YouTube account canceled

[mikegideon]

liberals don't bother me, ignorance does.

 

I think you just contradicted yourself in six words or less :)

[daddyo]

What kind of punishment? They're protected by the 'hate crime" BS, but I don't think it touches the first. You just get some extra punishment when you tie them to back of your pickup and drag them down the road.

I'm referring to changes in the law that could result at some point in the future. We all know that the most extreme in the movement want nothing less but complete acceptance. So, if the basic idea of a theocracy is forcing others to live according to someone else's beliefs, then I'm not seeing much difference between that scenario and a theocracy.

[mikegideon]

I'm referring to changes in the law that could result at some point in the future. We all know that the most extreme in the movement want nothing less but complete acceptance. So, if the basic idea of a theocracy is forcing others to live according to someone else's beliefs, then I'm not seeing much difference between that scenario and a theocracy.

 

Right now, it's just about equal rights. Extremists are everywhere. I just don't see it on the floors of the legislatures.

[daddyo]

Right now, it's just about equal rights.

So they say.

[mikegideon]

So they say.

 

I'm glad you don't have any phobias  :rofl:

[daddyo]

I'm glad you don't have any phobias :rofl:

So, been reading Alinsky, have you?

[mikegideon]

So, been reading Alinsky, have you?

 

Nope. Just messin' with ya :)

Edited July 5, 2013 by mikegideon

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I wont call it a phobia but I would call it ill will and maybe a bit of hatred. Show me one bill that they want passed that says anything close to infringing on your first.

You still didn't answer my question. Why can't you separate your religion from government? If your religion is that important why not move somewhere theology is rule of law?

If you are so hung up on what the Bible says, are you going to follow Lev. 20:13 and put them to death? And don't play that "That's the Old Testament, we don't follow that anymore" because that is as bad as "homophobic" because of cherry picking Christians. To that my response would be and is "So do you also not follow the ten commandments?". LoL

Don't get me wrong here, I believe in the Christian God and all that comes with that. But I don't claim to follow any of it more than not worshiping another and sure as heck don't force my beliefs on anyone else and don't use it as a guide book for running the country (voting).

So let me ask you this on your little theory about them wanting to tread on your first...is the N word illegal? No, just socially unacceptable as are a few terms for gays. What happened to that equal rights movement stepping on your rights?

SMH ignorance is bliss, no?

[daddyo]

SMH ignorance is bliss, no?

 

Ignorance of what?

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Ignorance of what?

Ignorance in general. Answer the questions.

[daddyo]

Ignorance in general. Answer the questions.

 

Sorry, you'll need to be more specific. 

 

And is that an order? LOL.

[leroy]

Im amazed at lots of the things ive read in this thread; especially right above in Keel's posts.   The fact of the matter is that most folks who see things thru the lens of reality understand that the  embracing of the gay agenda in the political and business community is nothing more than pandering to another group of people in order to collect some moolah for the business or government apparatachik --- nothin more. 

 

If we claim to be the paragons of 'tolerance for the views of others" as some of the more open minded have proclaimed to be; how come it is that we have so much venom, condemnation, and bad talkin to stored up in us that we cant simply say to those who dont see things the way you may see 'em?  Why not simply grant that ... each individual has a right to his/her/its opinions...; and leave it at that when the impasse hits?  I say that if we supposidely believe in all these individual freedoms and are so intellectually and culturally advanced; we ought to believe in the adult idea of listening to differences of opinions regarding these issues.  As some smart guy philosopher said in the long ago: "...The mark of wisdom is to be able to examine an idea without actually embracing it...". 

 

RE:  The discenting "moral" issue:

 

I say it's ok to have a discenting opinion on this issue based on moral grounds.  That opinion has been around for millenia and was prevalent in lots of cultures.   The "moral" issue (...i know, save the speeches about "whose morals".  They are yours; whether they are taken from some religious authority or from your own fertile mind; its an individual judgement and decision.   In the end, the individual makes his own moral judgements...) is a valid one; and it aint just tied to the Christian world view.  Holding this opinion doesnt make you a "religious zealot".

 

Some folks simply dont see the gay thing in the "broad-minded" pop culture view that is bantered about today; and, with me, that's ok; and it ought to be ok with you too.  Nobody here is gonna take up the sword and exterminate anyone else. The inference that there are those on this forum who would do those things is nothin but childish "hyper-speech" designed to inflame and obfuscate the sensible, reasoned discussion of this (...or any other issue...).

 

The sixties hippies have done their work well (...some of it needed doin---some didnt....) in that they have effectively taught the "gospel of tolerance" for all actions; no matter how heinous to some elements of society.  It's the ole "re-writing of the immutible laws" thing in acton. They have also been very effective in teaching the "demonization of enemies" thing as well.  Both these tennants of hippydom are fully and firmly enshrined in the minds of many today as gospel; thus creating some "new immutable laws".

 

We can quibble a bit about this one; but i firmly believe in the pop culture thing that says the only virtue is "...the un-negotiable demand that the individual have tolerance for the views, actions, habits, sexual preferences, proclivities, ect, ect. that the current "pop culture pet tribe demands ....).  There simply are no other virtues. 

 

"Tolerance" means to them that you must embrace, accept, and celebrate whatever the "flavor of the moment" happens to be.  If you dont do that; you are Satan.  That gives these "tolerant types" the license to berate, make fun of, name call, excoriate, ostracize, ect. ect .ect whomever happens not to share their current view with the whip of the old "you aint tolerant" excoriation; and gives them license to call you names like a bunch of school yard children.  This action supposidly causes the offending party to cower in the corner and beg for forgiveness for not being tolerant enough.  When the poor offending party does his pentinence, he is finally restored into the fold of "inclusiveness" and readmitted into the pop culture tribe...   This is not only ignorant and laughable; it's the ultimate intolerance, i say.   If we are so damned tolerant of other views; why aint we tolerant about opposing views and why dont we have an adult discussion about them?

 

I dont know about you, but names dont bother me too much.   I could give a damn less if you call me a name; especially the "intolerant, homophobe, bigot, on and on and on".   I see it as a mark of childishness which always comes out when those sayin them have run out of gray matter to argue the facts.   I dont believe in the "god of tolerance" and i aint gonna bow down to he/she/it/whatever...  The fact is that everybody who is gay aint a gay jhadist; and every person of faith aint a "religous zealot".

 

This thread started as a commentary on not likin the youtube stance on the gay agenda.   That's ok with me; i dont happen to like it either.   What it has turned into is a pseudo-namecalling attack on those who see things differently than some other folks do.  Then we started the hippy "tolerance jhadists" thing.   I think it's laughable that the "tolerance police" are so intolerant. 

 

There aint any words that i dont use; and there aint any "tolerance police" that i obey.  Neither should you.   If you dont like something; just state your case if its relevant.   Dont name-call.  It makes us all look collecively dumber and it never works with people who have good sense. 

 

This picking and choosing of everything that comes down the road as a "civil rights -- human rights" issue does nothin but continue to "balkinize" our society and make it devolve even more into tribalism.  Tribalism is the exact opposite of republican democracy, and where tribalism wins the day, republican democracy is ultimately vanquished.   If this wasnt so serious, it would be funny.  

 

I'm thru with my little rant now; my indignation is dropped back down to around room temperature.   I say folks ought to think a bit about this little rant and decide who they really are.  Do they believe in rational discussion or in namecalling?  I recommend the former rather than the latter.  The latter makes you look ignorant and childish.  Nobody looks good ignorant and childish.

 

leroy

Edited July 6, 2013 by leroy

[daddyo]

Leroy, you are a wise man.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Im amazed at lots of the things ive read in this thread; especially right above in Keel's posts.   The fact of the matter is that most folks who see things thru the lens of reality understand that the  embracing of the gay agenda in the political and business community is nothing more than pandering to another group of people in order to collect some moolah for the business or government apparatachik --- nothin more. 

 

If we claim to be the paragons of 'tolerance for the views of others" as some of the more open minded have proclaimed to be; how come it is that we have so much venom, condemnation, and bad talkin to stored up in us that we cant simply say to those who dont see things the way you may see 'em?  Why not simply grant that ... each individual has a right to his/her/its opinions...; and leave it at that when the impasse hits?  I say that if we supposidely believe in all these individual freedoms and are so intellectually and culturally advanced; we ought to believe in the adult idea of listening to differences of opinions regarding these issues.  As some smart guy philosopher said in the long ago: "...The mark of wisdom is to be able to examine an idea without actually embracing it...". 

 

RE:  The discenting "moral" issue:

 

I say it's ok to have a discenting opinion on this issue based on moral grounds.  That opinion has been around for millenia and was prevalent in lots of cultures.   The "moral" issue (...i know, save the speeches about "whose morals".  They are yours; whether they are taken from some religious authority or from your own fertile mind; its an individual judgement and decision.   In the end, the individual makes his own moral judgements...) is a valid one; and it aint just tied to the Christian world view.  Holding this opinion doesnt make you a "religious zealot".

 

Some folks simply dont see the gay thing in the "broad-minded" pop culture view that is bantered about today; and, with me, that's ok; and it ought to be ok with you too.  Nobody here is gonna take up the sword and exterminate anyone else. The inference that there are those on this forum who would do those things is nothin but childish "hyper-speech" designed to inflame and obfuscate the sensible, reasoned discussion of this (...or any other issue...).

 

The sixties hippies have done their work well (...some of it needed doin---some didnt....) in that they have effectively taught the "gospel of tolerance" for all actions; no matter how heinous to some elements of society.  It's the ole "re-writing of the immutible laws" thing in acton. They have also been very effective in teaching the "demonization of enemies" thing as well.  Both these tennants of hippydom are fully and firmly enshrined in the minds of many today as gospel; thus creating some "new immutable laws".

 

We can quibble a bit about this one; but i firmly believe in the pop culture thing that says the only virtue is "...the un-negotiable demand that the individual have tolerance for the views, actions, habits, sexual preferences, proclivities, ect, ect. that the current "pop culture pet tribe demands ....).  There simply are no other virtues. 

 

"Tolerance" means to them that you must embrace, accept, and celebrate whatever the "flavor of the moment" happens to be.  If you dont do that; you are Satan.  That gives these "tolerant types" the license to berate, make fun of, name call, excoriate, ostracize, ect. ect .ect whomever happens not to share their current view with the whip of the old "you aint tolerant" excoriation; and gives them license to call you names like a bunch of school yard children.  This action supposidly causes the offending party to cower in the corner and beg for forgiveness for not being tolerant enough.  When the poor offending party does his pentinence, he is finally restored into the fold of "inclusiveness" and readmitted into the pop culture tribe...   This is not only ignorant and laughable; it's the ultimate intolerance, i say.   If we are so damned tolerant of other views; why aint we tolerant about opposing views and why dont we have an adult discussion about them?

 

I dont know about you, but names dont bother me too much.   I could give a damn less if you call me a name; especially the "intolerant, homophobe, bigot, on and on and on".   I see it as a mark of childishness which always comes out when those sayin them have run out of gray matter to argue the facts.   I dont believe in the "god of tolerance" and i aint gonna bow down to he/she/it/whatever...  The fact is that everybody who is gay aint a gay jhadist; and every person of faith aint a "religous zealot".

 

This thread started as a commentary on not likin the youtube stance on the gay agenda.   That's ok with me; i dont happen to like it either.   What it has turned into is a pseudo-namecalling attack on those who see things differently than some other folks do.  Then we started the hippy "tolerance jhadists" thing.   I think it's laughable that the "tolerance police" are so intolerant. 

 

There aint any words that i dont use; and there aint any "tolerance police" that i obey.  Neither should you.   If you dont like something; just state your case if its relevant.   Dont name-call.  It makes us all look collecively dumber and it never works with people who have good sense. 

 

This picking and choosing of everything that comes down the road as a "civil rights -- human rights" issue does nothin but continue to "balkinize" our society and make it devolve even more into tribalism.  Tribalism is the exact opposite of republican democracy, and where tribalism wins the day, republican democracy is ultimately vanquished.   If this wasnt so serious, it would be funny.  

 

I'm thru with my little rant now; my indignation is dropped back down to around room temperature.   I say folks ought to think a bit about this little rant and decide who they really are.  Do they believe in rational discussion or in namecalling?  I recommend the former rather than the latter.  The latter makes you look ignorant and childish.  Nobody looks good ignorant and childish.

 

leroy

Like I said, I'm not throwing homophobe out there...just ill willed and possibly harboring hatred, statements on his state of mind not name calling. He started this thread to make a statement, whether he admits that or not it doesn't matter since his actions answered it first in deleting the account and then announcing here that he did and why.
I am not saying he doesn't have the right to not like it or be "intolerant" of it. What I am saying is that he shouldn't be against any group of people having the same rights that he does...which is what the LGBT movement is about.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Sorry, you'll need to be more specific. 

 

And is that an order? LOL.

General ignorance is what I meant. Plain and simple.

As for answering the questions, no, not an order. I just found it funny that you have no answer for it and felt it needed to be accentuated...which you have done nicely. I love that you can argue against most everyone else's point but if someone finally calls you out and asks you specific questions about your argument you can't back them up.

LGBT FTW! LMAO

On a real note, Equal Rights for all FTW!

[daddyo]

OK, now that that's settled.... :rofl:

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Yeah it is settled because your argument is invalid.

[daddyo]

Anyway.....

 

What are some good alternatives to Youtube?

Edited July 6, 2013 by daddyo

[Oh Shoot]

Anyway.....

 

What are some good alternatives to Youtube?

 

If you're interesting in ever making a buck off ads from your own vids, or actually finding a pertinent informational vid on most any area of personal interest,  there aren't any.

 

- OS

Edited July 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[leroy]

I like this stuff.  Let's spar a bit.  RE: This:

 

.....just ill willed and possibly harboring hatred, statements on his state of mind not name calling....

The statement above is, in fact, tatmount to name-calling. You cant remove the "name-calling" by involking "state of mind".  You simply do not have the ability to determine his "state of mind".  You can theorize and hypothesize; but you simply dont know it.  I say, it's a bunch of word games that borders on the "tolerance police thing"; nothin more; which is, by the way, another hypothesis.  I cant determine that either.

 

What if he (...or i, or anyone else for that matter...) harbors "ill will" or "hatred" for someone or some thing??.  What difference does it make to you, him and me; other than idle curiosity?.  I dont happen to think that "remote analysis" is a very reliable method of evaluation of an individual's innermost thoughts and deeply held beliefs; but that's just me. 

 

There are plenty of places where our minds are made up.  White supremists dont like other races,   Their speech was protected by a liberal woman federal judge a few months ago while they were in the slammer (...in wisconsin, i think...).  I think the words were somethin like this:  "....there is a right to free political speech in this country; no matter how heinous it may be to some hearers..."  This stuff is, in fact, free political speech as it speaks to issues of public discussion and discourse. 

 

The following is also protected speech as well: ".....  The Christian God Man didnt like the sin; but loved the sinner enough to die for him according to the Christian tradition...  You should learn to get along with that one too; its a matter of religious conviction; also protected by the first amendment.   It is a most majestic and alturistic thing to "hate the sin" and "love the sinner".  Some in the gay community, pop culture, and in the political class would have us believe the Christian God-Man speech is "hate speech".  It aint.  It's free political speech.

 

RE:  The "equal rights for gays" thing.  The court ruled that what the state sanctions and regulates (...marriage...), demands that all the rights and priviledges commensurate with that sanction are applicable to all classes of marriage.  Nothin more.  Ray Charles could have seen that the DOMA thing would be struck down once the state recognized more than one species of marriage.  I dont have a problem with that.   They found no "right to marriage" in the constitution; the reason, there aint one.  They did affirm that whatever the state regulates requires equal treatment without prejudice as to the "type of marriage" (...homo, hetro, or other...). I say the state and government ought to get out of the marriage business (...as others have wisely opined..); but that aint gonna happen.

 

leroy

[mikegideon]

Leroy, you are a wise man.

 

Yes, he is.

[Good_Steward]

More individual freedom is never a bad thing. 

 

I personally do not give a damn what two consenting adults do together. I would ask the same of them as I would anyone else. Leave the politics at home, do not push your beliefs on me as an individual, and show some moderation in public. The less the .gov legislates personal liberties, morals, and choices, the better.  

 

While I may not agree with someones personal choices, that gives me no right to actively seek legislation against it unless it affects my personal liberties or rights. 

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I like this stuff.  Let's spar a bit.  RE: This:

The statement above is, in fact, tatmount to name-calling. You cant remove the "name-calling" by involking "state of mind".  You simply do not have the ability to determine his "state of mind".  You can theorize and hypothesize; but you simply dont know it.  I say, it's a bunch of word games that borders on the "tolerance police thing"; nothin more; which is, by the way, another hypothesis.  I cant determine that either.

 

What if he (...or i, or anyone else for that matter...) harbors "ill will" or "hatred" for someone or some thing??.  What difference does it make to you, him and me; other than idle curiosity?.  I dont happen to think that "remote analysis" is a very reliable method of evaluation of an individual's innermost thoughts and deeply held beliefs; but that's just me. 

 

There are plenty of places where our minds are made up.  White supremists dont like other races,   Their speech was protected by a liberal woman federal judge a few months ago while they were in the slammer (...in wisconsin, i think...).  I think the words were somethin like this:  "....there is a right to free political speech in this country; no matter how heinous it may be to some hearers..."  This stuff is, in fact, free political speech as it speaks to issues of public discussion and discourse. 

 

The following is also protected speech as well: ".....  The Christian God Man didnt like the sin; but loved the sinner enough to die for him according to the Christian tradition...  You should learn to get along with that one too; its a matter of religious conviction; also protected by the first amendment.   It is a most majestic and alturistic thing to "hate the sin" and "love the sinner".  Some in the gay community, pop culture, and in the political class would have us believe the Christian God-Man speech is "hate speech".  It aint.  It's free political speech.

 

RE:  The "equal rights for gays" thing.  The court ruled that what the state sanctions and regulates (...marriage...), demands that all the rights and priviledges commensurate with that sanction are applicable to all classes of marriage.  Nothin more.  Ray Charles could have seen that the DOMA thing would be struck down once the state recognized more than one species of marriage.  I dont have a problem with that.   They found no "right to marriage" in the constitution; the reason, there aint one.  They did affirm that whatever the state regulates requires equal treatment without prejudice as to the "type of marriage" (...homo, hetro, or other...). I say the state and government ought to get out of the marriage business (...as others have wisely opined..); but that aint gonna happen.

 

leroy

Why quote partially? I said that he has every right to dislike who ever he wants. But to push against LGBT supporters is to push against equal rights.

As for whether my statement about his state of mind is fact or opinion: He has clearly stated he is not in support of equal rights by opposing the LGBT movement...ie ill will and "possibly harboring hatred". That is quite a leap to name calling actually. It is a comment on his actions and what I perceive his state of mind to be.

I am also not saying that he doesn't have the right to make these statements but by the same token I have every right to call him on them. Which I did. Which he doesn't seem to be able to answer to.

[leroy]

RE:  Partial quotes.   My perrogative.  It also saves space.

RE:  To push against (...notice another partial quote...)

 

....to push against LGBT supporters is to push against equal rights. ...

  His perrogative. While im on the subject; the "equal rights" thing is is a red herring.  Everybody has "equal rights".  It's called "equal protection under the law".  Its against the law to beat up on gays (...and everybody else, except in florida, maybe....).  Poor argument.  I say its the pop culture "tolerance" thing.  See my distain for it in my post above.

 

RE: this

 

....As for whether my statement about his state of mind is fact or opinion: He has clearly stated he is not in support of equal rights by opposing the LGBT movement...ie ill will and "possibly harboring hatred". That is quite a leap to name calling actually. It is a comment on his actions and what I perceive his state of mind to be. ....

"..He has clearly stated..."  Did he?  He may have simply vented his disgust for Youtube's actions in pandering to a specific class of viewer (...my guess...).  If he's not in support; that's his perrogative (...it happens to be mine too... I say its pandering pure and simple...).  Who elected you the sheriff of seeing that he's beaten until he does like it? 

 

RE: "...possibly harboring hatred..." .  Another opinion and another "so what" if he does.  There is more than one side to every issue.  Again, who elected you the "tolerance sheriff"?  (...notice the "name callin"; it could be a literary device too...).

 

 

...I am also not saying that he doesn't have the right to make these statements but by the same token I have every right to call him on them. Which I did. Which he doesn't seem to be able to answer to. ....

 

RE:  "...i have every right to call him on them....  OK. Why do you have this right??? Who gave it to you, and not to him if he disagrees?  How about me?... Do i have this right too; or is it just for a select and enlightened few who see things the way you happen to see 'em?  Wuz there an election and did you get to be the "tolerance sheriff" or the "grand isquisitor"?  I wanted to be him.  How come they elected you and not me??  But that's ok with me; we'll do it your way.  Quit callin him names and hinting at possible character defects and stick to the arguement and ill "leave you alone"... .   How's that workin out for ya?

 

RE:  ...he doesn't seem to be able to answer... .  Maybe he is too nice to answer (...since you seem to like the speculative....).  That's my guess.  There's another possibility; he may not want to dignify some of the comments with a response.  I, on the other hand, love to wrestle with the pigs and get a little bit of mud on me.  How about you??

 

wrestlin leroy the pig man

 

 

[daddyo]

I don't know about anyone else, but when someone starts demanding that I do something (especially something I don't have to do), and especially when they have no authority to do so, I have this tendency to dig my heels in and be 100% uncooperative.

 

It then becomes not a matter of "can't", but "won't".

 

So the more someone "demands" that I answer questions or do anything else, they'll get diddly squat.

Edited July 6, 2013 by daddyo