California 'Shoot the gays' initiative likely to be circulated

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Well, let me give you a clue here, ok, ninety-five (95%) percent of the people that are out there voting are straight heterosexuals. So why is it that the 2% to 5% minority is so much more important than the 95% to 97% majority?

Because you're forgetting that a large part of that 95%-97% majority also side with the 5% minority on this issue. Obviously if it was only that 5% against an opposing 95% they wouldn't have a chance in hell. But polling data and just general consensus tell us that the divide is more like 50-50 but probably slanted slightly in favor of that 5%. However many who are in the actual minority are in places of power and influence and aren't going to give up easily.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I put those devil saint happy faces to indicate my mockery of the idea that an opinion can be wrong. Opinions can be baseless, ignorant, or asinine, but never "incorrect".

People are just apt to getting opinion & fact mixed up.

I wasn't exactly sure if you realized that opinions tend to be just that, opinions, even though they can be aligned with facts under the right circumstances. Oh well, kudos to you for knowing the difference ;-) Not too many do these days LOL.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Annee
What the Hell are "Christian principles"?

Seriously! Only those who believe in a specific God have the ability of common sense?

You do know that the Puritans were practically forced out of England because they tried to force the government into their extreme Christian belief, right? Did you know, in part, Southern Baptist are descendants of the original Puritans?

Our forefathers saw individual religious groups building communities. Each trying to be the dominant power.

Fortunately, they saw the "writing on the wall" and stopped it ---- before it could get started.

Common sense principles.

Yep, and the freedom of speech is one of those safeguards that the FF put in to protect us from people like the puritans who would arrest you for what they would consider "hate speech."

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Moron...And in California no less.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh dear...

Someone else claiming "logic" when they failed to comprehend what I actually said.



Wait until it's your minority that are the target of death threats and then speak about what should and shouldn't be illegal.




Because it wasn't illegal to blame the Jews for everything in Nazi Germany, & nobody needs a history lesson to realise what happened there.



Like I said...


"I hate your guts..."

"I want people to kill you and yours because I hate your guts..."



You want both to be legal?

Good for you.

I don't!



And as with what you quoted...
That's why I prefer our freedom of speech as opposed to the States.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Well, let me give you a clue here, ok, ninety-five (95%) percent of the people that are out there voting are straight heterosexuals. So why is it that the 2% to 5% minority is so much more important than the 95% to 97% majority?

Because you're forgetting that a large part of that 95%-97% majority also side with the 5% minority on this issue. Obviously if it was only that 5% against an opposing 95% they wouldn't have a chance in hell. But polling data and just general consensus tell us that the divide is more like 50-50 but probably slanted slightly in favor of that 5%. However many who are in the actual minority are in places of power and influence and aren't going to give up easily.

This may be somewhat true I believe, but the reason things are the way they are is due to again the tail wag dog pressures, PC peer pressure and of course the cult of political correctness. You get a lot of your ***50%*** sympathizers in a room where they can speak freely, things are different and usually start with, "I'll deny this if you tell anyone."

I have no problem with live and let live, but I really don't want to see pedophiles and lesbians (LGBT) writing the sex-ed curriculum for preteens (grade 1 to 6 with all the LGBT details), as has recently happened here in Ontario, Canada and I don't need to hear about sexual preferences constantly. I generally try not to judge people as a group, stereotypically, but if I did it wouldn't be based on sexual preference, it would be based on arrogance, stupidity or intelligence.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh dear...

Someone else claiming "logic" when they failed to comprehend what I actually said.



Wait until it's your minority that are the target of death threats and then speak about what should and shouldn't be illegal.




Because it wasn't illegal to blame the Jews for everything in Nazi Germany, & nobody needs a history lesson to realise what happened there.



Like I said...


"I hate your guts..."

"I want people to kill you and yours because I hate your guts..."



You want both to be legal?

Good for you.

I don't!



And as with what you quoted...
That's why I prefer our freedom of speech as opposed to the States.

You go with that , let me know how that works out for you in a couple of years. BTW, London UK or London Canadakastan? I hope to hell it's not Canadakastan, because the UK can keep their problems.

Cheers - Dave

Reading things like this makes me so sad. That's all.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

London, England.

And we have no problems on the freedom of speech side of things...




I can walk freely down the street screaming "Hitler lives in the Moon and has plans to kill us all" without so much as anyone batting an eyelid...


If I say "I'm working for Hitler who lives on the moon and he has given me plans to kill you all"...



People will take notice, people in authority ready to lock my arse up...



& I'm thankful my society is built that way.

originally posted by: Rhiannon
a reply to: amazing

They say a picture speaks 1,000 words

You know what I'm saying though. Just in case you aren't educated enough to comprehend it with my grammatical errors, I'll restate it. I'm wondering why you are more concerned with grammar than the issue at hand? Nevertheless, I will carry on in hopes that I can drag you back into the conversation. I'll restate it so that you can understand.

What was meant is: All of the horrible, evil, hateful passages in the bible need to be removed. When this is done, horrible things will not be done in the name of Christianity as much. This will entail, taking out a good portion of the old testament and a few of Paul's ramblings and most, if not all of Revelations.

I wonder if a screen shot of this post will be worth a thousand words to you? Hmmmm

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
This may be somewhat true I believe, but the reason things are the way they are is due to again the tail wag dog pressures, PC peer pressure and of course the cult of political correctness. You get a lot of your ***50%*** sympathizers in a room where they can speak freely, things are different and usually start with, "I'll deny this if you tell anyone."

I have no problem with live and let live, but I really don't want to see pedophiles and lesbians (LGBT) writing the sex-ed curriculum for preteens (grade 1 to 6 with all the LGBT details), as has recently happened here in Ontario, Canada and I don't need to hear about sexual preferences constantly. I generally try not to judge people as a group, stereotypically, but if I did it wouldn't be based on sexual preference, it would be based on arrogance, stupidity or intelligence.

Cheers - Dave

I think that would be "Supporters" rather than "Sympathizers". But now we're just splitting hairs.

Well, I don't blame you on the pedophiles that's for sure. Not sure why you'd be seeing them doing what they do, but I'm not in Canada either. Too bad to cause I've always liked Canada.

Nobody said you had to like it either. Hell the thought of 2 dudes is GD repulsive to me personally but I still support their right to be who they are like anyone else. (2 women I find I can handle fairly easily however.) Most importantly to have the same rights and privileges as everyone else does. That's what freedom and liberty are all about you know. Choices for us all so we can find our path in life.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Rhiannon
a reply to: amazing

They say a picture speaks 1,000 words

You know what I'm saying though. Just in case you aren't educated enough to comprehend it with my grammatical errors, I'll restate it. I'm wondering why you are more concerned with grammar than the issue at hand? Nevertheless, I will carry on in hopes that I can drag you back into the conversation. I'll restate it so that you can understand.

What was meant is: All of the horrible, evil, hateful passages in the bible need to be removed. When this is done, horrible things will not be done in the name of Christianity as much. This will entail, taking out a good portion of the old testament and a few of Paul's ramblings and most, if not all of Revelations.

I wonder if a screen shot of this post will be worth a thousand words to you? Hmmmm

No, you missed it, I wasn't talking about grammar or spelling. It was your statement, followed by your signature, because it was actually what I was going to reply ...
What?
lol ; D

I have an unusual sense of humour I guess, not sure what it would be classified as, but having to explain my amusement just detracts from it. It wasn't meant as any kind of mean'ness towards you, so sorry if that came out wrong.

I guess I thought that Christians saw the bible as the actual 'Word of God', I mean, otherwise it's just a fairytale right?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

London, England.

And we have no problems on the freedom of speech side of things...

I can walk freely down the street screaming "Hitler lives in the Moon and has plans to kill us all" without so much as anyone batting an eyelid...

If I say "I'm working for Hitler who lives on the moon and he has given me plans to kill you all"...

People will take notice, people in authority ready to lock my arse up...

& I'm thankful my society is built that way.

That would appear to be a little out of context, making a fanciful statement about Hitler, someone might consider you insane but harmless, LOL. Why don't you try and gather some evidence on say, parliamentarians or the royal family under the subject of say, pedophilia and if you find circumstantial evidence, go to the BBC and get them to maybe, air your opinion (including evidence of course) of these folks on public television. That might be a plan. Watch how fast that freedom of speech evaporates into nothing and people at the BBC get fired ;-) What do they call that, D listing?

Or more apples to apples, spout off an opinion about the holocaust and how you don't believe it was real and it just doesn't make sense. I hear that one will potentially land you in jail, at least in Germany, but apparently in the UK as well. Ooops, there goes that damned freedom of speech again. I see things popping up on Facebook stories in the UK, where they drag people off for comments LOL. Yeah, that's some freedom of speech you have there ;-) Keep it.

Obviously, you don't yell fire in a crowded theatre as someone could get hurt or dead. However, saying there were 3 times as many Russians killed in WW2, so what's big deal about the holocaust, if it even happened, should not carry the same kind "penalty."

The entire social premise is wrong anyway IMHO, there should be no political correctness to allow the invocation of retarded purely subjective "hate" crimes resulting from opinions and the voicing of them. Like I said before as far as the CA "elected rep" goes, I got nuthin' in support of that tool, but, I do support his right to say what he feels and put it to a vote. If he wins or fails, he does both miserably.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I don't want to row with you Dave...

I like you, and you're a rare challenge on ATS in the debate...




But I do feel you are misinterpreting my point.

Yes, the Hitler example was quite hyperbolic...
But apt.



Why don't you yell fire in a theatre or bomb on a plane?!?

You said it yourself!


So why should people be allowed to entice violent oppression against any person/group they dislike?!?


I'm using the same reasoning...


Because people can get hurt.



Personal responsibility someone said earlier...



Yet Max B (rapper) is doing 70+ years for telling someone to kill a couple of people, allegedly...

Where is the personal responsibility?

Where is his freedom of speech?




Nowhere...
& that's in the US...


So at the moment the rules are the same...

Just cherry picked across the water to suit whoever is the target of "the speech"...

Which essentially, is calling for action, as opposed to words!



Cheers - Charlie!

I don't consider this guy to be an example of a Christian, he is just a hateful small-minded bigot, who happens to use the bible as a means to justify his hatred. If the bible didn't exist, he would have latched onto some other doctrine to justify his hate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

NO YOU do by not believing in us for who WE are rather than these NUT JOBS you cherry pick to define us with.
I'M NOT PAT ROBERTSON HERE.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
This may be somewhat true I believe, but the reason things are the way they are is due to again the tail wag dog pressures, PC peer pressure and of course the cult of political correctness. You get a lot of your ***50%*** sympathizers in a room where they can speak freely, things are different and usually start with, "I'll deny this if you tell anyone."

I have no problem with live and let live, but I really don't want to see pedophiles and lesbians (LGBT) writing the sex-ed curriculum for preteens (grade 1 to 6 with all the LGBT details), as has recently happened here in Ontario, Canada and I don't need to hear about sexual preferences constantly. I generally try not to judge people as a group, stereotypically, but if I did it wouldn't be based on sexual preference, it would be based on arrogance, stupidity or intelligence.

Cheers - Dave

I think that would be "Supporters" rather than "Sympathizers". But now we're just splitting hairs.

Well, I don't blame you on the pedophiles that's for sure. Not sure why you'd be seeing them doing what they do, but I'm not in Canada either. Too bad to cause I've always liked Canada.

Nobody said you had to like it either. Hell the thought of 2 dudes is GD repulsive to me personally but I still support their right to be who they are like anyone else. (2 women I find I can handle fairly easily however.) Most importantly to have the same rights and privileges as everyone else does. That's what freedom and liberty are all about you know. Choices for us all so we can find our path in life.

Like I said, I have no problem with anyone being who they want to be or their sexual preference, if they're happy, more power to them, I just don't need or want to hear about constantly. The thing is like I said, I just don't see the logic in 2%-5% of the population controlling the social agenda for everyone. The present tail wag dog situation is untenable, it will eventually result in either a docile apathetic population or some kind of internal war. I am not trying to be punny, but I really don't see why we have to have this propaganda "shoved down our throats" almost constantly and very consistently. Manufacturers are making gay commercials, I suppose because they're really missing that 2% of the market while pissing off the other 50% to 90%+. Now there's intelligent marketing LOL.

Hollyweird, making gay movies, like WTF, movie studios are businesses, their bottom line is profit. So to make movies where the demographic is 2% of the population plus a couple of percent confused females, where they lose money would seem to indicate it's not about making money in many cases, it's about propaganda, social programming and readjustment. I am not saying people shouldn't see those movies as it is their choice or the producers choice to lose money, I am just saying I don't understand how they can be anything but costly and counterproductive to a business model, and from a business standpoint, pointless unless they are social engineering.

On the peds in politics and education, just look up Benjamin Levin. There's quite an argument going on in Ontario right now.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I don't want to row with you Dave...

I like you, and you're a rare challenge on ATS in the debate...




But I do feel you are misinterpreting my point.

Yes, the Hitler example was quite hyperbolic...
But apt.



Why don't you yell fire in a theatre or bomb on a plane?!?

You said it yourself!


So why should people be allowed to entice violent oppression against any person/group they dislike?!?


I'm using the same reasoning...


Because people can get hurt.



Personal responsibility someone said earlier...



Yet Max B (rapper) is doing 70+ years for telling someone to kill a couple of people, allegedly...

Where is the personal responsibility?

Where is his freedom of speech?




Nowhere...
& that's in the US...


So at the moment the rules are the same...

Just cherry picked across the water to suit whoever is the target of "the speech"...

Which essentially, is calling for action, as opposed to words!



Cheers - Charlie!

I agree, it might be defined as a call to action. Whether that succeeds or fails, as an initiative, depends on whether or not the motivation to do something is latent/dormant and/or if there is an emotional attachment to the subject matter. Unfortunately if it is latent or dormant, it needs to be expressed, otherwise I expect some kind of additional sickness will follow. It's like society now, it's sick and it's probably due to frustration and the inability to express oneself without fear of legal or peer programmed social retaliation.

Is everyone afraid of the outcome of this initiative we're talking about? I'm not and not because I am heterosexual, but because we as people, do not want to do harm if we can help it. I hated what I had to do, but I had to do it or die. Is voting no to this silly initiative going to get you killed, probably not. The asshats initiative as far as I am concerned is a seriously lame publicity stunt because his solution is too extreme, it's outside the realms of normal sensibilities.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Most likely the market is bigger than that for starters. If you were to count the whole LGBT group as a whole you're looking at a much larger group actually. The 5% usually is for people who openly admit being fully gay. Then there are the ones who don't or won't admit it. Then there's those who are Bisexual. Then you have the others which include whatever non traditional sexuality just to make it simple.

I bet the entire group which is basically everyone but Heterosexual is probably 20%-40%. Plus they love to shop!! Obviously there is a market there to be tapped otherwise they wouldn't bother. Money is always....ALWAYS the motivation so they must be making money at it.

As for the reason to support their cause, it's the same reason as why you should support any cause that elevates people on to a level playing field with everyone else. Because it's the right thing to do. What one person is allowed to do so should everyone else be allowed to do it. Nobody and no group of people should be marginalized or treated as less than any other human for who they are. Not by the Government anyway.

People will treat people however they choose and not much you can do about that, we are free after all. But when it comes to institutions and especially Gov. Justice is Blind and Laws should be applied equally otherwise it's only a matter of time until you find yourself on the sh*t list too regardless of how safe or normal you may think you are.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Well as expected, that's the most reasoned rebuttal I've seen from the opposition so far.

What you say about sickness fermenting and exacerbating is indeed a cause for concern.


Withholding our true inner feelings can cause repercussions even we wouldn't expect from ourselves.


So to that extent, you have a very valid point.



As you say, he is gone to the extreme end of the spectrum calling for bullets to fire...

Maybe he could get a bullhorn and follow in Phelps' footsteps...

Then again, maybe that wasn't extreme enough for him...


As with my earlier comprison...

Maybe a visit from the men in white coats could put this to bed rather than legislation against actual hate speech.



I think people would choose keeping their mouths shut as opposed to spending a month or two in a padded room.