our evolutionary empathy as a species kicks in. I'd rather have a theist interpret an old book of myth to justify inclusion and protection of minorities, than to have other theists use those same writings to justify being dicks to others. Regardless, it still does not change that antiquity is still antiquity and in our modern global world, religion is not a good way to measure political diplomacy much less scientific fact.

It has to be protected because of human empathy, but at the same time it must always be questioned because it can be used for human cruelty.

that really sums it up. we can't it but we can watch it. Like all activist with 'holy cause" we need to watch that their literal thinking doesn't hurt people.bb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 06:17 PM
RE: First Trans Deacon Appointed in Methodist Church
(10-06-2017 06:05 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 05:27 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  While I will support a liberal theist and never support a conservative bigoted theist, the fact remains the further back in time you go, the more literally the holy writings were taken by far more.

Religion adapts, not because a real god exists, but because our evolutionary empathy as a species kicks in. I'd rather have a theist interpret an old book of myth to justify inclusion and protection of minorities, than to have other theists use those same writings to justify being dicks to others. Regardless, it still does not change that antiquity is still antiquity and in our modern global world, religion is not a good way to measure political diplomacy much less scientific fact.

It has to be protected because of human empathy, but at the same time it must always be questioned because it can be used for human cruelty.

that really sums it up. we can't it but we can watch it. Like all activist with 'holy cause" we need to watch that their literal thinking doesn't hurt people.bb

You know you could argue your point without insults.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: