Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes, It did also say, if i remember correctly, that many people do have Bi-tendencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tearoom_Trade
Here is one from the university of Missurois
http://web.missouri.edu/~bondesonw/Laud.html

I agree with the Bi tendancies, and I note in the Tearoom Tradem the author uses the term self percieved when the subjects talk of thier sexual orientation. One thing to remember here is that this book was written in 1970 when there was a great deal of stigma attatched to being gay. I suspect those claiming to be straight, even though they regularly sought out gay sexual encounters would nowadays declare for being gay or bisexual.

 generalgrog wrote:

disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.

To draw an analogy is to compare two things.

Moreover my objection was not about a comparison, or analogy, but a turn of phrase which is commonly viewed as being offensive due to it being used to dehumanize people. Perhaps you did not intend to dehumanize homosexuals, but that is how your statement came off to me.

Really Dogma..your grasping for a context to "monsterize" me. I know you don't mean too... but come on.

W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro

If your going to do that to me, you should be consistent and may as well call one of the greatest African American writers and founders of the NAACP a dehumanizer of African Americans.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Negro-W-E-B-Du-Bois/dp/1602068143


It's just semantics dude...chill

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro

He was also born in the 19th Century, and grew up in very different circumstance then even the oldest of us here have, excluding Frazzled who predates written language. Saying a man used the word Negro during the turn of the century, knew people who actually were slaves, and lived under Jim Crowe used it, so it must have the same connotation decades/century later (and coming from a white guy) is an extraordinarily clumsy and inept defense.

 generalgrog wrote:

Really Dogma..your grasping for a context to "monsterize" me. I know you don't mean too... but come on.

I am explaining to you how you present yourself based on my personal opinions, and those of people I know. If you feel this paints you in a monstrous light, then perhaps you should revisit the manner in which you present yourself.

 generalgrog wrote:

W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro

Du Bois' book was built on the repudiation of the notion that people of African descent are inferior. His usage of the phrase was an act of dismissive ownership, not insult.

 generalgrog wrote:

It's just semantics dude...chill

This entire thread is based on semantics.

Over time the perceptions of gay will change. Someone already made the best comparison already of change over time. Interracial marriage. The main issue is "you", are you able to separate your professional responsibilities from your personnel belief. Mainly at "you" being in a authority position with a gay individual on your team. I do believe everyone knows what my personnel beliefs are on this issue. Though I do "hate" one particular gay guy. Chris who takes me to my limit on creativity on beating him and his Imperial Guards. His WalMart of Fire power drives me up the wall.......200+ dice roll to hit a Five Man Fire Team of Space Marines...ggaaaahhhhhhh. Sebster be jealous he also a big BattleTech player to and has quite a regiment of Inner and Galaxy of Clan...like me. His Imperial Guards though he ask me lot's of questions on how we deploy weapon systems and typical "doodah" on uniforms

 Ahtman wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro

He was also born in the 19th Century, and grew up in very different circumstance then even the oldest of us here have, excluding Frazzled who predates written language. Saying a man used the word Negro during the turn of the century, knew people who actually were slaves, and lived under Jim Crowe used it, so it must have the same connotation decades/century later (and coming from a white guy) is an extraordinarily clumsy and inept defense.

Well we've reached the point in the thread were we start dissecting the typed word on an internet forum, and try to psychoanalyze the poster behind it. I think this thread has run it's course.

GG

 Kanluwen wrote:
That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.

There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.

I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.

What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?

 Seaward wrote:
I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.

What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?

He won't answer that because he can't. So far he's tried to say that the NRA is a hate group because it ticks some of the criteria that the FBI uses to determine what is a hate group The criteria that the NRA ticks just show that they are a group, which no one is disputing, but that any hate is absent.

But continuing to claim that the NRA is a hate group because it may conform to the group criteria that the FBI uses (minus any indication of actual hate) is clearly a rational position. It's not like someone is trying to distort their position by claiming that they meet some criteria of a hate group, right?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.

There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.

I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.

What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?

I'm contending that a "hate group" at this point in time is not what people are used to thinking of for a hate group. You have to look at things with a wider perspective than simply "Is the group hating people?", which is why in the original statement that you took umbrage with I used the term "could" rather than "is" and why I made such a point in my reply to Dreadclaw to say that "The criteria is not used in a vacuum".

With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.

You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.

 Kanluwen wrote:
With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.

Okay. Let's look a bit closer, as you suggest.

You'll start providing the links to evidence now, I assume.

You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.

And I'd argue that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know what joining the NRA is? Signing up on the website and paying the cash. That's it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.

Okay. Let's look a bit closer, as you suggest.

You'll start providing the links to evidence now, I assume.

Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.

You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.

And I'd argue that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know what joining the NRA is? Signing up on the website and paying the cash. That's it.

The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.

When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.

So in other words, you have zero evidence, but you dislike the NRA, so it's a hate group.

The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.

When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.

Yep. It has insanely passionate gun rights members. How many meetings a year does the NRA have, pray tell? How does it communicate with its members, and how often?

I know these answers. I know that you do not. Again, this boils down to you not liking something and applying a pejorative label to it without reason.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm contending that a "hate group" at this point in time is not what people are used to thinking of for a hate group. You have to look at things with a wider perspective than simply "Is the group hating people?", which is why in the original statement that you took umbrage with I used the term "could" rather than "is" and why I made such a point in my reply to Dreadclaw to say that "The criteria is not used in a vacuum".

Uh huh. So we should start saying that groups that are not hate groups when you've made such a big deal out of trying to say the NRA is a hate group, if not on its way to becoming one;

 Kanluwen wrote:
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:
With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.

And this conspiracy theory of yours is more evidence of just how rational you are?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.

So the NRA are now liable for the actions of outside parties/groups, or what their members do outside the NRA?? Do you apply this wholly unreasonable burden to all groups that exist, or just the ones you do not like?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources

The nerve. Imagine asking someone to substantiate a position that they themselves have put forward.....

 Kanluwen wrote:
The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.

When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.

Remind us again, was Colorado about a racial issue? About hating a protected class of people? Or about Second Amendment rights??

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.

So in other words, you have zero evidence, but you dislike the NRA, so it's a hate group.

No, I'm saying if I wanted to I could apply the label to it with a certain set of criteria.

Same way that I could use those criteria to apply the label of "hate group" to Black Separatist movements or things of that nature.
I will absolutely grant you that maybe saying the NRA was a hate group in and of itself is a bit far, but I stand by the implication that the organization is used as a recruiting ground for hate groups and whatsmore the organization knows that such behavior goes on and allows it.

The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.

When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.

Yep. It has insanely passionate gun rights members. How many meetings a year does the NRA have, pray tell? How does it communicate with its members, and how often?

I know these answers. I know that you do not. Again, this boils down to you not liking something and applying a pejorative label to it without reason.

Do enlighten then.

I "don't like" the NRA for quite a few reasons. I have made no real secret of this, and if anyone asks I'll admit it.
I find them to be a despicable organization which wraps itself in the Constitution to justify some very ridiculous stances. They are the PETA of Constitutional protections.

cadbren wrote:
They really don't and they admit as much when they say things like 'including support of slavery' meaning that that is not a criteria and that not all groups believe that. They include groups that glorify the Confederacy and it's military which given that the groups involved are descended from the same is hardly atypical. Most people focus on the good aspects of their family/ancestors and friends and tend to forgive the negative, that's hardly cause for being labelled a dangerous hate group with plans of overthrowing the government.

To repeat my point... unless you're claiming that there is only 93 neo-confederate groups in the US, then you have to accept that the SPLC doesn't deem them all hate groups simply for being neo-confederate. Understand this or don't, I don't really care.

Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.

Does the language filter not apply to OT?

Yes, that's why it says 'fething'.

Quotes by members of AFA explicitly calling for the death of homosexuals? Haven't seen a single one so far.

Are you saying its only hate when its calling for someone's death? That's ridiculous.

Speaking out against homosexuality is not tantamount to wanting to kill homosexuals which is what the claim against the AFA here has been. SPLC's claim against them is based entirely on their anti-homosexual rhetoric and nothing more.

Given there are many, many groups that campaign against homosexual equality who aren't called hate groups by the SPLC, your claim above is wrong. Instead, the AFA is called a hate group because of the way in which it goes about campainging against homosexuality. It tell lies, claiming science where there is none. It claims links between homosexuality and paedophilia where there is none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate. Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?

The actions by one army officer were not authorised, and the Pentagon announced such very quickly. And you'll be pleased to know that treating people equally despite their sexual preference won't ever end up with a tank coming up to your house to force you to start being nice to gay people.

I'm glad to have relieved of that fear, I hope you can sleep easier now.

There was a lot more than Ernst Roehm (i'm assuming that's your "one"). Some people believe Hitler was one, admittedly speculation. Remember Rohm was Hitlers #2 man for a long time. Besides Roehm, there was Reinyard Hienrich, Baldur Von Shirach...and others. The nazis were attempting to revive some of the pagan Hellenistic traditions form ancient Greece, where "manly" homosexuality was considered normal.

Yes, Roehm was gay. The claims about the others come from a mid-war propaganda piece created by the OSS. It's as credible as the claim that Hitler has one ball.

You read junk, and accept it purely on the basis of fitting with your bias. Stop doing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.

You're making stuff up. The SPLC isn't demanding people follow their list. One officer did, and the Pentagon very quickly issued a statement saying 'don't do that'.

The 'dangerous' issue is entirely in your head.

However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.

Yeah... and all the groups are extreme. Some are more extreme than others. Some actively encourage violence, others just tell lies. Different scale, but it's all extreme hate mongering.

This isnt about free speech, the SPLC is calling for censure of the AFA by government institutions.
If the SPLC simply called out the AFa and be done with it this thread wouldnt exist.

Except that's what the SPLC did. Then some officer used that list... and the Pentagon said 'don't do that'.

This thread exists because lots of people like to nash and worry about the great big left wing censorship machine that doesn't actually exist.

SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.

Yep... when one group tells hate filled lies, and another group says 'those people are telling hate filled lies' that is the system working as it should. And that's exactly what has happened.

Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.

Yeah, no. That's absurd. A God that would otherwise protect children, but chooses not to because those children are being assaulted in a place that no longer requires them to pray to God. Which is pretty evil and petulant by the basic definitions of those words.

Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.

Prayer hasn't even been removed... it simply is no longer mandatory. Which is, of course, a distinction that nutters have attempted to muddy for years.

You are allowed to pray, and during an attack by a guy with a gun no-one is going to stop you. Seriously, you're not this ridiculous. What the hell?

Regarding other things like racist comments on Hispanics etcc etc he is on his own.

No, he's with the AFA... the group being called a hate group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Edit: And quite frankly... the SPLC's rationale for calling some of those border groups hate groups is flimsy at best. Unless you want to call not wanting to give hand outs to people being in the country illegally a "hate" category, or talking to cooky people also a hate category. In that case, Obama should be careful of the SPLC given some of his past associations.

Here it is again, just a vague claim that some groups called hate groups by the SPLC aren't really... but never an example of a group listed as a hate group that shouldn't be.

It's almost as if there aren't any such groups... but a lot of people with a desperate need to believe there are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.

I don't think you understand how protestantism works. Evangelicals are a subset of protestantism. Evangelicals make up about 60% of total protestantism in your country, but to ignore the other 40%, or 25 million people, is either a product of ignorance or just really rude.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Same way that I could use those criteria to apply the label of "hate group" to Black Separatist movements or things of that nature.

Or Sea Shepherd or Wikileaks, right? I mean, if you're going to cherry-pick criteria and then claim that the group in question doesn't need to actively hate anyone, I believe we could apply Kanluwen's definition of a hate group to just about anything short of governmental or corporate organizations. Hell, maybe even some of those.

I will absolutely grant you that maybe saying the NRA was a hate group in and of itself is a bit far, but I stand by the implication that the organization is used as a recruiting ground for hate groups and whatsmore the organization knows that such behavior goes on and allows it.

And you're providing absolutely zero evidence for that assertion. You can't even call in an appeal to authority by pointing to credible watchdog groups that say anything of the sort.

Flip the script and apply that argument to me saying that MoveOn.org is a hate group. I'm just going to assert it, because I believe hate groups recruit from within it. I'm not going to provide you with any evidence. How credible am I?

Do enlighten then.

I already did. You sign up and pay your dues. There's a big meeting once a year where the leadership and guests give speeches. You get e-mails weekly about gak Congress or your local legislature is doing to limit gun rights. These e-mails ask for NRA-ILA donations and tell you how to vote/contact your legislator/whatever. That's it.

They are the PETA of Constitutional protections.

So would you say PETA's a hate group too?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".

Yep. If that ever happened... to everyone who first checks for tribal loyalty and then views any facts through that lens... well dakka debates would be a lot shorter and a lot more interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
As stated earlier, making it illegal to oppose homosexuality, which is what the SPLC is after, makes them and their supporters a hate group by their own definition.

You're making up stupid nonsense. Stop it.

The SPLC publishes a list of groups they believe to be hate groups. There is no legal mechanism attached, nor is there any proposal for such a thing to be created. They're just looking to encourage discussion and awareness. Nor do all groups that oppose homosexuality get listed, because that in itself is not enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, do you have any evidence for the absurd slippery slope argument that, in a country where the KKK (a group virtually everyone agrees is repulsive s) is allowed to speak without censorship, there is any realistic chance of making it illegal to oppose homosexuality? Or is this just more of the conservative-christian martyrdom thing?

Yeah, when the Westboro Baptists continue to shout hateful, homophobic stuff at the funerals of dead soliders and remain constitutionally protected, the idea that you're on track to have regular homophobia suddenly becoem illegal is just the silliest fantasy.

But it's a fantasy with a lot of traction, because it puts anti-gay person at the centre of great social battle, crusading for free speach and freedom from the government oppression that's just around the corner. Remove that story and he's just a bigot trying to remove other people's equal treatment.

I got a cousin, she is lesbian as lesbian can be.

She and her partner decided to have a child, so my cousin ended up getting pregnant.

Didn't even have to touch a penis or get it anywhere near her. Their friend did his business in a cup, and then they got a turkey paster...

So as long as this fictional gay colony has a supply of turkey pasters handy, they will be okay.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course it's shaky if one dismisses everything that doesn't fit into one's own point of view.

Or if you believe the terrible, deceitful science that claims the opposite. Which is, fittingly enough, the AFA's bread and butter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gay bars are... interesting places.

A mate and I walked in to a bar, and after a few minutes we got the feeling there was something a little different but we couldn't figure out what it was. Then YMCA kicked in and the whole room started singing along and we figured it out

And yeah, the idea that they're any more seedy is just wrong. There's seedy straight bars just as there's seedy gay bars, and far more places that just overcharge you for drinks and play crappy music.

 reds8n wrote:
How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?

The cattle fences won't be nearly as straight?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
Nonsense.

There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.

There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.

And you still haven't actually answered as to how having a gay bar would lower the character of a town.

You've made some spurious and unsupported claims that it's better that towns stay " traditional", which is essentially trite and meaningless and totally unsupported by any actual evidence other than your crudely expressed opinion.

I'm sure we're all reassured though that non white people can be normal.

Actually a better argument for not wanting such a bar, is that it would attract hipsters and other city folk. Hipsters have no right to live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course it's shaky if one dismisses everything that doesn't fit into one's own point of view.

Well isn't that every argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The NRA is anything but a hate group. It's incredibly inclusive so long as you send them money and don't mind junk mail.

Fixed that for you

Fixed your fix

Holy crap, the last few posts in this thread are like watching a professional wrestling match when all members of the teams are in the ring pounding on each other in different corners!

You can't say pounding in a gay thread, this board is PG-13.

Homoerotic subtext alert!

Isn't it grand! Time for the Von Erich Eagle Claw!

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

A lack of intercessory prayer removed a layer of defense. This is a fair point theologically and people should be allowed to preach it without accusations of the doctrine being hate speech.

This...

Bryan Fischer wrote:
The question is going to come up, where was God? I though God cared about the little children. God protects the little children. Where was God when all this went down. Here's the bottom line, God is not going to go where he is not wanted.

Now we have spent since 1962 -- we're 50 years into this now--we have spent 50 years telling God to get lost, telling God we do not want you in our schools, we don't want to pray to you in our schools, we do not want to pray to your before football games, we don't want to pray to you at graduations, we don't want anybody talking about you in a graduation speech...

In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked God's word out of ours schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of our schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I'm not wanted. I am a gentlemen.

...is not an argument regarding intercessory prayer. The concept is not mentioned directly, or even alluded to. It is an argument that, were school sponsored prayer allowed in US public schools, the shooting at Sandy Hook would not have occurred. An argument which, given the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, requires blaming the victims.

That is incorrect.

School sponsored prayer is intercessory prayer, 'pray for x' or 'pray of y' is exactly what that means, intercession. Prayer consists of only two things , thanksgiving and intercession, pretty much every prayer from the Lords Prayer onwards contains both, and the majoprity of prayers are intercession orientated. He didn't have to use the theological term for the theological principle to be present, even the simple statement 'God Bless America' is a form of intercession when spoken as a prayer.
Also the argument does not require 'blaming the victims' because the victims were not those not permitting prayer in school. For your comments to hold water the pupils/staff at the school, would haver had to be decision makers for the choice to remove prayer from schools, and this was alluded to have happened in the 60's by your own quote.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.

You're making stuff up. The SPLC isn't demanding people follow their list. One officer did, and the Pentagon very quickly issued a statement saying 'don't do that'.

The 'dangerous' issue is entirely in your head.

The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.

 sebster wrote:

However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.

Yeah... and all the groups are extreme. Some are more extreme than others. Some actively encourage violence, others just tell lies. Different scale, but it's all extreme hate mongering.

Who get to make those decisions, on what evidence and under what purview.
For independent unaccountable organisations to do so is dangerous and discriminatory, especially when hotheads feel open to accuse members of all those organisations of being 'extreme hate mongers'.

http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=31

Here is the groups mission statement:

OUR MISSION

The mission of the American Family Association is to inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture, and give aid to the church here and abroad in its task of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Extreme hate mongers? Thats a big call to make.

This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.

 sebster wrote:

SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.

Yep... when one group tells hate filled lies, and another group says 'those people are telling hate filled lies' that is the system working as it should. And that's exactly what has happened.

No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
The very fact that an accountable organisation is challenging the decision to censure the AFA is proof that there is disagreement from those in authority against the labeling.
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC. Ultimately the Pentagon can be held to public account, the SPLC is acting like a loose cannon.

If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes hate groups at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces the AFA you can go ahead, until then your no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.

 sebster wrote:

Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.

Yeah, no. That's absurd. A God that would otherwise protect children, but chooses not to because those children are being assaulted in a place that no longer requires them to pray to God. Which is pretty evil and petulant by the basic definitions of those words.

 sebster wrote:

Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.

On first google page...
Confirmed – SPLC Exaggerated About Klan In Rhode Island

That's one... and there's plenty of others...

Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.

On first google page...
Confirmed – SPLC Exaggerated About Klan In Rhode Island

That's one... and there's plenty of others...

Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.

Do you even look at the sources you cite?
"legalinsurrection.com"?

If exaggeration is the same thing as lying, then there's a lot of liars on the internet. "Exaggerating" in a report is pretty commonplace, no matter the agenda.

Part of it is that witnesses tend to inflate events to reflect how they think events should have worked. Look into any kind of reports detailing the credibility of witness statements and you would see that is the truth.

well even if we accept that they messed up there, Mr. Sebster would still only be wrong if one was to claim that the KK aren't a hate group/organisation/whatever. yes ..?