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.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I challenge someone to find something I can lose here.

Judging from the

I'm annoyed if the scale tells me something I don't want to hear.

line, I'm gonna go ahead and say anywhere between 10-20 Lbs

You got me on that one. Hey I'm working on it. I'm trying to get my leg press weight back to my old college days at 300+lbs. Hopefully will hit that by November.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

huh?

The point is that ignoring the issue does not help resolve it and that trying to sweep it under the rug makes you look like a fool. I know this will send you on a tirade about Bengazhi buuuuuuuuuut It seems to be until gay people have all the SAME rights as straight people do, such as free right to marry the issues DOES need to be pushed and there DOES need to be a discussion.

This is like when that supreme court judge announced that the fight against racism is over (it isn't) and that it was right to strike down parts of the voter protection act. Racism is still an issue, gay rights is still an issue, transgender rights is an issue. If you reallllllllly want all the discussing over it to end then go to the next gay rights rally in your town, donate to a gay rights advocacy charity, and I assure you when gay people finally all have the same rights as straight people there will be a lot less discussion and thus annoyance.

Dude... chill.

I'm all in favor of gays having the same rights.

o.O

I think folks are being misunderstood. Being "tired" of talking about it, is not the same thing as being against these things. Same goes for racial relations.

*shrugs*

Pro-tip: Find yourself a flamboyant gay male friend. Go bar hoping with him... trust me, chicks gravitate to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

huh?

Generalizing, any serious discussion about race relations in the US would probably result in some concessions by white people, be they political, economic, or moral.

It's like when the boss wants to put off meeting about a raise. Put off the conversation completely!

I get you know.

Sorry.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I DO care when they are treated unfairly because of it.

Then why would you think I am referencing you? You keep coming back to "you called my" or "I didn't say" but I never mentioned your name, or any ones name for that matter. I made a comment against the thinking that pretending to ignore a problem makes it go away; as if pretending a house isn't on fire will put out the flames.

A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.

I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.

 Frazzled wrote:
Did someone just say Bengggggghhhhhhhhhaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

Its the Godwin of the new Millennium!

You rang?

 Frazzled wrote:


A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.

I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.

Mauleed? That's some oldschool dakka right there.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Did someone just say Bengggggghhhhhhhhhaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

Its the Godwin of the new Millennium!

You rang?

I apologize for getting in a huff about your "Huh", I was directing my statements to the topic in general, not just you

 Alexzandvar wrote:

I apologize for getting in a huff about your "Huh", I was directing my statements to the topic in general, not just you

No worries.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.

I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.

Mauleed? That's some oldschool dakka right there.

Yes, the Great Boodgeyman of Fluff Players, Patron Saint of RAW and WAAC gamers everywhere. He was so dreamy...

Yep. Its something when I have kids, minis, and underwear that are older hen some of the people I am arguing with. I have models that may be older than their parents...

Leg press

trexmeyer wrote:
Leg press

Que?

Interesting tactic. It seemed before that coming out in the NFL was something you did when your contract hadn't been renewed.

I'm sick to death about hearing who is or is not gay.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.

Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.


Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)


Did I miss anything out?

What's wrong with bondage or S&M?

 purplefood wrote:
What's wrong with bondage or S&M?

I don't like it. Therefore it is unatural, and shouldn't be allowed.

 insaniak wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
What's wrong with bondage or S&M?

I don't like it. Therefore it is unatural, and shouldn't be allowed.

I dunno...
If you look at the human body it's evident it was designed to be tied up, blindfolded and then spanked and whipped...

Johnnytorrance wrote:
But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Dolphins have homosexual sex , is homosexuality still not natural? On a different note I'm sure the whole sex for only procreation idea got thrown out when eve took a bite of that apple and what a better world we live in now.

If society only had sex for procreation there would be a lot more room in the front of mens' pants and kleenex sales would skyrocket.

Dolphins also regularly rape things, they probably aren't the best example to use unless you're going for the slippery slope "IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK THEN SO IS RAPE" line of thought (which I sincerely hope nobody in the world is).

Actually, they're perfectly fine to use because whilst raping would be natural, it would also be completely wrong due to something we call "lack of consent".

Lack of consent is natural too.

You don't think those zebras are consenting to being eaten by lions do you?

It's very interesting how people will make the claim that homosexuality is bad and that it's immoral (Implying choice) and then go on in the very same argument to then shoot down there previous claim by saying that homosexual people are born that way, and it makes them "broken" or "unnatural".

The best way to sum up the entire gay rights debate is that picture of a new's article were people are protesting interracial marriage, and the protesters they interviewed made just as silly claims as the anti gay marriage people do today.

Libertarians have this argument down. If it doesn't impact YOU, leave THEM alone.

"Their" previous claims.

"Their".

 Frazzled wrote:
Libertarians have this argument down. If it doesn't impact YOU, leave THEM alone.

It has become a very big conflict in the Republican Party with how it's become a thunder dome between the Religious Libertarians who want restrictions on marriage rights, The Libertarians who just don't like government, Establishment Republicans, and Religious Establishment Republicans.

No matter who wins we lose!

If a religious "Libertarian" wants restrictions on marriage rights, hes not a Libertarian.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If a religious "Libertarian" wants restrictions on marriage rights, hes not a Libertarian.

People are more complicated than single pet issues, there's a reason the label blue dog democrats exists (Conservative Democrats). Often times people just go with the party they have the most in common because it's almost impossible to have a set of views that perfectly align with a single party.

A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".

As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.

There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".

As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.

There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.

Libertarians, members of the party or not, believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you believe in anything less than personal liberty for all people you're not a libertarian. Please note the use of lower case "l", I am not speaking about party beliefs in this statement but the root beliefs of a libertarian.