Demonizing people

[roger_pearse]

(abuse)

(laughter)

Tell me, as a moderator, why do you hurl abuse?

 

[Magical Realist]

Jan: "It now means people getting married because they just want to"

What other option is there? The State FORCING people to marry against their own wills? What sort of totalitarian theocracy are you advocating here?

 

[Sorcerer]

It's not about what you or I think.

Where hav i persecuted gay people?
You really are a angry person aren't you?

jan.

That's what you said. Now tell me that's not your true opinion.

We discussed that. You're trying to deny gay people their rights, which is persecution.

I'm angry when people like you try to deny me my rights, that's for sure. You'd be angry if I tried to deny you yours.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What other option is there? The State FORCING people to marry against their own wills? What sort of totalitarian theocracy are you advocating here?

I'm not advocating any kind of system, I'm just stating what ''marriage'' has been reduced to.
I suppose you could compare it to the term ''gay''. It means happy, lighthearted, carefree, but it's primarily understood to mean homosexual now.

jan.

 

[roger_pearse]

You're a <snip personal abuse>

No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.

The fact is that there is no reply. No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here. No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here. The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated). And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!! I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.

I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

 

[quinnsong]

No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.

The fact is that there is no reply. No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here. No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here. The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated). And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!! I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.



I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

What I gather from all of your posturing is this, you are mad because you cannot carry on with your homophobic rants and get away with it. Too fucking bad, dude! Get over it!

Yes, Roger you won the argument! You won, you do have the right to be a homophobe but you will have to do it someplace else.

 

[Gremmie]

No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.

The fact is that there is no reply. No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here. No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here. The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated). And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!! I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.

I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

Seriously... If it's such a "shitty" forum, why waste your time here? You're not going to reform us heathens, and degenerates... You're nothing more than a troll. Probably a sock anyway.

 

[Sorcerer]

No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.

The fact is that there is no reply. No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here. No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here. The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated). And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!! I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.

I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

Wow, you're a real troll, a professional one at that. You should clear off.

 

[Kittamaru]

Roger, there really are no words...

 

[Gremmie]

Roger, there really are no words...

Dude, there ARE words... But, to speak them, would mean a ban...meh.

 

[parmalee]

Wow. There's just so much... enigma here that one doesn't know where to begin:

"Marriage has always represented" such-and-such, but this has nothing to do with the "history of marriage"--oh, but wait, just a few short posts later it seemingly does have something to do with the history of marriage; unless "historically marriage has always..." is intended to mean... or represent--no, no, mean... Well, I'll just have to get some clarification on that from the expert.

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

I'm saying that is what marriage represents, but now the word ''marriage'' no longer defines such a representation.
It now means people getting married because they just want to, or because they can.
IOW ''marriage'' is just a word, not a representation.

And what do you suppose a “word” is, Jan? And which is more... erm, significant: when a thing "means" something, but does not "represent" it; or when a thing "represents" something, but does not "mean" it? And can you clarify for us the precise manner in which you are employing these terms?

 

[parmalee]

I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

I would very much like to know the truth, and to see some reasoned argumentation for such--can you point me to such a place?

 

[Gremmie]

I would very much like to know the truth, and to see some reasoned argumentation for such--can you point me to such a place?

Gotta go with... NO.

 

[parmalee]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

Originally Posted by Randwolf
That's a lie Jan. I've watched you repeat it over and over but that doesn't make it less a lie. Can't you at least google something first? Or, maybe visit Wiki if you're not capable of tracking original, secondary or even tertiary sources? Is that too much to ask of a member of an "intelligent" forum? Really?

Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage

(from wiki)

Of course there were same sex unions, no one is denying that. But ''marriage'' has always been understood to mean the union of a man and woman(en), male and female. Whenever we were heard of people getting married, the majority of the world, from time immemorial, it was taken for granted that the people involved were male and female. I, nor you, need to consult wiki for that.

jan.

You quote a source that states:

Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage

and then you state:

Of course there were same sex unions, no one is denying that. But ''marriage'' has always been understood to mean the union of a man and woman(en), male and female. Whenever we were heard of people getting married, the majority of the world, from time immemorial, it was taken for granted that the people involved were male and female.

WTF?! Did you read that which you quoted? If marriage has "always been understood" as a union of male and female, then how could there have been--and continue to be--same-sex marriages the world over, from time immemorial? Did the parties involved not understand what has "always been understood"? And "always been understood" by whom?

 

[Aqueous Id]

What I gather from all of your posturing is this, you are mad because you cannot carry on with your homophobic rants and get away with it. Too fucking bad, dude! Get over it!

Yes, Roger you won the argument! You won, you do have the right to be a homophobe but you will have to do it someplace else.

I think he got bent out of shape because he was mostly being ignored. Somewhere about the time he entered into this he admitted to posting a fake claim, alleging that it was done to conduct some sort of assessment of forum attitudes. As I recall most posters even ignored that. I thought it was a pretty bizarre admission of being disingenuous. But he seems to be trying a variety of tactics to get a rise out of people.

It takes me back to a point I've brought up several times before. Who are these people? Are they at all serious or is this simply role playing? If they're serious, are we to assume that they're connected with the institutions which like to inject fundamentalism into every discussion that remotely relates to any of the conservative agenda? Are they paid by the ICR and/or Koch Bros.?

I'll get off my soapbox, quinn, and let you get back to busting a blood vessel over the present dialogue.

:soapbox:

 

[Aqueous Id]

The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth

Are you screaming or whining when you say that?

(this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated).

By all means, proceed. You're sounding holier and holier by the moment.

And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator

The name shows in blue if they're a mod. There's no subterfuge about that.

and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!!

Wow. The pathos.

I think I won that argument.

So, in summary: whine, whine, gloat?

Very funny to see people so afraid of truth

Homophobia and denial dressed up as religion is neither funny nor emblematic of truth. So, no.

and reason.

We see what kind of reason you're applying here.

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

More blame-shifting to go with the religiosity, narcissism and anger. Wow, looks like you're off the charts on the psychopathy checklist. What's the prize for a perfect score up at the First Anabaptist Church of Gay Bashers-Reformed?

 

[Bells]

No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.

The fact is that there is no reply.

Sorry. I chose to actually get some sleep and spend time with my kids this morning. I know, your complaint that you can't be a homophobe should take precedent, but such is life.

No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here.

It is always hard to have a rational argument with bigots and homophobes when they continuously pepper their posts with offensive comments about minority groups. Perhaps you have a solution to this problem?

No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here.

One can have a rational disagreement when the other is a bigot and a homophobe?

The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated).

Come come. You really shouldn't speak about Jan that way. It is unbecoming.

Did you consider your role in this? Did you consider how your words and bigotry would affect and offend the many LGBT and heterosexual members and staff we happen to have?

If you are whining that I won't allow you to continue to offend them and hurt this site's reputation with your bigotry, then sorry, but them's the breaks.

And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!!

Yes, I will moderate you (as per the cycle) if you repeat the offensive behaviour you have spent some time exhibiting. I will even quote you some of the rules of this site, if you have an issue:

Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.
​

I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.

Are you a seal balancing a ball on your nose?

I think I won that argument. Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.

Yes Roger. You have 'won the interwebs'.

What truth and reason do you think you spout?

But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.

Now you know exactly how I and the greater majority on this site feel!

 

[(Q)]

I'm not advocating any kind of system, I'm just stating what ''marriage'' has been reduced to.

You've done no such thing because marriage has not been reduced, it has been expanded in regards to acceptance. You just hate the acceptance part.

I suppose you could compare it to the term ''gay''. It means happy, lighthearted, carefree, but it's primarily understood to mean homosexual now.

jan.

It's amazing how things change over time, isn't it, Jan?

 

[Bells]

I think he got bent out of shape because he was mostly being ignored. Somewhere about the time he entered into this he admitted to posting a fake claim, alleging that it was done to conduct some sort of assessment of forum attitudes. As I recall most posters even ignored that. I thought it was a pretty bizarre admission of being disingenuous. But he seems to be trying a variety of tactics to get a rise out of people.

It's ironic that the guy who admitted he lied is complaining that we are somehow afraid of the truth.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It's ironic that the guy who admitted he lied is complaining that we are somehow afraid of the truth.

I read that and started laughing.