Explain to me how this is hypocritical...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 7:56 AM GMT
    First: review the definition of hypocrisy:
    "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

    Everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, UNTIL they start negatively affecting the lives of others. At that point, any retaliation is fair game, because nothing should get in anyone's way of living their lives the way that they want to (as long as it doesn't affect anyone else negatively).

    And because the whole "wear purple" event is in the air right now...

    I've always felt that anyone who gives out anti-gay hate speech (with specific intentions in trying to make gay people feel bad) should be tortured and killed.

    When people argue against this, they use lines like "stooping to their level", "two wrongs don't make a right", "we need to be the mature ones", and so on. Look where that's gotten us.

    If people with these attitudes are making people feel so bad that they kill themselves, then these people are DIRECTLY responsible; since their views aren't kept to themselves, retaliation should be allowed, in order to eliminate the hatred.

    I would love for an army of thousands of people to take to the gay protesters and beat them to death. The numbers would help prevent any people directly being charged, it would be a great way with saying "We're not going to let you fuck with us any longer", it would help give support to those who just simply want to live their gay lives in a gay way (knowing that there's an army of support against these attackers, just like how a country has an army to fight against invading forces), and at the LEAST, it should get some people who are outspoken anti-gay activists to at least shut up about it (in fear of death).

    If they're allowed to attack us mentally, then why can't we attack them physically? Put and end to the hate by stopping it at its source sounds like a pretty keen idea to me.

    So, given all of my points, I'd like to have someone explain to me how this is hypocritical. Remember that because the first paragraph features my view using a conditional clause, it shouldn't be considered as hypocrisy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 9:20 AM GMT
    difficult subject

    I would say violence is a last resort, taken in the face of someone attacking you physically only... in the case of non-violent verbal attack.... resort to verbal defense
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 10:05 AM GMT
    I agree with the OP, except for the part about killing the hate speakers.

    All these suicides due to hate speech are really making me think twice about supporting freedom of speech. It was fun until people started dying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
    Tricky subject indeed. The problem with this is that you cannot deny the haters their right of free speech, cause once you do, you're on a slippery slope that can only descent into some form of totalitarianism.

    However, the state should change some of the rules it plays by now. For one, scrap the tax-exempt status of any religious institutions. You have freedom of speech cause you rent the right to, by paying taxes. As long as those policies are in place, the state is actively giving these organizations a license to hate. Revoking the tax-exempt status would also be an excellent path towards closing the budget deficit.

    A government can however define hate speech in legislation. This means opposing gay marriage is a matter of policy, while saying that gay people are going to hell is hate speech (because it's arbitrary).

    Even then though, I'm all in favour of the haters keeping their right to free speech, because I want the right to hate back. Also, I wouldn't wanna be fooled by a blanket of politeness cause you gotta know your enemy.

    As far as the militant resistance goes, I'm all in favour of blowing up churches. Preferably on Sunday mornings. Even though a militant showdown isn't the most civilized way to go at it, there really isn't that much choice. You have to fight fire with fire, and unless there is some serious uproar those religious haters (the policy making ones) will keep thinking they can just slash people down and expect them to fall back in line the next morning.

    As somebody said in another thread, we do need some kind of gay Malcolm X.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    Oh but you CAN deny the hate speakers the so called freedom of speech. When speech is based solely on hate directed towards an identifiable person or group, it is no longer covered by the constitution - In Canada....the US needs to retrofit with the times....Keithicon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    smack_ saidI've always felt that anyone who gives out anti-gay hate speech (with specific intentions in trying to make gay people feel bad) should be tortured and killed.

    You honestly don't understand how this could be interpreted as hypocritical?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:00 PM GMT
    You're not hypocritical. You're just wrong. Very, very wrong.

    Turn a war of words into an actual WAR? No thank you!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Oct 20, 2010 4:00 PM GMT
    smack_ saidEveryone should be entitled to their own opinions, UNTIL they start negatively affecting the lives of others. At that point, any retaliation is fair game, because nothing should get in anyone's way of living their lives the way that they want to (as long as it doesn't affect anyone else negatively).

    And because the whole "wear purple" event is in the air right now...

    I've always felt that anyone who gives out anti-gay hate speech (with specific intentions in trying to make gay people feel bad) should be tortured and killed.

    When people argue against this, they use lines like "stooping to their level", "two wrongs don't make a right", "we need to be the mature ones", and so on. Look where that's gotten us.

    If people with these attitudes are making people feel so bad that they kill themselves, then these people are DIRECTLY responsible; since their views aren't kept to themselves, retaliation should be allowed, in order to eliminate the hatred.

    I would love for an army of thousands of people to take to the gay protesters and beat them to death. The numbers would help prevent any people directly being charged, it would be a great way with saying "We're not going to let you fuck with us any longer", it would help give support to those who just simply want to live their gay lives in a gay way (knowing that there's an army of support against these attackers, just like how a country has an army to fight against invading forces), and at the LEAST, it should get some people who are outspoken anti-gay activists to at least shut up about it (in fear of death).

    So, given all of my points, I'd like to have someone explain to me how this is hypocritical.




    Not sure how to respond to this other than to say that "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right". I would like to think that we are better than that.
  • Aus92

    Posts: 328

    Oct 20, 2010 4:02 PM GMT
    Never go for violence.

    Words can hurt people a hell of a lot more than actions... And you cant be prosecuted for them either...

    Isnt that right that guy in year 9 that paid me out every day until one day I nsapped back and made you cry. Bitch. ;D
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Oct 20, 2010 4:09 PM GMT
    I would stand against anyone who would attempt to use violence and murder to silence someones opinion, whatever that opinion may be. That includes standing against anyone who wants to murder someone with a pro-gay opinion or someone like you who wants to do violence or murder to anyone with an anti-gay opinion.

    You are advocating violence and murder for the offence of an anti-gay opinion. As far as I am concerned they are just as entitled to their opinion - and to voice it - as you are yours.And any suggestion to murder and torture people for *any* opinions they may hold is bat shit crazy evil stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    Tazo995 saidAs far as the militant resistance goes, I'm all in favour of blowing up churches. Preferably on Sunday mornings. Even though a militant showdown isn't the most civilized way to go at it, there really isn't that much choice. You have to fight fire with fire, and unless there is some serious uproar those religious haters (the policy making ones) will keep thinking they can just slash people down and expect them to fall back in line the next morning.
    I hope you're saying that for effect and don't really mean it. Sure there are haters who hide behind religion, but innocent families in church, you can't really want them killed? I am somewhat familiar with what occurred in your native country, and I have a special respect for those who left and resettled in a very different country. You've got to have some regard for non-hating church-goers just as many of us have empathy for your countrymen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    smack_ saidEveryone should be entitled to their own opinions, UNTIL they start negatively affecting the lives of others. At that point, any retaliation is fair game, because nothing should get in anyone's way of living their lives the way that they want to (as long as it doesn't affect anyone else negatively).

    And because the whole "wear purple" event is in the air right now...

    I've always felt that anyone who gives out anti-gay hate speech (with specific intentions in trying to make gay people feel bad) should be tortured and killed.

    When people argue against this, they use lines like "stooping to their level", "two wrongs don't make a right", "we need to be the mature ones", and so on. Look where that's gotten us.

    If people with these attitudes are making people feel so bad that they kill themselves, then these people are DIRECTLY responsible; since their views aren't kept to themselves, retaliation should be allowed, in order to eliminate the hatred.

    I would love for an army of thousands of people to take to the gay protesters and beat them to death. The numbers would help prevent any people directly being charged, it would be a great way with saying "We're not going to let you fuck with us any longer", it would help give support to those who just simply want to live their gay lives in a gay way (knowing that there's an army of support against these attackers, just like how a country has an army to fight against invading forces), and at the LEAST, it should get some people who are outspoken anti-gay activists to at least shut up about it (in fear of death).

    So, given all of my points, I'd like to have someone explain to me how this is hypocritical.



    Let me try....................
    Could you imagine if blk ppl in our great diverse(:shockicon_smile.gif country felt as you do? How many blk ppl are lost in total despair? Pointing the finger at others for the circumstances of their lives? The Answer is Race riots. I've heard racist comments, Anti gay comments and more. If I lived by your theory I'd be considered an angry blk maleicon_eek.gif
    It's hard to combat ignorance w/ tolerance, always willing to trust that others have your best interest at heart not knowing who they are and what agenda and purpose they believe to be true in their life.
    Violence will not emancipate anyone. Victory must start individually and the strength will come whole when everyone is willing to take ownership of self and support others. Truth be told I rather someone who has issues w/ me for being blk or gay be upfront so I know and not put myself in a situation of false security, It's more damaging when someone says their accepting only because it's the PC thing to say but they feel differently.
    Everything takes time nothing happens over night. be an example and live your life to the fullest. Happiness is a choice and those that fill their time and energy trying to steal others happiness are not happy. They might argue they are but those that are truly happy and kno the power of that emotion kno it's not worth stealing frm anyone else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:33 PM GMT
    Just a thought. there are many ways to commit suicide w/out directly killing yourself. Sometimes ppl just stop caring, give up and go thru the daily rituals of life...lifeless. waiting for their endingicon_cry.gif
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    Oct 20, 2010 4:41 PM GMT
    It can be sick, stupid, and sophmoric without being hypocritical per se.
    That said, it is also hypocritical.
    You're basically saying that people shouldn't be allowed to hold or espouse opinions that make other people unhappy. But you are holding opinions that make other people unhappy - being pro-, or simply not anti- homosexuality makes some people unhappy. Ergot, you shouldn't be allowed to hold or espouse such opinions.
    (And, on that list of opinions others don't like: not the least of which is beat people to death who say things you don't like.)


    In other news.
    Holding opinion-givers responsible for action-takers' actions is usually pretty ridiculous.
    It's not unlike the abusive guy who blames his gf when he hit's her -- "well, if she hadn't gone and made me mad...". "Hate" speech is sad, but not objectively definable in a useful way. The chinese govt makes analogous arguments to prevent satire or criticism of it's political leaders. Islamic protesters, sometimes backed by violence, say the same thing when they attempt to shut down artistic depictions of 'the prophet'. At the end of the day who are you to say what speech is valid? If you are right about what's best then you'll have to convince other people - compete in the market place of ideas, not get someone to beat up people you don't like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:47 PM GMT
    Tazo995 saidTricky subject indeed. The problem with this is that you cannot deny the haters their right of free speech, cause once you do, you're on a slippery slope that can only descent into some form of totalitarianism.

    .


    Well actually you can deny them,,, and it is done here in Canada where you live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:50 PM GMT
    You lost me with "tortured and killed". Since you've never actually tortured or killed someone, you're certainly ill-equipped to undertake such an act. It all sounds "reasonable" if someone else has to do the dirty work.

    Are you volunteering as our surrogate torturer and executioner? Until you can man up and claim that mantle, shut the fuck up about what we should be doing to others.

    Oh, and when you actually DO claim that mantle, I'll be there to watch your ass get hauled off to prison.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:54 PM GMT
    I can't imagine any good coming from escalating a verbal attack to physical violence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    I didn't realize the goal was to terrorize people into nominal acceptance.

    I thought the goal was a more tolerant society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:02 PM GMT
    There does come a time occasionally when one has to put one's foot down and say "It's finished. This behavior will no longer be tolerated." The Blacks in America had to riot and, burn cars and buildings to get white America's attention, and let them know they were serious. Funny how when things start going up in smoke, the majority suddenly sees your POV.

    Tyranny of the Majority is a very real thing. And if they won't respond to your impassioned, yet reasoned pleas, ya just gotta take the motherfuckers out...or at least their cars, houses, businesses, churches...until they wake up, see the injustice, and realize you are serious.

    I think if things don't get corrected by the courts or Congress soon, the Gay Community might be just about there.

    Somebody once said: Give me liberty or give me death.

    America took up arms for its liberty. It would be a bit hypocritical to tell Americans they can't do it again, when all avenues of redress with the government have been exhausted and the majority still stands stubbornly in opposition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    If you want to:
    - take away fundamental constitutional rights
    - torture and kill
    - blow up churches on Sunday morning

    then I think hypocrisy is one of your lesser worries.

    Also, I think it's incorrect to interchange "hate speech" with "church" as some people do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:05 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidFunny how when things start going up in smoke, the majority suddenly sees your POV.


    No, they don't. It pisses them off, and teaches them to organize to defeat you. You hit them where it counts: in their money bag.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Tazo995 saidAs far as the militant resistance goes, I'm all in favour of blowing up churches. Preferably on Sunday mornings. Even though a militant showdown isn't the most civilized way to go at it, there really isn't that much choice. You have to fight fire with fire, and unless there is some serious uproar those religious haters (the policy making ones) will keep thinking they can just slash people down and expect them to fall back in line the next morning.
    I hope you're saying that for effect and don't really mean it. Sure there are haters who hide behind religion, but innocent families in church, you can't really want them killed? I am somewhat familiar with what occurred in your native country, and I have a special respect for those who left and resettled in a very different country. You've got to have some regard for non-hating church-goers just as many of us have empathy for your countrymen.


    I am kidding in the sense that I don't think actual bloodshed would help us in any way. Nor do I think those families (who in most likelihood are just poor average-intelligence indoctrinated people) deserve anything bad happening to them.

    But something DOES have to change, and restricting what those hate mongering churches can do is the place to start.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
    Just remember that when we are called a fag, we can shout back dumbass, inbred, or whatever other insult. The same applies that if you slap someone, they can slap back.

    Trying to bludgeon your oppressor seldom works, unless you stumble across a very hefty weapon (metaphorically speaking.) You have to CHANGE MINDS. Not necessarily theirs, but some, particularly those with influence and power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:14 PM GMT
    Things ARE changing but they don't happen overnight, ask the black man, the irish, the native american, ask anyone that has been under society's boot.....we are advancing and we need to keep doing it the way we have been.....we keep society accountable and we educate and infiltrate....military, police, politics, corporations, construction, cosa nostra (ya even they have gay mafioso), you get the drift.

    violence doesn't prove who's right, it only proves who's left.......Keithicon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 5:17 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    Caslon16000 saidFunny how when things start going up in smoke, the majority suddenly sees your POV.


    No, they don't. It pisses them off, and teaches them to organize to defeat you. You hit them where it counts: in their money bag.

    You dont think burning property and businesses doesn't hit them in their money bag. Not that I am telling anyone to go out and do that. But it sure worked for Black America. See: Civil Rights Bill of 1964.