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?

sapphi_snake on 18 September 2011
richardhutnik said:
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.

Sorry, never seen movies with either of them.



"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)

Around the Network
richardhutnik on 18 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:
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.

Sorry, never seen movies with either of them.

Go watch some clips on YouTube (Search for either).  Duck Soup is particularly appropriate for today.



Player1x3 on 18 September 2011
Runa216 said:
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. 


WHAT??? Believe me when I say i wasnt hurt in the slightest way, shape or form possible by that. Was actually amused by it. Its a bit dumb to insult someone by saying ''arrogant'' and in next post you admit your the most arrogant person. And studies DID show that africans tend to have bigger dick on average. This may hurt your feelings about a perfect world, but some stereotypes happen to be true in somecases, and can be proven using studies and research. Stereotype that whites in America earn more money on average and that asians have a higher IQ on average are actually proven to be true, despite how many angry leftist liberals feel about it



Christhor on 18 September 2011

Grass is the green blood of capitalism.



Player1x3 on 18 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 lot of countries, serving the army is actually mandatory for all men, regardless of sexuality, so your studies are irrelevant. Even here in serbia, lots of gays try to avoid serving the army. Not that anyone would bother to force them to serve tho.

And you misunderstood me, I dont want anyone to be banned from serving the army. Its a great honour in doing so, and everyone should have the right to it. I am just saying gays shouldn't be too open abou their sexuality, neither should heterosexuals, for their own well being and good of the army squad they are in



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 18 September 2011
Player1x3 said:

In lot of countries, serving the army is actually mandatory for all men, regardless of sexuality, so your studies are irrelevant. Even here in serbia, lots of gays try to avoid serving the army. Not that anyone would bother to force them to serve tho.

And you misunderstood me, I dont want anyone to be banned from serving the army. Its a great honour in doing so, and everyone should have the right to it. I am just saying gays shouldn't be too open abou their sexuality, neither should heterosexuals, for their own well being and good of the army squad they are in

The studies aren't irrelvant. Firstly, because in a lot of countries military service isn't mandatory. Secondly, what's irrelevant is whether or not military service is mandatory.

If gays can serve, whether military service is mandatory or not, the implications of them serving is what's important. And gays should be just as open as staright people are.



"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)

richardhutnik on 18 September 2011
Christhor said:
Grass is the green blood of capitalism.

Stop!  I demand we demand we discuss Marxism!

That is the Groucho variety!



FinalEvangelion on 19 September 2011
osamanobama said:
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


Still, the political landscape was alot different back then.  The same way Eisenhower had 91% tax rates for the wealthiest even though he was a conservative. 



"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.

 

Player1x3 on 20 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:

In lot of countries, serving the army is actually mandatory for all men, regardless of sexuality, so your studies are irrelevant. Even here in serbia, lots of gays try to avoid serving the army. Not that anyone would bother to force them to serve tho.

And you misunderstood me, I dont want anyone to be banned from serving the army. Its a great honour in doing so, and everyone should have the right to it. I am just saying gays shouldn't be too open abou their sexuality, neither should heterosexuals, for their own well being and good of the army squad they are in

The studies aren't irrelvant. Firstly, because in a lot of countries military service isn't mandatory. Secondly, what's irrelevant is whether or not military service is mandatory.

If gays can serve, whether military service is mandatory or not, the implications of them serving is what's important. And gays should be just as open as staright people are.


Not if they care about their own well being, they shouldnt. I am totally pulling this out of my ass, but generally speaking, I dont think army men take too kindly on gays (at least not where I come from - middle eastern very christian orthodox oriented part of Balkans)



GuiltySpartan77 on 20 September 2011

why do you have problem with them having a problem with flower