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.

(Some Guy)   CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer's carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated   (jammiewf.com) divider line 368
    More: Fail, Family Research Council, CNN, LGBT, Research Council, deadly weapon, volunteers  
•       •       •

6486 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 12:27:37 PM

Dimensio: [members.iglou.com image 659x170]


Dropping the grammatical debate for a moment: Hitting Ctrl-F5 got my quote buttons to reappear, so try that and see if it works?
 
2012-08-16 12:28:21 PM
cycle23: You gotta be logged in first, ie: from the very top of the page it should indicate you are logged in, and your browser and its relation to cookies and/or javascript could be a factor as well.

I am "logged in", and the problem persists across multiple web browsers and two different computer systems.
 
2012-08-16 12:30:26 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Mikey1969: The 'of' makes the thing a little tighter, but if it isn't grammatically accurate, it's not because of apostrophes.

Like I said before, whether it was supposed to be a mangled plural or a mangled possessive (I didn't see it as being a possessive because that just makes the rest of it even more wrong), it was still mangled to the point of being comprehended in a dozen different ways by a dozen different people. Therefore, not a good headline. We can all agree on that, yes?


It is a bit awkward... I think the 'Carrying of a gun' would have fixed it. Not sure how the possessive would have made it 'more wrong', but it's not the smoothest Fark headline out there, that's for sure.
 
2012-08-16 12:30:44 PM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


We could take a survey down at the local state prison.

What is not strange is that people who think of guns as being tools for killing people use guns for killing people. As an example, one of the Columbine shooters had a parent who was an anti-gun activist. I can only assume that the parent didn't reserve their lectures on what guns are for for the general public.
 
2012-08-16 12:31:31 PM

Dimensio: cycle23: You gotta be logged in first, ie: from the very top of the page it should indicate you are logged in, and your browser and its relation to cookies and/or javascript could be a factor as well.

I am "logged in", and the problem persists across multiple web browsers and two different computer systems.


Cookies enabled? Fark.com scripts enabled? That's the minimum I've found to work for me, but even then sometimes it seems hit or miss.
 
2012-08-16 12:34:24 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.



Possession. The carrying belongs to the volunteer.

Point #3 under "Double nature of the gerund"
 
2012-08-16 12:35:43 PM

Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".


Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!
 
2012-08-16 12:36:39 PM
I believe this was really just a right wing church nut posing as a LGBT volunteer to drive up sympathy for the devil...
 
2012-08-16 12:39:34 PM
YOUR BLOG STILL SUCKS, JAMMIE-WEARING ADMIN!
 
2012-08-16 12:41:08 PM
FTFA: ... The most recent obsession of the angry, gay left...
...They're shocked-shocked!-to discover [the DC LGBT Community Center's] angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence...


Yes. They should stick to peaceful statements, like telling their detractors to die, that god hates them, god hates America because it permits them to live, that they are what's wrong with America, and they're going to hell.

Peaceful, loving, Christian statements like that.
 
2012-08-16 12:44:21 PM

dukwbutter: CAADbury: dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.

Yes. The truth hurts Caadbury. Post LOL WUT when you dont understand something. Then post some bait jpg when youre proven to be an ignorant liberal douche. Well played, obama fan!


Medication. Take it.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:38 PM

LabGrrl: Ker_


My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:44 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


Because he is the volunteer, and it is his carrying of the gun that is being described. Really, the word 'of' is missing.

'Mike's carrying of a gun into...'

'The volunteer's carrying of a gun into...'
 
2012-08-16 12:46:04 PM
Dimensio

Perhaps, were the author to identify specific "angry, hate-filled rhetoric", the author's claims and conclusions would be more viable.
Let me help you with that...
'Tastes Like Hate': Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of 'Same Sex Kiss Day'

Chick-Fil-A Vandalized... The vandalism comes just one day after gay rights activists...

Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized with...

Bomb threat closes W. Va. Chick-fil-A on 'appreciation day'


Adam Smith, Chick-Fil-A Drive-Through Bully, Hassles Fast Food Employee


Anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A "deserves to get the cancer


.... or you could peruse the half dozen or so fark threads where fellow farkers call for and support violence.

Warlordtrooper : Shooter deserves the hero tag. It's about time the left responds

insertsnarkyusername : And I may be a horrible person but nothing that happens to that organization is less than what they deserve.
^Commenting on the shooter.

There are more, but I'm not wading through that muck again.
 
2012-08-16 12:46:53 PM

Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."


Not even remotely.
 
2012-08-16 12:48:07 PM

tricycleracer: tricycleracer: If the Republican party wanted to ban cookies and I walked into a Romney campaign office with a pack of Famous Amos and a .380 am I being "political"?

Wow, really hate the placement of the "Add Comment" button.


Why? It's at the bottom right of the comment box, where else should it be? We read left to right, top to bottom, so the bottom right is the natural ending point. I like that the whole thing has been cleaned the fark up, and they added a 'Preview' button, since turning the 'Preview before reply' on and off was totally non-intuitive in comparison.
 
2012-08-16 12:48:34 PM

LasersHurt: Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.

They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence.

Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.


Maybe dehumanized is the wrong word, but so is the phobe part of homophobe. Not liking does not equal scared.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:23 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:53 PM
What's wrong with carrying a gun into a conservative group's headquarters? 2nd Amendment not in effect there or something?
 
2012-08-16 12:50:14 PM

LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.


That's a good example of what I'm talking about. I think you'd struggle to find a single instance of someone actually saying that they oppose "equal rights" for gay people. That's an interpretation or conclusion about their motives that you've arrived at by prejudicially combining their actual words with your own assumptions, assumptions that they don't share. Dan Cathy says that he supports "traditional" marriage, and he gives money to organizations that try to make that understanding of marriage more explicit in our laws, but I doubt he would agree that he opposes equal rights for gay people. In fact I've heard lots of gay marriage opponents say that no one is preventing gay people from entering into genuine marriages with whomever they can get to consent to that arrangement. The fact that some people experience same-sex attraction is of secondary importance to them. The definition of marriage is what matters.

You are welcome to disagree with their framing of the issue, or to disagree that marriage is what they say that it is, but claiming that they oppose equal rights is to impute to them a rationale or motivation that is simply false in many cases. It's also hard to see why you do so if not to, again, create an emotional response and short circuit empathy toward them. I mean, gosh, we're all Americans here, right? Surely only really awful people oppose equal rights...

There's a close parallel here with what pro-life people do when they call abortion providers "murderers." According to the internal logic of their position, they indeed are murderers. But of course the doctors and nurses and so on don't share that logic, and it would be ridiculous to say that "murder" is just an "accurate label" for the services they provide.
 
2012-08-16 12:50:53 PM

pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.


Now that was truly uncalled for.
 
2012-08-16 12:51:00 PM

pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.


damn, hate the new comment button. was planning on typing that, looking at my useless post, and then going back and reading what you were even talking about, in case I didn't want to become a part of it... no I really jumped right in it.

/ fortunately for me, I said nothing of substance. the best way to avoid deadly fark entanglements.
 
2012-08-16 12:51:07 PM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!


This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:08 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:12 PM

Biological Ali: pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.

Now that was truly uncalled for.


sorry, see above apologia that doesn't admit guilt... now I'll go ahead and say sorry

/ hates cold, stubbed toes more than hell itself, which is actually just summer where I live.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:45 PM

OnlyM3: .... or you could peruse the half dozen or so fark threads where fellow farkers call for and support violence.


Or you could throw a freaking dart at your keyboard and link to a story filled with people on the Right calling for the same.

Nice try though.
 
2012-08-16 12:53:21 PM

Ker_Thwap: LabGrrl: Ker_

My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.


I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that keep their rhetoric to the burn in hell and god hates you stuff. They are hateful people, no doubt, but if a group goes around accusing people of crimes they did not commit, and society doesn't care to reign them in, they are eventually going to incite some mentally unstable person to "fix" the situation, either by putting an end to the "crimes" going on (which aren't going on at all) or by putting an end to the people claiming the crimes are going on.

The other option FRC had in response to being labeled a hate group would be to keep their criticism in the outer realms of reality...you know, if you believe people are going to hell, say that...but to say there is a cover-up going on of a massive crime against children when there is plenty of evidence against that, that's just trying to get your enemies killed and maimed, and sometimes it's going to backfire on you.
 
2012-08-16 12:54:34 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


Yeah, only one is possible...

/unless you mean in Michigan...
 
2012-08-16 12:54:36 PM

Ker_Thwap: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.


You do realize that the people who say "burn in hell" generally don't regard it as a "figment of the imagination", right?
 
2012-08-16 12:57:55 PM
i have to say burn in hell is less harmful because all it implies is that your brain doesn't work. and it needs to "simmer down" or 'burn in HELL" while it resolves what's wrong with it.
 
2012-08-16 12:58:13 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about. I think you'd struggle to find a single instance of someone actually saying that they oppose "equal rights" for gay people. That's an interpretation or conclusion about their motives that you've arrived at by prejudicially combining their actual words with your own assumptions, assumptions that they don't share. Dan Cathy says that he supports "traditional" marriage, and he gives money to organizations that try to make that understanding of marriage more explicit in our laws, but I doubt he would agree that he opposes equal rights for gay people. In fact I've heard lots of gay marriage opponents say that no one is preventing gay people from entering into genuine marriages with whomever they can get to consent to that arrangement. The fact that some people experience same-sex attraction is of secondary importance to them. The definition of marriage is what matters.

You are welcome to disagree with their framing of the issue, or to disagree that marriage is what they say that it is, but claiming that they oppose equal rights is to impute to them a rationale or motivation that is simply false in many cases. It's also hard to see why you do so if not to, again, create an emotional response and short circuit empathy toward them. I mean, gosh, we're all Americans here, right? Surely only really awful people oppose equal rights...

There's a close parallel here with what pro-life people do when they call abortion providers "murderers." According to the internal logic of their position, they indeed are murderers. But of course the doctors and nurses and so on don't share that logic, and it would be ridiculous to say that "murder" is just an "accurate label" for the services they provide.


That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.
 
2012-08-16 12:59:20 PM

Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.


Prove it.
 
2012-08-16 12:59:59 PM
Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.


There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.
 
2012-08-16 01:00:10 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....


It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.
 
2012-08-16 01:02:16 PM

LabGrrl: Ker_Thwap: LabGrrl: Ker_

My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.

I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that keep their rhetoric to the burn in hell and god hates you stuff. They are hateful people, no doubt, but if a group goes around accusing people of crimes they did not commit, and society doesn't care to reign them in, they are eventually going to incite some mentally unstable person to "fix" the situation, either by putting an end to the "crimes" going on (which aren't going on at all) or by putting an end to the people claiming the crimes are going on.

The other option FRC had in response to being labeled a hate group would be to keep their criticism in the outer realms of reality...you know, if you believe people are going to hell, say that...but to say there is a cover-up going on of a massive crime against children when there is plenty of evidence against that, that's just trying to get your enemies killed and maimed, and sometimes it's going to backfire on you.


I completely understand with you and agree about the false equivalence. However, you could have equally applied such false equivalence to the initial poster who used "burn in hell." as their example.

I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.
 
2012-08-16 01:03:35 PM

OnlyM3: Let me help you with that...
'Tastes Like Hate': Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of 'Same Sex Kiss Day'

Chick-Fil-A Vandalized... The vandalism comes just one day after gay rights activists...

Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized with...

Bomb threat closes W. Va. Chick-fil-A on 'appreciation day'


Adam Smith, Chick-Fil-A Drive-Through Bully, Hassles Fast Food Employee

Anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A "deserves to get the cancer


Which of those statements or actions were stated or committed by a representative of the DC Center for the LGBT Community, who is the subject referenced by the pronouns "they" and "their" in the author's statement "They're shocked-shocked!-to discover their angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence."?
 
2012-08-16 01:05:24 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.


And just so we're clear, the FRC does more than just "oppose gay marriage". In fact, that might actually be the least hateful stance they have, at least in comparison to things like calling for the criminalization of homosexuality itself and spuriously asserting a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
 
2012-08-16 01:05:31 PM

Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.


Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that
 
2012-08-16 01:06:48 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realize that the people who say "burn in hell" generally don't regard it as a "figment of the imagination", right?


Of course I realize that. They can mean it to be hateful all they want. But, I'm not going to buy into their fantasy just so I can feel some good old righteous indignation.
 
2012-08-16 01:07:02 PM
Biological Ali: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.

And just so we're clear, the FRC does more than just "oppose gay marriage". In fact, that might actually be the least hateful stance they have, at least in comparison to things like calling for the criminalization of homosexuality itself and spuriously asserting a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.


Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?
 
2012-08-16 01:08:12 PM

Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.


That was truly a thing of beauty. A master at work.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:20 PM

BuckTurgidson: Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.

There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.


That's working fine for me also. Weird... Sorry guys, wish I could pass on my 'magic secret' on this, I think I just got lucky, that's all.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:58 PM

Ker_Thwap: You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space.



I thought that international treaties prevented our claiming any of it for ourselves?! If that's not true,

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-08-16 01:11:36 PM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.


You're wasting your breath. Neither side of the political spectrum can grasp the concept that crazy people do crazy things.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:17 PM

Ker_Thwap:
I completely understand with you and agree about the false equivalence. However, you could have equally applied such false equivalence to the initial poster who used "burn in hell." as their example.

I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.


Shrug. I just don't see it. Burn in hell and I hope you starve are nasty speech, maybe even mean speech, maybe even speech that hateful people make. I'd say speech motivated solely by hate, not religion, not beliefs, NOT EVEN REALITY is required if we want to have a category of speech called hate speech.

I hope you starve...hateful. "Someone should go to your house and sew your mouth shut so you slowly starve" Hate-speech. "Burn in hell" hateful. "Someone should set you on fire" hate-speech.

Wasn't singling you out, btw. Hope you didn't feel that way. It's just every time ANYONE removes the implied (or obvious) threats in the hate-speech it helps the hategroup narrative of "we didn't do anything wrong."
 
2012-08-16 01:12:20 PM

Ker_Thwap: Of course I realize that. They can mean it to be hateful all they want. But, I'm not going to buy into their fantasy just so I can feel some good old righteous indignation.


You don't have to "buy into their fantasy" - you merely have to realize that they're actually wishing harm and suffering on a person far in excess of something like "starving to death". Your outsider's perspective regarding the plausibility of their wish doesn't somehow make their stance any less hateful.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:22 PM

Dimensio: Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?


I believe that was the American Family Association.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:59 PM

MFAWG: A huge, black, gay man with a gun?

Pretty much the nightmare scenario in Jesusland.


You forgot athiest and/or Jew.
 
2012-08-16 01:13:05 PM

Ker_Thwap: jodaveki


Smartest
Funniest

2012-08-16 12:07:57 PM

Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.

I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.


LGBT: "I'd like marry my partner whom I love and to whom I commit myself."
FRC: "You degrade marriage and disparage commitment."

LGBT: "I want to adopt children and raise them to be good people who make the world a better place."
FRC: "You want to pervert children and convert them to homosexuality, and you will damage them psychologically so that they become maladjusted sociopaths."

LGBT: "I want to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on my sexuality."
FRC: "Your sexuality is an affront to Christian employers and they shouldn't have tolerate your presence."

LGBT: "I want to be able to care for and visit in the hospital my dying partner, and have th power to sort out their affairs since I've lived with them for so many years."
FRC: "Yours is a kind that is so perverted it cannot be termed 'love,' and you are unfit to give final comfort in their last hours."

LGBT: "I hope you and your ilk starve."
FRC: "You will burn in hell for eternity."

Yah. Both sides. Hateful.
 
2012-08-16 01:13:16 PM

Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?


That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.
 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report