By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why does Fox News have problems with Flower?

Player1x3 on 17 September 2011
Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:


not really a stereotype, more like generalization. There are quite the few exceptions,of course, but majority of them are like i described


yep, and all the black people I meet love fried chicken and watermelon, all the women I meet are emotionally insecure pussies, all the americans I meet are ignorant, xenophobic gun worshippers, all the canadians I meet are meek, feeble nice guys, and all aussies I meet are rough crocodile hunters with a particular fondness for hunting knifes.  

Yep, that's not ignorant at all. 

I've spent a lot of time with a lot of gay dudes (I'm involved in the local LBGT groups), and I assure you one thing:  Guys who want guys want MEN, if they wanted prissy prettyboys they'd date women.  (As one gay dude put it) 

One of my gay friends is a cop who could kick your ass three ways from sunday, another is a football player, another is a professional paintballer, another is a farm worker.  You might do yourself well to stop with the stereotyping or I may have to resort to pointing out your accurate stereotypes!  I mean, you're just like every other arrogant, ignorant, closeminded, judgemental christian I've met! 

whoa, relax, geez, i was just posting my opinion. You dont have 2 agree with me or anything. But the fact, remains all gay people i've seen in real life and tv are just as i described, i didn't say all of them are like that, just a huge chunk :) You dont have to like it, but that's how it is. Btw, those aren't stereotypes, stereotypes are something bad attached to a group of people, if you think things i said about gays are offensive, well, that just proves how insecure you are about your beliefs :)



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure



sapphi_snake on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

osamanobama on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

and gays can marry in some states.. just like cousins... yet you only claim gays or discriminated against. hmm why is that. also people still cant marry multiple people. and frankly i dont really give i shit who YOU think is discriminated against. the facts are i have the same rights as every one else.

i will try to put this in very very simple terms, using as small of words as possible, in order to help you understand.

I can not marry a man. my sister can not marry a woman.

Gay tony cannot marry a man. my gay female cousin cannot marry a woman.

we have the exact same "rights" as any other person. get it. is it really that hard. if you need understanding it, i will be glad to attempt to use easier words.

 

and i fail to see why you arent fighting for the "rights" of people you want to marry their sister, or mother, or 2 of their sisters, or both their mother and father. or just 10 people

I am not gonna repeat myself. You're a lost case. There really is no point to saying anymore. You're just further proof that things like civil rights shouldn't be subjected to the vote of the masses.

lol youre too funny. you literally know nothing of what youre talking about. its alsmost painful.

you dont care about "civil rights" of people, you just care about arbitrarly selected rights you think some groups should have while others dont.

you ignore the groups i mentioned for what ever reason, and then ignore the fact that every single American (you woul know this if you took the time to inform yourself about the US) has the exact same rights. what is so confusing about this. your like a broken record, of talking points with nothing to back it up.

you: "oh this group doesnt have rights because i said so" me: "oh really, like what."  you:  "errr.... um huh... well... your a bigot"



FinalEvangelion on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.

In World War 2, blacks were separated from whites in different regiments because of that.  It just takes a while for traditional institutions to be overturned.  It usually takes "libruls" to pressure people to overturn these kind of institutions.



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

Around the Network
osamanobama on 17 September 2011
FinalEvangelion said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.

In World War 2, blacks were separated from whites in different regiments because of that.  It just takes a while for traditional institutions to be overturned.  It usually takes "libruls" to pressure people to overturn these kind of institutions.

actually it was woodrow wilson who resegragated the military... just to let you know



FinalEvangelion on 17 September 2011
osamanobama said:
FinalEvangelion said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.

In World War 2, blacks were separated from whites in different regiments because of that.  It just takes a while for traditional institutions to be overturned.  It usually takes "libruls" to pressure people to overturn these kind of institutions.

actually it was woodrow wilson who resegragated the military... just to let you know


Back then, the Democratic Party was the racially conservative party.  That took a while for the party to align themselves as they are now days.



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

osamanobama on 17 September 2011
FinalEvangelion said:
osamanobama said:
FinalEvangelion said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.


Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure

It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve).

 It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits.

In World War 2, blacks were separated from whites in different regiments because of that.  It just takes a while for traditional institutions to be overturned.  It usually takes "libruls" to pressure people to overturn these kind of institutions.

actually it was woodrow wilson who resegragated the military... just to let you know


Back then, the Democratic Party was the racially conservative party.  That took a while for the party to align themselves as they are now days.

woodrow wilson has/had nothing in common with consevatives.

in fact you is often looked up to (by progressives/ liberals) as the first true great progressive



richardhutnik on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I once shot a irrelevant in my pajamas.  How he got in my pajamas, I will never know.

I started this thread, and I DEMAND you debate the merits of the Marx Bros., particularly against the 3 Stooges.



Runa216 on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:

whoa, relax, geez, i was just posting my opinion. You dont have 2 agree with me or anything. But the fact, remains all gay people i've seen in real life and tv are just as i described, i didn't say all of them are like that, just a huge chunk :) You dont have to like it, but that's how it is. Btw, those aren't stereotypes, stereotypes are something bad attached to a group of people, if you think things i said about gays are offensive, well, that just proves how insecure you are about your beliefs :)


See?  hurts when someone turns the stereotypes back at you, doesn't it?  

and HAAAHAHA!  Me?  Insecure?  dude, I'm probably the most arrogant, sure-of-himself person you'll ever meet. I'm a lot of things (insensitive, weird, quirky, arrogant, etc), but insecure is not one of them.  

and no, stereotypes are not JUST negative, a stereotype is a judgement or assumption of a group of people based on popular cultural tropes.  Saying black dudes are well hung is a HELL of a compliment, but it's still a stereotype, and to say "Well most of them are like that because that's what I see" is ignorant.  Again, it's a form of confirmation bias.  

I really need to open up a thread with a massive list of various logical fallacies so perhaps people can learn to avoid them. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android