If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   Exec loses job after YouTube rant at Chick-fil-A drive-thru   (azstarnet.com) divider line 660
    More: Interesting, Tucson  
•       •       •

27489 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Aug 2012 at 5:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



660 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 03:05:27 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, what's your routine for "winning debates"?


Well, for starters, I verify I'm actually in a debate.

I'm not, at the moment. Mostly what I'm doing is entertaining your delusions. Most likely because I'm bored while waiting for installs to complete.
 
2012-08-03 03:11:46 PM

DefenestrateAllDemocrats:
I'm trying to avoid tying my brain into a knot figuring out how someone buying a chicken sandwich from a private company that has a CEO who disapproves of same-sex marriage actually "hurts" gay people.


Like this: You buy a lemonade from me for fifty cents. I take one of those quarters and give it to my friend for bus fare so he can go to the store and yell at the owner about how they shouldn't sell popsicles to black kids because they come from hot places and shouldn't have cold things like we have, and when they eat cold things that hurts everyone for reasons we can't articulate. The following day and every day therafter for about a week the same thing plays out. Then one day a black kid standing next to you asks you not to buy another lemonade from me because I'm using that money to pay my friend to be a dick. Do you:

A) Call me a dick for paying my friend to do this and switch to Flavor-Aid;
B) Ask my dog for an ice cube and then yell at him for having the audacity to obey me;
C) Tell the black kid to mind his own business;
D) Tell my friend to shut his stupid mouth;
E) Tell the store owner that my friend's an idiot, black kids should totally get to eat popsicles and if he won't sell to them then you won't buy anything from him anymore; or
F) Buy two lemonades because you don't think black kids should eat popsicles either
 
2012-08-03 03:14:07 PM

badaboom: Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted

31/50. 62% of US States...ie the government BAN same sex marriage.


Because the distribution of Americans across all states is perfectly equal.
 
2012-08-03 03:17:14 PM

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, what's your routine for "winning debates"?

Well, for starters, I verify I'm actually in a debate.

I'm not, at the moment. Mostly what I'm doing is entertaining your delusions. Most likely because I'm bored while waiting for installs to complete.


"Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change." - Remember when you couldn't even comprehend this sentence well enough to form a coherent response? Yeah, you should probably stop your repeated attempts to claim superiority of any type.
 
2012-08-03 03:17:42 PM
Most everyone has gone insane. It is now a positive to hate and somehow pretend that you are a 'good' person. So here is a comic.

assets.amuniversal.com
/hot as Lucky Cow's burgers are not.
 
2012-08-03 03:22:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: "But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago-in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far-a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. 'We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,' shouted the group's leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. 'For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!'" (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, "Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry." (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

"...under intense political pressure...removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders..." (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107)

It should be noted that the number of "Yes" (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA's membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the "National Gay Task Force" was able to ...


The Newsweek story is interesting. It shines a whole new light on that "liberal media bias" we hear so much about today. But with the power of Google and a teeny bit of cross-checking, I realize you actually only have one source: Conservative Colloquium. I mean, I admit I was a little puzzled. You didn't seem like the sort of person who would sit down and read Love Undetectable, much less remember what was on page 107. But I was willing to at least check your story out.

Admit it: you just cut-and-pasted from Conservative Colloquium, didn't you? and you've never touched a copy of Love Undetectable in your life, have you?

But now I've got a new dilemma. I've already got you farkied for so much crap I don't know how I'll ever fit "plagiarist" in there.
 
2012-08-03 03:22:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Remember when you couldn't even comprehend this sentence well enough to form a coherent response?


Remember when I ignored it because it still does nothing to prevent your entire argument from boiling down to the theory that there exists a "ghey conspiracy".


Fairly enough, you probably don't. This is because I stopped bothering to reason with you sometime around 11am today and never bothered to tell you.

I apologize for that.
 
2012-08-03 03:23:38 PM

Flakeloaf: badaboom: Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted

31/50. 62% of US States...ie the government BAN same sex marriage.


Because the distribution of Americans across all states is perfectly equal.


Going up to some random Chick Fil A employee to complain about what the CEO says is the same as going up to some random citizen in any of these states and telling them how horrible they are for living there. And all Cathy did was express an opinion. There is no evidence that Chick Fil A discriminates. These states BAN it. Can the discrimination be any clearer?
 
2012-08-03 03:24:21 PM

mbillips:
$20,000 to anti-gay groups. Not $5 million. That makes a difference to me, because you can't boycott everybody. I grew up around Dan Cathy's kind of Christian. If he's 99 percent doing the right thing, and 1 percent asshole, I figure that's pretty damn good.


Hey now. You're runnin a serious risk of makin sense when you go sayin things like that. We don't allow your kind of sensey-talkin on this here interzippy.

I've met lots of guys like this too. They think what they think and that's that. Sad that they should think other people should be denied a basic thing when granting it doesn't harm them any, and that they don't see their own bigotry as such from the inside, but that's how it goes. It'd be much easier to condemn the man if he were the monster everyone seems to think he is. The fundie mouthpieces he supports? Fark those guys.
 
2012-08-03 03:26:19 PM

DefenestrateAllDemocrats: I'm trying to avoid tying my brain into a knot figuring out how someone buying a chicken sandwich from a private company that has a CEO who disapproves of same-sex marriage actually "hurts" gay people.


Read any of the 836 other threads on the topic. Or read this thread. Or Google "Chik-Fil-A donations."

That will make it easier to figure out how someone buying a chicken sandwich from a private company that has a CEO who disapproves of same-sex marriage actually "hurts" gay people.
 
2012-08-03 03:26:37 PM

ciberido: Admit it: you just cut-and-pasted from Conservative Colloquium, didn't you?


I actually did bother to google key phrases out of all that mess. Call it morbid curiosity.

Nonetheless it seems pretty significant to me that you can't find a single one of these articles outside of a conservative blog or other right-wing echo chamber.

Though, if questioned on the point, I rather imagine BraveChen here would put that down to teh ghey conspiracy once again.

Nevertheless, it's time to head home, and I only paid for one ride on the merry-go-round.
 
2012-08-03 03:28:53 PM
wellreadneck SmartestFunniest 2012-08-03 10:46:53 AM


indylaw: bbcard1:
Their brand figures don't lie, and they show that the overall perception of the brand has been badly damaged. The smug, sneering patronage by right-wingers isn't going to help Chick-fil-A among non-evangelicals; it can only hurt, as it increasingly aligns the brand with one party or political movement.

There's a slim chance that, in just a few short years, returning from lunch with a Chik-fil-a bag could be as much a faux pas in the corporate world as someone today showing up for casual Friday draped in a Confederate flag.




LOL
Farkin delusional people.
 
2012-08-03 03:34:07 PM

badaboom: Flakeloaf: badaboom: Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted

31/50. 62% of US States...ie the government BAN same sex marriage.


Because the distribution of Americans across all states is perfectly equal.

Going up to some random Chick Fil A employee to complain about what the CEO says is the same as going up to some random citizen in any of these states and telling them how horrible they are for living there. And all Cathy did was express an opinion. There is no evidence that Chick Fil A discriminates. These states BAN it. Can the discrimination be any clearer?


I didn't say your castle wasn't nice. I just asked why you built it on a swamp.

The only conclusion we can draw is that 31 states haven't yet joined the civilized age because their citizenry hasn't yet expressed a clear desire to do so. The people who run these governments aren't ready to accept it yet and that is totally the fault of the constituents (or the corporations who own the politicians, as the case may be). But yeah, yelling at them one at a time is idiotic. Get all of their attention together, give them a practical alternative that they can realistically choose with minimal effort and watch what happens. If they choose bigotry then fine. They get to be bigoted, people who care stand outside and make faces at them, wait five years, repeat.

It's not like CFA employees have a choice. They can't vote in a new CEO. They can't all just up and quit. They open the window, they hand you the friggin bag, you say thank you and drive away. Any conversation over and above that is unwelcome, unwanted and begging for another picture of Jon Stewart.
 
2012-08-03 03:35:38 PM

badaboom: And to my knowledge no evidence that Chick Fil A has ever discriminated against anyone.


Then you're either lying or willfully ignorant. Such evidence has been posted to this and other Fark threads numerous times. Your only possible excuse is that you posted without bothering to read this or any other thread first. And that's ok ... so long as you admit your ignorance. Now go do your homework and then get back to us. We'll wait.

Oh, what the hell, I'm in a generous mood. Here you go. Start with this, find the rest on your own time.
 
2012-08-03 03:35:55 PM

ciberido: Admit it: you just cut-and-pasted from Conservative Colloquium, didn't you? and you've never touched a copy of Love Undetectable in your life, have you?

But now I've got a new dilemma. I've already got you farkied for so much crap I don't know how I'll ever fit "plagiarist" in there.


of course i copied and pasted.. Oh wait, I see, this is your way of ignoring the entire post while making it look like you're providing a valid response...

/I knew that if I had simply posted a direct link, you guys would dismiss it outright as skunk has already done.
 
2012-08-03 03:38:56 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change." - Remember when you couldn't even comprehend this sentence well enough to form a coherent response? Yeah, you should probably stop your repeated attempts to claim superiority of any type.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-03 03:43:42 PM

ciberido: badaboom: And to my knowledge no evidence that Chick Fil A has ever discriminated against anyone.

Then you're either lying or willfully ignorant. Such evidence has been posted to this and other Fark threads numerous times. Your only possible excuse is that you posted without bothering to read this or any other thread first. And that's ok ... so long as you admit your ignorance. Now go do your homework and then get back to us. We'll wait.

Oh, what the hell, I'm in a generous mood. Here you go. Start with this, find the rest on your own time.


Thanks for providing absolutely no evidence that they have discriminated. Show me a lawsuit that they lost. Accusations are not evidence.
 
2012-08-03 03:45:16 PM

ciberido: badaboom: And to my knowledge no evidence that Chick Fil A has ever discriminated against anyone.

Then you're either lying or willfully ignorant. Such evidence has been posted to this and other Fark threads numerous times. Your only possible excuse is that you posted without bothering to read this or any other thread first. And that's ok ... so long as you admit your ignorance. Now go do your homework and then get back to us. We'll wait.

Oh, what the hell, I'm in a generous mood. Here you go. Start with this, find the rest on your own time.


And I would venture that nearly every company in the US has been sued for supposed discrimination.
 
2012-08-03 04:05:49 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: of course i copied and pasted.. Oh wait, I see, this is your way of ignoring the entire post while making it look like you're providing a valid response...


Ah, the "I meant to do that" defense. You -meant- to quote someone else and pass it off as your own thoughts. You -meant- to list multiple books you've never read as citations, without bothering to admit you'd never even SEEN them, much less read them. You -meant- to pass off secondary sources as primary sources. You -meant- to imply multiple sources when you had only one, and that an opinion piece. And you -meant- to get caught. It was all part of the plan.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: I knew that if I had simply posted a direct link, you guys would dismiss it outright as skunk has already done.


Yeah, yeah, you've played the martyr before in other threads. I didn't buy it then, either.

It wasn't just hyperbole when I said "I've already got you farkied for so much crap I don't know how I'll ever fit "plagiarist" in there." I've been following your escapades for a while, taking notes. You've done all this before: play the martyr, insult people and then act all offended when they insult you back, claim that people are "ignoring" or "dismissing" you even as they methodically take apart every word you said, post disinformation or outright lies and then ignore refutations, badly misrepresenting things other people have said, strawman attacks: the whole toolbox, really. But flat-out plagiarism is a new low.

For what it's worth (probably not much), I agree with you on the general principle. The APA's stance on homosexuality should not be influenced by lobbying groups or politics or religion. It should be their best possible understanding of the science of psychology, arrived at via scientific methods. And ok, sure, there's evidence that gay-rights activists tried to influence the APA back in 1971. And that's a shame. I'll even skip the obvious tu quoque.

But your point's been lost, I'm afraid, under the weight of your shenanigans, and your integrity in this thread, and probably future threads as well, is tattered.
 
2012-08-03 04:07:13 PM

Oznog: brianbankerus: My brother bragged about a time he went to Home Depot and the girl at the counter couldn't override the price on something, so he threw all his stuff on the floor, told her off, and walked out the door.

He honestly expected me to take his side on that one. Poor girl just doing her best, she can't make the rules or give anything away.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]

And I THREW IT ON THE GROUND!!!

You must think I'm a JOKE! I'M NOT A PART OF YO' SYSTEM!!!


My dad's not a cell phone, duh!
 
2012-08-03 04:07:59 PM
ciberido: Then you're either lying or willfully ignorant. Such evidence has been posted to this and other Fark threads numerous times. Your only possible excuse is that you posted without bothering to read this or any other thread first. And that's ok ... so long as you admit your ignorance. Now go do your homework and then get back to us. We'll wait.

Oh, what the hell, I'm in a generous mood. Here you go. Start with this, find the rest on your own time.


badaboom: Thanks for providing absolutely no evidence that they have discriminated. Show me a lawsuit that they lost. Accusations are not evidence.


Ah, so not willfully ignorant, then.

This topic really seems to bring the liars out.
 
2012-08-03 04:09:25 PM
This guys should get the hero tag (Albeit, unintentionally.) I've never seen so much consensus between liberals and conservatives in my life. We may not be able to agree about healthcare, taxes, guns or social issues... But goddammit so much if we can't all come together to hate on a grade-A douche.
 
2012-08-03 04:10:25 PM

mbillips: $20,000 to anti-gay groups. Not $5 million. That makes a difference to me, because you can't boycott everybody. I grew up around Dan Cathy's kind of Christian. If he's 99 percent doing the right thing, and 1 percent asshole, I figure that's pretty damn good.


Fair enough. One does has to pick one battles. And it's never good when people start distorting facts to promote their political agenda, even if it's a good political agenda.
 
2012-08-03 04:17:20 PM

ciberido: You -meant- to quote someone else and pass it off as your own thoughts.


Um..by "my thoughts", you mean quotes and sources? Copying quotes and citing sources that someone else gathered on one page isn't plagiarism. You specifically asked for sources citing harassment and intimidation, I provided them. I never claimed that I've read the books, and I thought it would be fairly obvious that I'm not the type of person who studies gay history.

ciberido: For what it's worth (probably not much), I agree with you on the general principle. The APA's stance on homosexuality should not be influenced by lobbying groups or politics or religion. It should be their best possible understanding of the science of psychology, arrived at via scientific methods. And ok, sure, there's evidence that gay-rights activists tried to influence the APA back in 1971. And that's a shame. I'll even skip the obvious tu quoque.


Well, at least you addressed the actual point of the quotes, that's more than most people in this thread will do.
 
2012-08-03 04:23:52 PM

mbillips: $20,000 to anti-gay groups. Not $5 million. That makes a difference to me, because you can't boycott everybody. I grew up around Dan Cathy's kind of Christian. If he's 99 percent doing the right thing, and 1 percent asshole, I figure that's pretty damn good.


I don't understand the logic behind the idea that if it's only a little bit of money, it's okay.

But regardless, I don't think you are looking deep enough:

Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010
All the Anti Gay Companies You Fund When You Spend $5.25 On a Chick-fil-A Sandwich
 
2012-08-03 04:28:13 PM
this has been an interesting thread, and I've been able to follow a lot of links, to a lot of information.
One link was to this piece.

Thru all the hyperbole on both sides, what stands out in that piece is that there are CERTIFIED HATE GROUPS.

Does anyone here know where I can get a list of these certified hate groups?
Who is the certifying authority?
What are the certification parameters?

I might be interested in getting my hate group on the list, but I just can't seem to find the info on how to get certified. Please help.
 
2012-08-03 04:37:30 PM

Terrapin Bound: I might be interested in getting my hate group on the list, but I just can't seem to find the info on how to get certified. Please help.


That sound like a Letter from a Nut.
 
2012-08-03 04:54:48 PM
He still has his job as an adjunct professor at the school of business management at U if A, where he'll probably get a promotion.
 
2012-08-03 04:55:28 PM

stirfrybry: so when do the gays start burning these shops down?


Oh I think the blacks have a head start on the gays...

Let's burn this motherfarker down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgQzZbNxZZ0
 
2012-08-03 05:04:45 PM

Gothnet: 1. This guy is a dickbag. It's true.

2. Sorry to all you folks who think that it's "Just a Job" and the girl shouldn't feel bad because she doesn't set corporate policy, but you're utterly, utterly wrong.

She abides by it and she supports it by working there, as do all employees. You don't (or shouldn't) work for a company you have an ethical problem with, if you continue working there you're making the world worse through your actions.


Translation

1. This guy is a Dickbag. It's true.

2. Derp Derp

Someone else pays my bills,.so i an going to blame someone whom I've never met of supporting something they weren't even aware of 2 weeks ago. I don't know this persons life, i don't know the road they have to walk, but damn them for having a job and trying to pay their bills. Because she chooses to work and try to be productive , i hate her.
 
2012-08-03 05:14:11 PM
Not relevant to the douchenozzle in TFA so much, but...America should boyott all fast food. That way there would be more attractive gay and straight people to fark.
 
2012-08-03 05:20:16 PM
STRYPERSWINE He still has his job as an adjunct professor at the school of business management at U if A, where he'll probably get a promotion.

Yeah about that...U of A says his contract ended in May & their language seems pretty clear about his future, the assclown sez he's still employed there, even poor Rachel refused to talk to him when he went back to apologize-oh, he also claims Stormfront posted his home address:
Link
 
2012-08-03 06:02:25 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: /I knew that if I had simply posted a direct link, you guys would dismiss it outright as skunk has already done.


Are you still asking me to accept your wild speculation as fact on the same quality of evidence you generally find for proving the existence of UFOs, or Bigfoot?

I'm sorry friend. I don't operate on belief. I operate on fact.

The entirety of your argument hinges on the supposition that- if only the 68% and change that abstained from voting in the 1974 conference had actually voted- those votes would have been overwhelmingly to retain homosexuality in the DSM-II.

This is a very TALL order of speculation here just on it's own merits- which are few. From what I can tell, the proposal to remove Homosexuality from the DSM runs back to the 1930s- and comes mostly from within the APA. As such, this was far from the first attempt to have it stricken. Many prominent members of the APA had been calling for this- saying it should have happened at least 25 years earlier.

So of course, then we run into the allegation that there was some sort of organized attempt by gay activists to strong-arm scientists into staying home that day. This is the same nonsense parroted on every conservative blog throughout the web. Apparently the pro-gay activism was strong in that era, and absolutely intimidated the APA into this no-show. At least, that's the assumption we're making here.

Alright. I'll play:

"They also don't tell you that the anti-gay atmosphere of the APA was so intense that one of its members called for police to come and shoot those protesting a lecture on "aversion therapy" techniques during the 1971 convention. (Bayer, p. 103)"

"The increasing visibility of gay people also generated a backlash during the 1970s. In perhaps the most discussed anti-gay rights campaign of the decade, singer Anita Bryant led a successful drive in 1977 to repeal a gay-rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida. The new openness about homosexuality proved disconcerting to some heterosexuals who had been accustomed to gay and lesbian people remaining closeted and politically silent. Canadian author Robertson Davies wrote during the decade that "the love that dare not speak its name" (referencing the famous Lord Alfred Douglas quotation, also quoted by Oscar Wilde during his court case in 1895) "has become the love that won't shut up." On October 14, 1979, approximately 100,000 people marched in Washington, D.C., in the largest pro-gay rights demonstration up to that time."

"Mindful of the need for continuing education, APA gave the National Gay Task Force exhibit space at several later conventions. In 1976 in Miami we did Homophobia: Time for Cure, with displays of materials illustrating anti-gay attitudes and policies and practices. Part of our prescription to cure homophobia
was these photos of gay couples. Surprisingly, they drew strong reaction."

"Bryant, who condemned homosexuality as immoral and "against God's wishes," is best known for her 1977 campaign to repeal a Miami ordinance banning anti-gay discrimination. Her organization, Save Our Children, claimed that gays -- or "known practicing homosexuals," in her lingo -- were converting children to homosexuality. It was thus no surprise that after Bryant succeeded in her self-described crusade against the bias ordinance, she turned her sights on Florida's adoption laws."

"The first stirrings of anti-gay organizing came the following year when, according to historian Susan Fort Wiltshire, ambitious small-town preachers in the Northwest Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church began to exploit anti-gay sentiment. These preachers realized that virulent anti-gay rhetoric could "fill football stadiums for revivals in such tiny Panhandle towns as Tulia and Clarendon and Higgins and Perryton," Wiltshire says."

"Defamatory propaganda about gays and lesbians is a mainstay of the anti-gay movement. Perhaps the most influential anti-gay propagandist is Paul Cameron. After losing his job teaching psychology at the University of Nebraska, Cameron set himself up as an independent sex researcher in the late 1970s, churning out scores of anti-gay pamphlets that were distributed mostly in fundamentalist churches. Cameron's "studies" falsely concluded that gay people were disproportionately responsible for child molestation, serial killings and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Gay people, according to Cameron's baseless claims, were obsessed with consuming human excrement, allowing them to spread deadly diseases simply by shaking hands with unsuspecting strangers or using public restrooms."


Gee, it looks like there may have been a rather strong response to all this pro-gay "strong-arming". One might even think it was at the very least, proportionate to the "pro-gay" movement during the time of the 1974 APA conference.

Now, as I've said. I don't know for certain exactly why so few of the APA voted in the 1974 conference. Hell, I'd be interested to know what the the history of APA voter abstinence rates on other important conferences is. Because another thing your whole theory utterly fails to address is whether or not a 32% overall turnout is anything all that abnormal for APA voter turnouts in general. Sadly, I can't find that information because all I keep turning up on keyword searches for this sort of thing is this very same issue from the usual ultra-conservative talking-points blogs.

But I'd love to know. It really would clear the air here quite a lot.

Anydangway, to my point: An abstained vote- whether you'd like to believe this or not- is a neutral value. We can't know which way it would have occurred. You've pretty expertly side-stepped that into a tangent on why it didn't occur- because the pro-gay rights movement was so influential and "intimidating". Those who would otherwise have voted to keep homosexuality in the DSM-II didn't vote because they were afraid of pro-gay activists.

I submit to you this posit- and propose it as an equally likely explanation (given the weight of what you've so far cited to support it):

APA Voter abstinence was "rampant" (again, assuming 32% was even all that low a turnout, on average) during the 1974 conference because those who overwhelmingly would have voted for Homosexuality's removal from the DSM were afraid of the anti-gay movement- which was every bit as active at that time, and even at the conference itself.

Can I verify the absolute truth of this notion? No. No I cannot. But no more than you can verify the truth of yours. I pulled it out of my ass every bit as much as you've been.

There, I believe that was the brass ring. Cheers.
 
2012-08-03 06:05:36 PM

NightOwl2255: Terrapin Bound: I might be interested in getting my hate group on the list, but I just can't seem to find the info on how to get certified. Please help.

That sound like a Letter from a Nut.


Sure, ok, so I don't really have a hate group to certify. The rest of the questions stand, though:

Who is the certifying authority?
What are the certification parameters?
Where do I get the list?
 
2012-08-03 06:09:21 PM
The guy expected the adulation of the masses, that is why he posted the video. Then we could all know how wonderful he is. It just didn't work out the way he wanted.

The violent threats are way over the top, though.
 
2012-08-03 06:38:47 PM

Terrapin Bound: Who is the certifying authority?
What are the certification parameters?
Where do I get the list?


In this case it is the Southern Poverty Law Center.
 
2012-08-03 06:41:43 PM
He probably got fired because as an executive, he should understand how a company works and what the difference is between a policy of that company and the viewpoint of somebody who works there. They probably figured if he doesn't, then how can he be a good executive?

Or the company thinks that he is right and that the viewpoint of somebody who works at a company IS indicative of the company's view and since they do not want to be viewed as a company with dickheads, they canned him.
 
2012-08-03 06:53:31 PM

SkunkWerks: The entirety of your argument hinges on the supposition that- if only the 68% and change that abstained from voting in the 1974 conference had actually voted- those votes would have been overwhelmingly to retain homosexuality in the DSM-II.


Well, yes. I think it's only logical that in the face of (sometimes physically) intimidating opposition, more people who would vote against the protesters would be suppressed than those who would vote for.

SkunkWerks: This is a very TALL order of speculation here just on it's own merits- which are few. From what I can tell, the proposal to remove Homosexuality from the DSM runs back to the 1930s- and comes mostly from within the APA. As such, this was far from the first attempt to have it stricken. Many prominent members of the APA had been calling for this- saying it should have happened at least 25 years earlier.


That doesn't surprise me. Gays aren't super-uncommon and I'm sure there were a few in the establishment who pushed in this direction. If you know for certain that there were non biased individuals in the establishment who supported an effort out of purely scientific reasons, I'd like to hear their refutations of existing arguments. As it stands now though, the current APA reasoning seems to be based on what is arguably semantics.

SkunkWerks: So of course, then we run into the allegation that there was some sort of organized attempt by gay activists to strong-arm scientists into staying home that day. This is the same nonsense parroted on every conservative blog throughout the web. Apparently the pro-gay activism was strong in that era, and absolutely intimidated the APA into this no-show. At least, that's the assumption we're making here.


When you have gay activists claiming that this is the case, you may want to rethink your argument. Sure, they may have been trying to over exaggerate their own importance, but somehow when violence and intimidation enters the official picture, based on human nature, I'll lean towards fear's effectiveness.

SkunkWerks: Sadly, I can't find that information because all I keep turning up on keyword searches for this sort of thing is this very same issue from the usual ultra-conservative talking-points blogs.

But I'd love to know. It really would clear the air here quite a lot.


Quite honestly, I would as well. Right or wrong in terms of unbiased psychological theory, I'd like to know what conclusion the professionals would truly draw if they didn't have politics involved in their decision. The fact is though, politics were involved, so the decision is in doubt.

I have to say though, I'm glad you decided to finally engage in honest conversation. I recognize that you've changed your tone and I salute you for returning to a sense of intellectual honesty. I think we should all make an effort to find the voting statistics and share them, if they're available, so we can make a more educated guess as to what truly happened. I'll do some digging, and I hope you do as well.
 
2012-08-03 06:54:05 PM
Good, he was a super dickwad.
 
2012-08-03 07:04:11 PM

SilentStrider: Good. Disagree with their stupid ass policies all you want, but there's no excuse for yelling at a scared/bired teenager working a fast food window.


I gotta listen to rants occasionaly at work about the high cost of healthcare . ( I do maintenance at a hospital ) . Just how far up the chain do these people think I'm ging to go with their complaints ? LOL .Maybe he could have shown he as bigger balls by complaining to a manager or someone higher up .
 
2012-08-03 07:17:53 PM
WOW! he really stuck it to Dan Cathy
 
2012-08-03 07:24:02 PM
What an assclown.
 
2012-08-03 07:44:48 PM

snarfyboy: Terrapin Bound: Who is the certifying authority?
What are the certification parameters?
Where do I get the list?

In this case it is the Southern Poverty Law Center.


I see. So, this one leftist group gets accreditation rights over all the other hate groups? Who made that bargain?

I have changed my mind, I don't want my hate group certified after all.
Instead, I want to be the one who does the certifying. There's probably more money in that end of the business.

Thanks for the info snarfyboy.
 
2012-08-03 08:17:34 PM
Be progressive?

"I don't think so."

*yoink*

P.S. DNRTFA
 
2012-08-03 08:32:17 PM
Let's stick it to the man...and beat up his cleaning lady.
 
2012-08-03 08:34:47 PM

Proteios1: Let's stick it to the man...and beat up his cleaning lady.


I suggest business card removed for religiosity.
 
2012-08-03 08:53:53 PM
What a queer.
 
2012-08-03 08:55:17 PM
This guy better be gay because he just cut off all vayjayjay that would ever consider ever sleeping with him. Dickwad.
 
2012-08-03 09:50:51 PM
Hate's nuked, friend.

Most folks know and employ love.

Hate's irradiated, bub.

;)
 
2012-08-03 10:40:03 PM

Terrapin Bound: I see. So, this one leftist group gets accreditation rights over all the other hate groups? Who made that bargain?


Sigh. If you wish to play semantics, that's fine, but even on the simplistic checker board of the internet, that's pretty much a means of saying, "I got nothing''

While you play games with the word "accreditation" that some huffpost journalist misused in a pretty bad editorial, you do understand that any organization can certify or designate something right? Of course, it only means anything within their organization. But if their organization is respected, well, people tend to pay attention.

The SPLC is a highly respected organization. They do not arbitrarily make their distinctions. There is a reason for that. If you figure they are just lefty loonies, well, that tells me more about you then it does them.

But then again, you're probably just trolling.
 
Displayed 50 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report