PDA

View Full Version : Gay by... stroke!



natlee
19-04-2012, 09:48
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018

Benedikt
19-04-2012, 10:00
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018


a forward roll takes what, a few seconds the longest. don't think this is enough to starve the brain of blood and induce a stroke. but well, so be it. he got his 2 minutes fame in the newspapers. might be good for his hairdressing work, getting more clients.

Disco Kings
19-04-2012, 10:12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018


Why do I have the feeling that more than a few women on this forum are wishing this would happen to me? And maybe a few fellas.

TolkoRaz
19-04-2012, 10:38
I am not looking forward to my first stroke! :eek:

Disco Kings
19-04-2012, 10:40
I am not looking forward to my first stroke! :eek:

Maybe your first stroke will be a stroke of luck.

breezy
19-04-2012, 10:48
i read that some strokes leave people with an accent. i read a story about a lady who had an irish accent when she was from like the deep south in the u.s. lol!

TolkoRaz
19-04-2012, 11:13
i read that some strokes leave people with an accent. i read a story about a lady who had an irish accent when she was from like the deep south in the u.s. lol!

Thats another very valid reason for not wanting a stroke! :eek:

yakspeare
19-04-2012, 11:40
I heard some people even become gay from sex...

DavidB
19-04-2012, 12:25
I'm no expert in the subject, but I guess there is a more logical explanation...

Chris was sick of hiding in his closet and pretending to be macho, so he invented a story about rolling down a hill, having a "stroke", and waking up at the other end with an affinity for chocolate fudge.

DavidB
19-04-2012, 12:35
P.s. I would suggest that he try rolling down the hill backwards to see if that can cure him.

rusmeister
19-04-2012, 13:59
People will believe anything, I suppose.

They already believe that a man can become a woman by an act of will, and they already believe that one can "be gay", instead of "experiencing a sexual desire for the wrong object", so why not?
:floating:

Disco Kings
19-04-2012, 16:32
People will believe anything, I suppose.

They already believe that a man can become a woman by an act of will, and they already believe that one can "be gay", instead of "experiencing a sexual desire for the wrong object", so why not?
:floating:


Some believe in god so yeah some people will believe anything.

rusmeister
19-04-2012, 17:44
Some believe in god so yeah some people will believe anything.

People have always believed in some kind of god. They have never believed that one's sex could be determined by one's feelings or that same-sex attraction was a natural and normal thing or that one could "marry" and form a "family" with a member of the same sex.

It is the people of our time who have gone insane over sex, elevating that appetite above all other appetites and deliberately separating it from its prime biological function, putting it on the same level with eating food and regurgitating it to avoid digestion.

peppermintpaddy
19-04-2012, 18:49
People have always believed in some kind of god. They have never believed that one's sex could be determined by one's feelings or that same-sex attraction was a natural and normal thing or that one could "marry" and form a "family" with a member of the same sex.

It is the people of our time who have gone insane over sex, elevating that appetite above all other appetites and deliberately separating it from its prime biological function, putting it on the same level with eating food and regurgitating it to avoid digestion.

you have obviously never read and Greek or Roman history.....homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time,its as natural as being left handed.

In the beginning....Man created God(s)

Jack17
19-04-2012, 18:58
I heard some people even become gay from sex...
Is that how you became a lesbian?

robertmf
19-04-2012, 19:03
Is that how you became a lesbian?

**snicker** Nah. Too much vegemite when a kid :goblin:

TolkoRaz
19-04-2012, 20:50
In the beginning....Man created God(s)

.............. not 'Queens'! ;)

Disco Kings
19-04-2012, 21:38
you have obviously never read and Greek or Roman history.....homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time,its as natural as being left handed.

In the beginning....Man created God(s)

I was going to say the same thing.

MickeyTong
20-04-2012, 00:01
People have always believed in some kind of god. They have never believed that one's sex could be determined by one's feelings or that same-sex attraction was a natural and normal thing or that one could "marry" and form a "family" with a member of the same sex.

It is the people of our time who have gone insane over sex, elevating that appetite above all other appetites and deliberately separating it from its prime biological function, putting it on the same level with eating food and regurgitating it to avoid digestion.

Have you not heard of the Hijras in India? Or the Two-Spirit People of original North Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 00:01
I was going to say the same thing.
Since PP joined Spara on my "ignore list", I'll say that I am perfectly aware that all kinds of perversions have been practiced throughout history, so did not claim that they were not practiced. But it was never seen as a NATURAL and NORMAL thing. The ancient Greeks who mentioned it - mostly indirectly - practically tittered in embarrassment when they did so, and there is no evidence that it was practiced outside of the literary elites; the myths and legends do NOT, in fact, have Zeus getting Hera jealous by sleeping with other men, Thor seducing Loki or Ruslan fighting Chernomor in order to win the hand of Rogdai, which we would definitely have plenty of material on if it had indeed been seen as normal and natural.

So if by "natural" you mean "occurred", I certainly agree with you; if you mean "normal and socially praised", I certainly do not.

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 00:05
Have you not heard of the Hijras in India? Or the Two-Spirit People of original North Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
In attempting to produce any evidence at all, you are only offering exceptions that prove the overwhelming rule.

I DO admit exceptions, and say that they are EXCEPTIONAL, and by no means anything like the rule. There have also always been insane people in society; yet the overwhelming rule has been sanity. That's the trouble with modern thinking - everybody's grasping at these weird exceptions and treating them as the same as the rule. People have forgotten that simple principle, it seems.

MickeyTong
20-04-2012, 00:09
Since PP joined Spara on my "ignore list", I'll say that I am perfectly aware that all kinds of perversions have been practiced throughout history, so did not claim that they were not practiced. But it was never seen as a NATURAL and NORMAL thing. The ancient Greeks who mentioned it - mostly indirectly - practically tittered in embarrassment when they did so, and there is no evidence that it was practiced outside of the literary elites; the myths and legends do NOT, in fact, have Zeus getting Hera jealous by sleeping with other men, Thor seducing Loki or Ruslan fighting Chernomor in order to win the hand of Rogdai, which we would definitely have plenty of material on if it had indeed been seen as normal and natural.

So if by "natural" you mean "occurred", I certainly agree with you; if you mean "normal and socially praised", I certainly do not.

Is the platypus a "perversion"? It certainly doesn't fit into any "normal" categories, does it?

No doubt you imagine the relationship between Zeus and Ganymede was not an example of Cretan pederasty.

Cretan pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MickeyTong
20-04-2012, 00:18
In attempting to produce any evidence at all, you are only offering exceptions that prove the overwhelming rule.

I DO admit exceptions, and say that they are EXCEPTIONAL, and by no means anything like the rule. There have also always been insane people in society; yet the overwhelming rule has been sanity. That's the trouble with modern thinking - everybody's grasping at these weird exceptions and treating them as the same as the rule. People have forgotten that simple principle, it seems.

Are not (genuine) Orthodox Christians also EXCEPTIONAL? I know you do not equate exceptionality with aberration. Should a Saint pretend to be "normal"? Should a genius just go along with the prevailing consensus?

peppermintpaddy
20-04-2012, 01:22
Since PP joined Spara on my "ignore list", I'll say that I am perfectly aware that all kinds of perversions have been practiced throughout history, so did not claim that they were not practiced. But it was never seen as a NATURAL and NORMAL thing. The ancient Greeks who mentioned it - mostly indirectly - practically tittered in embarrassment when they did so, and there is no evidence that it was practiced outside of the literary elites; the myths and legends do NOT, in fact, have Zeus getting Hera jealous by sleeping with other men, Thor seducing Loki or Ruslan fighting Chernomor in order to win the hand of Rogdai, which we would definitely have plenty of material on if it had indeed been seen as normal and natural.

So if by "natural" you mean "occurred", I certainly agree with you; if you mean "normal and socially praised", I certainly do not.

Well,im a little surprised im on you ignore list RM-Gee,I didnt know I annoyed you so much,can we kiss and make up?No tongues obviously,just a quick peck.......
so heres a link to show that Homosexuality was not the exception in Ancient Greece-more like the Rule.......also not forgetting "Sapphic" love ,ie Lesbianism is named after Sappho,the 1st "lesbian".....and of course Lesbian is named after Lesbos the island retreat of said lesbians.

http://www.historytoday.com/louis-compton/army-lovers-sacred-band-thebes
Blame it on the Greeks,a bit like the Euro crisis.....No tittering in embarrassment now,especially with the Spartans.

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 06:55
Is the platypus a "perversion"? It certainly doesn't fit into any "normal" categories, does it?

No doubt you imagine the relationship between Zeus and Ganymede was not an example of Cretan pederasty.

Cretan pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan_pederasty)

I see a certain failure of logic in conflating a behavioral practice and a state of being that occurs by natural design - the platypus actually reproduce more platypus, so they are not an abnormality in the intelligent sense that a person born with no eyes, fetal alcohol syndrome or conjoined twins are.

I don't believe a lot of the stuff on Wikipedia. It is generally written by modern scholars, and more often "scholars", who make up stuff to support their world view. So neo-pagans are inventing a history of continuous paganism in Europe out of thin air, ditto on homosexual "scholars" inventing thorough histories of widespread and publicly approved sodomic practice throughout Christendom, just as Plato in your article accused the Cretan intellectuals of making their story up to justify what they do. Happened then, happens now.

In any event, I am equally unlikely to convince you no matter what I say, either - right?

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 07:07
Are not (genuine) Orthodox Christians also EXCEPTIONAL? I know you do not equate exceptionality with aberration. Should a Saint pretend to be "normal"? Should a genius just go along with the prevailing consensus?

If you know that I do not equate them (and of course I do not), then why do you ask such questions?

In speaking of the general rule and the exception, and the modern trend to fail to distinguish between them, I DO mean that aberrations ARE increasingly treated as "alternative rules". It is that kind of thinking that produces expressions like "differently abled", which, while containing some truth - people with missing or damaged faculties often learn to compensate - the blind man pays more attention to his hearing and gets more out of it - becomes false in suggesting that the aberration is an alternate norm, and on equal footing, equally desirable, as having the normal faculties. The blazingly obvious fact that the person cannot enjoy the miracles of walking and seeing is forgotten, ceases to be obvious. The person who thinks like that has himself become mentally handicapped. And so, people with damaged faculties - or desires perverted from their true objects - come to imagine that they are an alternate norm.

breezy
20-04-2012, 09:31
Thats another very valid reason for not wanting a stroke! :eek:

hahaha! i LOVE irish accents... i wouldnt mind having one, lol!

omg, just clicked on ur link, u like marina v?? i met her a couple times!!! lol! she is super nice and pretty :)

yakspeare
20-04-2012, 09:39
Can you imagine becoming orthodox by stroke?

breezy
20-04-2012, 09:57
Can you imagine becoming orthodox by stroke?


that might make for an interesting day, lol

TolkoRaz
20-04-2012, 11:35
omg, just clicked on ur link, u like marina v?? i met her a couple times!!! lol! she is super nice and pretty :)

She sings my song! :)

Shooters
20-04-2012, 15:02
Reading this, I can imagine what will be the discussions here for the next gaypride in Moscow.

By the way we will organize at Shooters an ANTI-GAYPRIDE party, Saturday May 26th! It will be... hot!

PS. To avoid the usual trolls, note that anti-gaypride does not mean anti-gay!

Disco Kings
20-04-2012, 15:14
Shameless advertising.

Ibanez
20-04-2012, 15:30
Well,im a little surprised im on you ignore list RM-Gee,I didnt know I annoyed you so much,can we kiss and make up?No tongues obviously,just a quick peck.......
so heres a link to show that Homosexuality was not the exception in Ancient Greece-more like the Rule.......also not forgetting "Sapphic" love ,ie Lesbianism is named after Sappho,the 1st "lesbian".....and of course Lesbian is named after Lesbos the island retreat of said lesbians.

http://www.historytoday.com/louis-compton/army-lovers-sacred-band-thebes
Blame it on the Greeks,a bit like the Euro crisis.....No tittering in embarrassment now,especially with the Spartans.

This reminds me of the difference between the ancient civilizations...
:rofl:
A Greek and Italian were arguing over who had the superior culture.
The Greek says, "We have the Parthenon."

Arching his eyebrows, the Italian replies, "We have the Coliseum."

The Greek retorts, "We Greeks gave birth to advanced mathematics"

The Italian, nodding agreement, says, "But we built the Roman Empire."

And so on and so on until the Greek comes up with what he thinks will
end the discussion.
j
With a flourish of finality he says, "We invented sex!"
The Italian replies, "That is true, but it was the Italians who
introduced it to women."

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 17:55
PP, you joined Spara in pretty directly insulting that priest. I can handle being insulted myself, but when you insult people that I know much better than you do, then I don't really want that kind of company.

You cannot prove to me that same-sex relations were the rule. I am aware that there are hundreds of sites claiming to prove that they were today. But claims mean nothing on their own. First, you have a problem with primary sources. Not nearly enough. All indications are that the practices were largely limited to a wealthy elite, and not generally practiced by the population at large. Then, such literature that we do have really does NOT support the idea at all. If it WERE true, if it were a rule, it would be all over the myths and legends. There would be as many stories of Perseus or whoever rushing to save a young man from a monster so he could bed him as to save Andromeda. But the stories just aren't there. The ones you'll find - online - are pretty much all of modern manufacturing. All of the stories, from formal literary prose and poetry, to myths, fairy tales and legends, are pretty consistent about men striving to bed women, not other men. The exceptions are notably and admittedly exceptions.

So web sites by pseudo-scholars seeking to justify the practice today just don't cut it as proof. I need only look at the mass of literature to have a good solid, fairly accurate idea of what was normal and what was exceptional.

peppermintpaddy
20-04-2012, 18:29
PP, you joined Spara in pretty directly insulting that priest. I can handle being insulted myself, but when you insult people that I know much better than you do, then I don't really want that kind of company.

OH dear.....i insulted some self-important god-botherer.friend of yours...I reserve the right to insult just about anyone,especially the self-important.

You cannot prove to me that same-sex relations were the rule.

No one can prove anything to you RS-your mind is already made up,however even the most sceptical can see Homosexuality among the Ancient Greeks especially was not considered anything bad.If you had read that link,you would see that it was the norm in the army.

All indications are that the practices were largely limited to a wealthy elite, and not generally practiced by the population at large. If it WERE true, if it were a rule, it would be all over the myths and legends.

Its all over the Iliad/Oddyssey......are they myths,legends or history?...maybe a bit of all three.The myths and legends were written down told as to be told to children also,therefore sanitized...a little like in the bible when it says "and moses knew her etc....



nice to see we've kissed and made up.....you must have forgiven me!

MickeyTong
20-04-2012, 19:10
In any event, I am equally unlikely to convince you no matter what I say, either - right?

Of course you are right. Just as I won't convince you.

breezy
20-04-2012, 19:17
She sings my song! :)

Awwwww That's cute :) I will ask her to make me a song next time I see her, lol

rusmeister
20-04-2012, 20:16
nice to see we've kissed and made up.....you must have forgiven me!
PP, I temporarily removed you from the list to see if there was any misunderstanding on my part.

Insulting - seeking to hurt or being indifferent to any cause of hurt of people - saying they are stupid, fools, or worse, is the opposite of civilization and intelligence. It is a move towards degradation and barbarism. A person who does that forfeits all claim to moral high ground or even a superior mental position. They willfully lower themselves to the level of barbarians. They do not seek to establish truth of ideas while trying to avoid hurt or personal offense (which is distinct from offending their ideas, pointing out the mistakes in them, and using the most civil language in one's power to distinguish the idea from the person and fairly describe the idea).

I wouldn't mind you're saying "I think that priest is unfair when he says..." and "This seems to me to be unreasonable and inconsiderate..." But as long as you're OK with characterizing that priest - again, who I know well and you do not know at all - as "self-important", "god-bothering" and other less pleasant adjectives you've used, there is nothing to say. It is towering ignorance on your part, and you seem to be happy to remain in that ignorance. So for now, it's on the list you stay.

yakspeare
20-04-2012, 20:45
strange how you find God botherer offensive...it was one of two standard terms we used in the Navy to describe Chaplains.

The other was sin Bosun
(Muscle Bosun- was physical trainer, fang Bosun was Dentist etc)

peppermintpaddy
20-04-2012, 21:12
PP, I temporarily removed you from the list to see if there was any misunderstanding on my part.

Insulting - seeking to hurt or being indifferent to any cause of hurt of people - saying they are stupid, fools, or worse, is the opposite of civilization and intelligence. It is a move towards degradation and barbarism. A person who does that forfeits all claim to moral high ground or even a superior mental position. They willfully lower themselves to the level of barbarians. They do not seek to establish truth of ideas while trying to avoid hurt or personal offense (which is distinct from offending their ideas, pointing out the mistakes in them, and using the most civil language in one's power to distinguish the idea from the person and fairly describe the idea).

I wouldn't mind you're saying "I think that priest is unfair when he says..." and "This seems to me to be unreasonable and inconsiderate..." But as long as you're OK with characterizing that priest - again, who I know well and you do not know at all - as "self-important", "god-bothering" and other less pleasant adjectives you've used, there is nothing to say. It is towering ignorance on your part, and you seem to be happy to remain in that ignorance. So for now, it's on the list you stay.

Well,thankyou for educating me by defining insult......I should have said "I reserve the right to take the p*** out of almost anyone"
I have never claimed any "moral high ground"RS-i know thats where you like to be.....common(sense) ground is where I like to have my feet planted.
I don't believe you'll keep me on that ignore list for long,you're too much of a sweetie to do that.

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 10:29
By the way we will organize at Shooters an ANTI-GAYPRIDE party, Saturday May 26th! It will be... hot!

Oh, how sweet. A party of bigots.

Shooters
23-04-2012, 14:18
Oh, how sweet. A party of bigots.

Non-gay are bigots? Well, well....

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 14:37
Non-gay are bigots?

If they host an anti gay-pride party they are.

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 14:57
If they host an anti gay-pride party they are.
If people don't like gay-prides, they're already bigots? 8)))

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 15:43
If people don't like gay-prides, they're already bigots? 8)))

Since, among other things, bigotry is the inability to conceive of an alternative to a proposition, it is ironic that the real bigots should define bigotry as something they happen to not like, particularly if it's connected to some religious idea. And the whole thing is that they cannot conceive that there can be rational opposition to the proliferation of social approval of homosexual behavior. They can't imagine how it could be and so just convince themselves that there cannot be, and refuse to even try to consider the rational defenses when they ARE offered, and smother them in the media, and reply using parroted rhetoric, catch phrases and buzz words that are themselves irrational, such as "homophobia", further reinforcing the falsehood they have created for themselves, as if it were an irrational fear, rather than a rational desire for a normal society.

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 16:14
Here I agree, rus, but I don't see exact point from Vovochka yet - where he sees bigotry in the party mentioned above.

robertmf
23-04-2012, 16:23
If people don't like gay-prides, they're already bigots? 8)))

Creepy 1950's Anti-Homosexual PSA - YouTube

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 16:34
Creepy 1950's Anti-Homosexual PSA - YouTube[/url]
What is PSA? :suspect:

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 16:37
If people don't like gay-prides, they're already bigots? 8)))

Bigotry is being intolerant of a group based on race, gender, age, orientation, or nationality. I think hosting a party for 'anti-gay' anything fits that description, wouldn't you?

robertmf
23-04-2012, 16:38
What is PSA? :suspect:

Maybe Public Service Announcement.

I know "PSA" as prostate examination. There's one test with blood draw, and one test with the popsicle stick swipes.

:devilish: and then there's the test with the finger wiggle-waggle ...

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 16:43
:devilish: and then there's the test with the finger wiggle-waggle ...

It is called "Suliko" massage ;)

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 16:46
Bigotry is being intolerant of a group based on race, gender, age, orientation, or nationality. I think hosting a party for 'anti-gay' anything fits that description, wouldn't you?

There is special note - not anti-gay, but anti-gay-pride. ;)

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 16:47
Since, among other things, bigotry is the inability to conceive of an alternative to a proposition, it is ironic that the real bigots should define bigotry as something they happen to not like, particularly if it's connected to some religious idea. And the whole thing is that they cannot conceive that there can be rational opposition to the proliferation of social approval of homosexual behavior. They can't imagine how it could be and so just convince themselves that there cannot be, and refuse to even try to consider the rational defenses when they ARE offered, and smother them in the media, and reply using parroted rhetoric, catch phrases and buzz words that are themselves irrational, such as "homophobia", further reinforcing the falsehood they have created for themselves, as if it were an irrational fear, rather than a rational desire for a normal society.

It is really a broken record with you. Please don't justify and then project your shallow thought-process on me. I am not intolerant towards you based on a characteristic, so the hackneyed tactic of simply turning the table and calling me a bigot as well is both illogical and unfounded. I object to your thoughts and your behavior, and whether you slyly cloak it in religious belief or otherwise is irrelevant. You are the bigot here. It's not rhetoric or irrational; it's just a fact.

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 16:53
There is special note - not anti-gay, but anti-gay-pride. ;)

Same difference. One's merely a component of the other. Intolerance of any group's pride in the defining trait for said group, be it ethnicity or orientation is still intolerance. Replace "anti-gay" with "anti-Black" and you see quite quickly why for all intents and purposes, the two are interchangeable. Inherent in the intolerance towards a group's 'pride' is an intolerance for the group itself, and either way supports curtailing that group's inalienable rights.

MickeyTong
23-04-2012, 16:56
...... parroted rhetoric, catch phrases and buzz words that are themselves irrational, such as "homophobia", further reinforcing the falsehood they have created for themselves, as if it were an irrational fear, rather than a rational desire for a normal society.

The irrational fear (phobia) is that homosexuality will destroy society unless it is ruthlessly suppressed.

peppermintpaddy
23-04-2012, 17:10
Creepy 1950's Anti-Homosexual PSA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE)

FAF-but seriously creepy.....
Quote" One never knows when a homosexual is about,he may appear normal,it may be too late when youi discover he is mentally ill "

How times have changed-and they needed to.

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 17:10
One's merely a component of the other.
And that's all.

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 17:12
When it comes to bigotry, that's all you need and it's enough. Enough to know that any establishment hosting an anti-gay-pride party is no establishment I would ever visit. It's disgusting, really.

peppermintpaddy
23-04-2012, 17:18
FAF-but seriously creepy.....
Quote" One never knows when a homosexual is about,he may appear normal,it may be too late when you discover he is mentally ill "

How times have changed-and they needed to.


Actually-if you replace the word Homosexual with .....Fundamentalist,Neo-Con, or Republican it is more apt in this day and age.Perhaps we need to do a PSA film to stop people voting them in!

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 17:19
Enough to know that any establishment hosting an anti-gay-pride party is no establishment I would ever visit.
Does anybody force or invite you? :suspect: It is private establishment and they may do what they want on their territory (if still inside RF laws). As same as private gay clubs may do what they want on their territory (if still inside RF laws).


It's disgusting, really.
It is the question of taste. ;)

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 17:34
Does anybody force or invite you? :suspect:

Forced? No. Invited? The establishment made an open statement about an open event on a public forum. I think you can call that an invite.

Also, isn't this is a discussion board? If someone posts an announcement in this folder, it's open for discussion, is it not?

Well, It is private establishment and they may do what they want on their territory (if still inside RF laws).

They posted an announcement on a public forum. If they wanted it private, then it is surely a strange way to be private.

Also, I don't believe anyone questioned whether it was legal by RF laws or not. Bigotry is legal. It's simple-minded, but I never said it wasn't allowed by RF Laws, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Is your only rationale in commenting on these boards whether something is legal or not?

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 17:44
There's always the Ignore List for broken records, Vovochka, which is where you're going now.
All the best!

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 17:47
Invited? The establishment made an open statement about an open event on a public forum. I think you can call that an invite. Also, isn't this is a discussion board? If someone posts an announcement in this folder, it's open for discussion, is it not?
Strange question. Surely it is open. Would it be closed, you'd just not be able to post comments. :) So please feel free to continue.


They posted an announcement on a public forum. If they wanted it private, then it is surely a strange way to be private.
People often do (very) strange things.

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 17:53
The irrational fear (phobia) is that homosexuality will destroy society unless it is ruthlessly suppressed.

Ah, but I can show that there ARE such things as rational fears of things that can destroy society unless suppressed. And if there ARE such things, then you must consider what you have never hitherto considered - the arguments as to WHY the open practice of this thing poses a genuine clear and present danger to society.

So first, do you deny that anarchy is a threat to society? Could anarchists and nihilists, if permitted, overthrow existing order and throw everything into chaos (and the inevitable destruction of what has been built via civilization)?

If you do deny it, we need talk no further, for the irrationality is on YOUR side. If you do not, then we can proceed to the next step - that of considering whether other things could also threaten society.

peppermintpaddy
23-04-2012, 18:33
There's always the Ignore List for broken records, Vovochka, which is where you're going now.
All the best!
Bloody hell rus-you'll soon have the forum all to yourself!


Ah, but I can show that there ARE such things as rational fears of things that can destroy society unless suppressed.

(and the inevitable destruction of what has been built via civilization)?

- that of considering whether other things could also threaten society.

Amazing Rus-you being worried about things that could destroy society...yet you have not made a single post on the thread about Brevic,his murders and the Islamification of Europe.Do you agree with your Moslem Fundamentalist friends about the stoning to death of Homosexuals?
Most ,nay all religious Fundamentalists hate gays-its what they ALL agree on!

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 18:49
Just for information:
http://top.rbc.ru/politics/23/04/2012/647734.shtml
Moscow's City Duma "round table" discussions about future possible local (Moscow city) law againist of propaganda of homosexualism and pedophilia between minors.
Already exists in Arkhangelsk region, Ryazan' region and SPb.

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 19:07
There's always the Ignore List for broken records, Vovochka, which is where you're going now.
All the best!

Excellent (although I'm not going anywhere - it's you who is virtually walking away from what you won't admit). I won't be losing much sleep about not talking with a shallow bigot, needless to say.

Does anyone else find it ironic that in a discussion about tolerance and openness, Rusmeister opted to close himself off more? The actions of close-minded person indeed. No surprises there. That's what tolerance is: an inability to listen to others. The truth hurts and it's easier not to face it.

I wish I could say I wish you well in your ever-shrinking circle, but alas, I really don't.

MickeyTong
23-04-2012, 19:12
Ah, but I can show that there ARE such things as rational fears of things that can destroy society unless suppressed. And if there ARE such things, then you must consider what you have never hitherto considered - the arguments as to WHY the open practice of this thing poses a genuine clear and present danger to society.

So first, do you deny that anarchy is a threat to society? Could anarchists and nihilists, if permitted, overthrow existing order and throw everything into chaos (and the inevitable destruction of what has been built via civilization)?

If you do deny it, we need talk no further, for the irrationality is on YOUR side. If you do not, then we can proceed to the next step - that of considering whether other things could also threaten society.


Not far below the surface of your kind offer to help me think, I detect a tone of patronising condescension - which may be effective in galvanising dim schoolboys into learning the niceties of English grammar but diminishes your credibility when directed at an intelligent adult who deals with pathological irrationality on a daily basis.
So, please, allow that I do actually consider things with a modicum of depth rather than merely parrot the opinions du jour of people/groups whose agendas I can only speculate upon. If you deny that, we need talk no further: I, too, have an Ignore button.

Shooters
23-04-2012, 19:57
Bigotry is being intolerant of a group based on race, gender, age, orientation, or nationality. I think hosting a party for 'anti-gay' anything fits that description, wouldn't you?

I wrote anti-gayPRIDE, and I even added (for that clever people like you understand) "PS. To avoid the usual trolls, note that anti-gaypride does not mean anti-gay!".

It seems that the troll is identified! vovochka, congrats, you won!

Shooters
23-04-2012, 19:58
When it comes to bigotry, that's all you need and it's enough. Enough to know that any establishment hosting an anti-gay-pride party is no establishment I would ever visit.

Good, we are safe now :)

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 20:00
Not far below the surface of your kind offer to help me think, I detect a tone of patronising condescension - which may be effective in galvanising dim schoolboys into learning the niceties of English grammar but diminishes your credibility when directed at an intelligent adult who deals with pathological irrationality on a daily basis.
So, please, allow that I do actually consider things with a modicum of depth rather than merely parrot the opinions du jour of people/groups whose agendas I can only speculate upon. If you deny that, we need talk no further: I, too, have an Ignore button.

Mickey, the only problem with that is that I KNOW my view and it is quite rational, while your view as stated implies that there IS no rational view (even rational and wrong); therefore, I definitely know something that you don't, iow, you certainly have NOT considered my view. That's not an attempt to patronize but an attempt to enlighten where I honestly think I have something to offer, just as you might around your own knowledge and experience.

As posted, I meant it to see where we CAN find common ground. If we can't on that basic beginning, then we certainly can't at any later point contingent on that first one. NOT patronizing!

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 20:03
Just for information:
http://top.rbc.ru/politics/23/04/2012/647734.shtml
Moscow's City Duma "round table" discussions about future possible local (Moscow city) law againist of propaganda of homosexualism and pedophilia between minors.
Already exists in Arkhangelsk region, Ryazan' region and SPb.
I might've said it already, but when a people have common sense, no law is necessary. It only becomes necessary when they lose it, and I fear that in the long run, even the law won't help unless the common sense be regained.

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 20:32
I might've said it already, but when a people have common sense, no law is necessary. It only becomes necessary when they lose it, and I fear that in the long run, even the law won't help unless the common sense be regained.
How often in whole history of mankind people had common sense? :(

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 20:35
I wrote anti-gayPRIDE, and I even added (for that clever people like you understand) "PS. To avoid the usual trolls, note that anti-gaypride does not mean anti-gay!". See my comments above that answer this very question for the less clever people.


It seems that the troll is identified! vovochka, congrats, you won!

Judging by your customer service standards (calling people liars, idiots and BS-ers), hosting events for bigots and spamming people, I think it's pretty clear to everyone here who the troll is.

peppermintpaddy
23-04-2012, 20:40
I wrote anti-gayPRIDE, and I even added (for that clever people like you understand) "PS. To avoid the usual trolls, note that anti-gaypride does not mean anti-gay!".

It seems that the troll is identified! vovochka, congrats, you won!

Why didnt you call it the "The Straight pride party" or the "alternative pride party" instead of what you called it........calling something "the Anti-"....immediately draws negative comments......

peppermintpaddy
23-04-2012, 20:45
Mickey, the only problem with that is that I KNOW my view and it is quite rational, while your view as stated implies that there IS no rational view (even rational and wrong); therefore, I definitely know something that you don't, iow, you certainly have NOT considered my view. That's not an attempt to patronize but an attempt to enlighten where I honestly think I have something to offer, just as you might around your own knowledge and experience.

As posted, I meant it to see where we CAN find common ground. If we can't on that basic beginning, then we certainly can't at any later point contingent on that first one. NOT patronizing!

Rus-Am i on the ignore button list again?......sometimes i am ,sometimes i'm not.......otherwise why are you ignoring the perfectly reasonable question I posed on post 65....Do you like your Moslem brothers ,hate gays.?I know how you Religious people always agree on that specific question.....a simple yes or no would be honest-(and save loads of time)

Korotky Gennady
23-04-2012, 20:54
I heard some people even become gay from sex...

Hey ! Mr. Yak, when I was writing to you about these cases before, you answered me that it couldn't be so.

FatAndy
23-04-2012, 21:05
Why didnt you call it the "The Straight pride party" or the "alternative pride party" instead of what you called it........calling something "the Anti-"....immediately draws negative comments......
Calling smth "Anti-" is somehow provocative, causes a wave of emotions, reactions, discussions... attracts attention, opinions ;)

Like Jewish proverb from Odessa - "Make noise, Izya..." ;)

MickeyTong
23-04-2012, 21:06
............................NOT patronizing!


Not much, no, not really, of course not. You just assume that I have "no rational view" - nothing patronising about that. If someone stated there was "no rational view" from your Orthodox Christian perspective, you would consider dialogue pointless and, IMO, you would be justified in holding that opinion.

A pity, but this is the last post of yours to which I will respond.
Goodbye and best wishes.

yakspeare
23-04-2012, 21:10
Hey ! Mr. Yak, when I was writing to you about these cases before, you answered me that it couldn't be so.

huh? In English or Russian please, not Korotkiski

robertmf
23-04-2012, 21:18
huh? In English or Russian please, not Korotkiski

KG is saying you speak with forked tongue.

yakspeare
23-04-2012, 21:24
KG is saying you speak with forked tongue.



and he clearly lacks a sense of humour.

robertmf
23-04-2012, 21:29
and he clearly lacks a sense of humour.

"Russians" are not known for their humour in the Benny Hill or 3 Stooges sense of the word.

MickeyTong
23-04-2012, 21:32
"Russians" are not known for their humour in the Benny Hill or 3 Stooges sense of the word.



Benny Hill was funny??????

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 21:42
How often in whole history of mankind people had common sense? :(
In Christendom, quite often, I think, though certainly not always.

The ignore list certainly is a relief, when one is tired of reading people who hate, and want to express that hate!

rusmeister
23-04-2012, 21:45
Not much, no, not really, of course not. You just assume that I have "no rational view" - nothing patronising about that. If someone stated there was "no rational view" from your Orthodox Christian perspective, you would consider dialogue pointless and, IMO, you would be justified in holding that opinion.

A pity, but this is the last post of yours to which I will respond.
Goodbye and best wishes.
If you insist on taking that way, Mickey.
It's not fair, though.
For your part, you want to totally deny my worldview, too. You DO insist that it is irrational. I think there is a space where we could disagree and acknowledge reason, even if wrong, on the part of the other. But if you start from the "You believers are whacko, and I know better than anyone, because I was one", how could it end any differently?

Vovochka
23-04-2012, 21:56
, when one is tired of reading people who hate, and want to express that hate!

Now THAT's funny. An intolerant bigot complaining about haters! You couldn't make this stuff up.

peppermintpaddy
24-04-2012, 01:05
Calling smth "Anti-" is somehow provocative, causes a wave of emotions, reactions, discussions... attracts attention, opinions ;)

Like Jewish proverb from Odessa - "Make noise, Izya..." ;)

Isnt that what I just posted-you merely repeated my post-then nearly quoted a jewish proverb...oi vey!

LOOKS like rusmeister has me on ignore again....so i'll take it he hates gays like the Fundamentalists in ALL religions do(except Buddhism)

so little time....so much to hate.No wonder he has to use the ignore button.

rusmeister
24-04-2012, 06:31
Not much, no, not really, of course not. You just assume that I have "no rational view" - nothing patronising about that. If someone stated there was "no rational view" from your Orthodox Christian perspective, you would consider dialogue pointless and, IMO, you would be justified in holding that opinion.

A pity, but this is the last post of yours to which I will respond.
Goodbye and best wishes.

One more thing that I missed (I had thought you were quoting me talking about what you think about my position).

I did NOT say that you have no rational view, but that you do not know what my position is based on and (seem to) hold that I have no rational view.. It appears that you inferred an entirely wrong message from my words.

You're free to not respond, of course, but it would be a pity if it was all a misunderstanding (as it appears to be).

Shooters
24-04-2012, 08:13
Why didnt you call it the "The Straight pride party" or the "alternative pride party" instead of what you called it........calling something "the Anti-"....immediately draws negative comments......

Right, but it also attracts more attention. An ad for "straight pride party" will be less efficient than for a "anti gaypride party".

And as Russians are massively against these protests of gays, they will more appreciate. Of course bigots who groan against my announce won't, but do I really care...?

Shooters
24-04-2012, 08:17
Judging by your customer service standards (calling people liars, idiots and BS-ers), hosting events for bigots and spamming people, I think it's pretty clear to everyone here who the troll is.

Bigots are people who do not allow others to think different way. YOU, for example :) But I won't host any event for bigots like you, don't worry :)

And how could I call a person who lies, other than "a liar"?

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 10:31
Bigots are people who do not allow others to think different way. YOU, for example :)

Um, first, you're "allowed" to think however you please. Second, your definition is incorrect. A bigot is someone who judges another group based on a--usually--innate characteristic. I have done neither. I have no prejudice against you as a person. I do object to your shallow ideas, but that's not bigotry, I'm sorry to say.


And how could I call a person who lies, other than "a liar"?

I'm surprised that someone in the customer service industry would have such difficulty grappling with the concept of customer service. But, as you ask (and you seem to enjoy negative attention), my advice would be, rather than to immediately call a potential customer a liar and prove him/her wrong, that you apologize for any misunderstanding and invite him/her back to show them how committed you are to providing a good experience. Maybe the person who complained is correct, maybe he isn't, but calling him a liar certainly won't get him back, regardless of nationality.

Shooters
24-04-2012, 11:02
Um, first, you're "allowed" to think however you please. Second, your definition is incorrect. A bigot is someone who judges another group based on a--usually--innate characteristic. I have done neither. I have no prejudice against you as a person. I do object to your shallow ideas, but that's not bigotry, I'm sorry to say.

I won't argue on semantic points. About my ideas, do you know them, to judge they are "shallow"? It is probably not bigotry, my English is a bit poor. So let's call this intolerance, okay? You are just intolerant with my [shallow, if you want] ideas :)
Bah! I do not really care about your thinking, so you may avoid to reply :)


> I'm surprised that someone in the customer service industry would have such difficulty grappling with the concept of customer service. But, as you ask (and you seem to enjoy negative attention), my advice would be, rather than to immediately call a potential customer a liar and prove him/her wrong, that you apologize for any misunderstanding and invite him/her back to show them how committed you are to providing a good experience. Maybe the person who complained is correct, maybe he isn't, but calling him a liar certainly won't get him back, regardless of nationality

I have posted here all evidences that clearly show that the person is wrong. People can lie deliberatly, by omission, by lack of memory, etc. The considered person in this case probably knows the truth, but whatever it is, she lied by saying what she said. This is also semantic...
So I have for sure nothing to apologize for in this case (the 111 rubles tequila, I mean). Rather, the person should, to have posted not real facts on a public forum, and to persists rather after evidences have been posted in reply! But once more, I do not really care of this :)
I would apologize IF we would have made an error, but that is not the case here.

Allow me to expect that you have better to do than feed the troll, on my side I won't reply anymore, unless new false statements are posted of course :)
Have a good day!

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 11:17
About my ideas, do you know them, to judge they are "shallow"?

Since you posted an annoucement about your party, you've let everyone know, have you not?


You are just intolerant with my [shallow, if you want] ideas :)

I'm not intolerant of them. To the contrary, I think everyone has the right to think whatever they want. I also think you have the right to express your ideas (whether they're ugly or not). I'm not asking anyone to ban you. You, want to curtail others right to express their ideas. That's what gay-pride is. You're hosting a party for people who want to pass laws banning gay parades. Do you see the difference ?


I have posted here all evidences that clearly show that the person is wrong. People can lie deliberatly, by omission, by lack of memory, etc. The considered person in this case probably knows the truth, but whatever it is, she lied by saying what she said. This is also semantic...So I have for sure nothing to apologize for in this case

It's not semantics - it's service. Ever hear "The Customer is always right"? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, an establishment calling people 'liars' in public looks defensive and rude. You apologize not because you're right or wrong, but because good customer service is always deferential to the customer. Maybe you don't want that person back, but you've probably lost dozens more who realize that, as an establishment, Shooters responds defenisively to complaints.

But that's my opinion and as you said, you don't care (something else I would never say if my login was the name of service establishment).

A good day to you, too.

Shooters
24-04-2012, 11:46
You're hosting a party for people who want to pass laws banning gay parades. Do you see the difference ?


So to be clear about gays (after all it is the topic!), I have nothing against gays, they are free to give their popa to whoever they want. But I am strongly against their public demonstrations, yes. I don't want my kids to see 2 men kissing each other, for example. That is why yes, I am FOR the ban of gay parades. Being gay or not is a private affair, no need to make it public.
Voila, you are happy probably, a new reason to say I am a bigot, extremist, etc etc. The old music... :)


> Maybe you don't want that person back, but you've probably lost dozens more

Do you want to check my PMs box? I count exactly 17 messages from 11 various people, who do support me on this point.


> But that's my opinion and as you said, you don't care (something else I would never say if my login was the name of service establishment).

Some kind people even posted my full name and some passed activity here, so I have nothing to hide. And it is funny, but a few Customers after this spoke to me and gave me comgratulations :)))))

I could open a new account here without reference to the bar, but why? I am not globally interested by this forum unless than by a commercial side. It is not a secret :)

And the anti-gaypride IS commercial sure. But it is very pleasant when we can do business according to our ethical, philosophical... and political ideas!


> A good day to you, too.

bis :)

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 12:02
Being gay or not is a private affair, no need to make it public.

Except, there is a reason to make it public. They're denied the same rights others enjoy. And, when you're denied those rights, you attract attention to your cause. You have marches, demonstrations, protests, campaigns, etc.

There are lots of things I don't like seeing, but I don't try to ban them. Maybe, if gays could marry like everyone else, they wouldn't need to have gay-parades.


Do you want to check my PMs box? I count exactly 17 messages from 11 various people, who do support me on this point.

Nope, and good for you. I bet there'd be a lot more though if you had just told Celia you were sorry for any misunderstanding and you'd be happy to give her a drink "on the house" her next time.



Some kind people even posted my full name and some passed activity here, so I have nothing to hide. And it is funny, but a few Customers after this spoke to me and gave me comgratulations :)))))

I wasn't implying that you were hiding, nor do I care what your past activity was. I was saying that if you represent a service establishment, I wouldn't write "I don't care". It reflects poorly on the establishment. That's all. I think a service establishment should always care.

Just my suggestions (as you asked).

Shooters
24-04-2012, 12:10
Except, there is a reason to make it public. They're denied the same rights others enjoy. And, when you're denied those rights, you attract attention to your cause. You have marches, demonstrations, protests, campaigns, etc.

There are lots of things I don't like seeing, but I don't try to ban them. Maybe, if gays could marry like everyone else, they wouldn't need to have gay-parades.


This is a provocation ))) Of course I am strictly against right to get married, and to adopt kid(s).


> Nope, and good for you. I bet there'd be a lot more though if you had just told Celia you were sorry for any misunderstanding and you'd be happy to give her a drink "on the house" her next time.


It is exactly what I told to somebody else who had an error in the bar and who wrote privately. Bottle of champagne or 2 free cocktails of her choice. You would be surprised to know how many free drinks I offer every day.... to CORRECT people. And only.


> I wasn't implying that you were hiding, nor do I care what your past activity was. I was saying that if you represent a service establishment, I wouldn't write "I don't care". It reflects poorly on the establishment. That's all. I think a service establishment should always care.


I always care :) But where a person is so blind that she does not see that she is right, I give up.

rusmeister
24-04-2012, 12:41
Right, but it also attracts more attention. An ad for "straight pride party" will be less efficient than for a "anti gaypride party".

And as Russians are massively against these protests of gays, they will more appreciate. Of course bigots who groan against my announce won't, but do I really care...?

It is obvious that either the philosophy that there IS no norm, that there are only "orientations", and marriage and the family are whatever you declare them to be; that is, they cease to be objective and definable institutions must dominate and drive out the traditional understandings held in common by pretty much all of mankind throughout history up to now, or the traditional understandings must drive out this insane idea that marriage, sex and the family can be whatever one wants it to be. They cannot co-exist. The one pretends that it can tolerate the other, but only by insisting that it is not normal, that it cannot determine the basis for forming society. Logically, I must acknowledge a "family" of two men, a man and his dog, three men, a women and two children (all as consenting sexual "partners"). If the institutions can be redefined at all, then they can be redefined at will. And there is no reason to stop at any given point - to say that it may beonly two consenting adults. Why not three? Or six? Why not reduce the age of consent as much as we like? Why not animals? On what basis do you propose reshaping society?

So the traditional attitude of common sense broadly recognized by intelligent Russians and lost by most of the Western intellectual elite (if they may be called such) really does have reason on its side, and the intellectuals no real intellect, only lust and the irrational idea that these things cannot ruin and destroy civilization.

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 12:54
This is a provocation ))) Of course I am strictly against right to get married, and to adopt kid(s).

Not a provocation at all. You would deny them the right to marry, and then when they protest that, you deny them the right to protest. It's kind of like you want it both ways. As long as you admit your position is discriminating, then great - and we shouldn't dispute it when someone calls that being bigoted.

rusmeister
24-04-2012, 16:14
Not a provocation at all. You would deny them the right to marry, and then when they protest that, you deny them the right to protest. It's kind of like you want it both ways. As long as you admit your position is discriminating, then great - and we shouldn't dispute it when someone calls that being bigoted.
If it is bigotry, then believing that there must be limits on social freedom is bigotry. Then believing that anarchists ought to be denied the right to conduct anarchy and the right to advocate it is bigotry. We do not think that anything and everything; every desire that people may happen to have ought to be legalized and gratified. We do not think the pedophile's unnatural desire for children should be granted, hence, by your logic, we are "bigots". We do not think men should legally be allowed either sex or marriage with one's pet, and so we are "bigots". We believe that these things SHOULD be discriminated against, whereas your logic says at NOTHING should be discriminated against. We say discrimination can be either good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, you say it can only be bad. Well, if our quite rational stand is "bigotry", then I would not want to NOT be one.

Only that's why your definition of bigotry can't possibly be right. It really adds up to a label to attack anyone who supports what you don't like, or in this case, fails to support what you happen to approve of.

Not that it's any good saying that to you. But it might help someone else see that it is actually your position that is unreasonable.

(I can predict the follow-up: Vovochka excoriates me for equating pedophilia and bestiality to homosexuality, which I don't actually do, but he'll say I do, and of course, my previous post will go ignored, the point that the traditional family cannot co-exist alongside the new "family" limited only by the imagination in its composition.)

Either the family is a solidly defined thing that can never be, generally speaking, up for re-definition, or the term becomes absolutely meaningless.

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 17:07
You really ARE a broken record, Rus (although inconsistent, apparently, as I thought I was being ignored, alas). You keep spouting the same illogical analogies ad nauseum. But for all your effected written elegance and esoteric mumblings into meanings and family, you're still a narrow-minded bigot. This isn't MY definition of bigotry, either. Intolerance against groups of people based on innate characteristics is THE definition. If you'd like to move the goal posts and change definitions to justify how shallow you are in denying inalienable rights, then go ahead, but don't then try to blame others.

And yes, you did equate beastility and pedophilia with homosexuality by attempting to define why you find--what you oddly think is my definition of--bigotry acceptable by comparing homosexuality to criminal acts (I'll spare you the embarrasment of your reference to anarchists which isn't even a group with inherently innate characteristics). It's akin to your asking if it's okay to deny equal rights to red-heads because we have laws against murder. There is no connection. The presumption of equal rights does not preclude an ability to distinguish mutually consensual from criminal or abusive behavior. It just belies any intelligent grasp on the topic whatsoever.

I'm split on whether you're truly too simple and narrow-minded to grasp this, or really just incapable of admitting that what you know is a primitive and ugly stance is what appears to define you (on these boards, at least).

Either way, I, too hope others see your writing for the virtual pile of steaming BS that it truly is. You, on the other hand, seem beyond help, and while you laughingly decry the 'haters', prefer to seal yourself off by ever increasing the size of your ignore list. Please, put me back on it.

rusmeister
24-04-2012, 17:59
Your wish is granted.

My prediction is confirmed by your predictability...

Vovochka
24-04-2012, 22:18
My prediction is confirmed by your predictability...

Predictability in not being narrow-minded is something I'm happy to continue providing to those who aren't bigots like you.

MickeyTong
24-04-2012, 23:50
http://i39.tinypic.com/dyt8qs.jpg

rusmeister
25-04-2012, 05:39
It is easy to express one's own views. The real talent, though, is to be able to really understand those that you disagree with, and to be able to express them fairly, and even to find what is good in them and praise it. I'm still trying to learn that. GKC did manage it, and very very few people, I think, ever do.

Vovochka
25-04-2012, 07:51
It is easy to express one's own views. The real talent, though, is to be able to really understand those that you disagree with

Knee-slappingly funny to hear a bigot talk about understanding others! Rus, you should take this show on the road or something. You can open with your dissin' the 'hater' jokes and then maybe a few one-liners about understanding and compassion, and then for the grand finale, what's wrong with gays. You'll bring the house down, you big lug!

rusmeister
25-04-2012, 08:13
I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it.

martpark
25-04-2012, 08:31
I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it.

Never watch the show. Den of iniquity. No married people.

Vovochka
25-04-2012, 10:24
I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it.

Please, lose the patronizing and condescending tone. It REALLY doesn't suit a bigot like yourself. And this is yet another belly-laughter-inducing post from you, because you don't understand, Rus. That's the thing. You insist on sticking to all the hackneyed arguments bigots normally take and refuse to listen. You cloak yourself in religion (perhaps the most inconsistent and patently false source of information one could contrive), and continue your BS. You obviously do NOT understand. Forget 'agreeing'. You're too narrow-minded to understand.

And last, Rus, looks like I'm still on the ignore list, am I ? I thought my wish was granted ? Get some balls and stick to your words you bigoted hypocrite.

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 14:39
People will believe anything, I suppose.
Exactly. Some people believe that they landed on the Moon :11157:

whiterussian
25-04-2012, 14:45
http://i39.tinypic.com/dyt8qs.jpg
Gee, I do think it's true though. It is! OMG...

peppermintpaddy
25-04-2012, 14:49
What i'd like to know is...Does Fat Andy press the thanx button on every post Is he the least sincere person on the forum?

FatAndy
25-04-2012, 15:23
Not on every.
Only on those posts in discussion I like ;)

MickeyTong
25-04-2012, 20:46
Never watch the show. Den of iniquity. No married people.

I saw your quote from Rusmeister. I believe that his position is that any disagreement with his and the Orthodox Church's position is only due to not having the rational capacity for understanding.

MickeyTong
25-04-2012, 20:47
What i'd like to know is...Does Fat Andy press the thanx button on every post Is he the least sincere person on the forum?

Maybe....but he is a very good diplomat.

Matt24
25-04-2012, 20:57
I saw your quote from Rusmeister. I believe that his position is that any disagreement with his and the Orthodox Church's is only due to not having the rational capacity for understanding.

what?

FatAndy
25-04-2012, 21:03
Maybe....but he is a very good diplomat.

http://forum.ixbt.com/shuffle.gifhttp://forum.ixbt.com/shuffle.gifhttp://forum.ixbt.com/shuffle.gif

TolkoRaz
25-04-2012, 21:09
What i'd like to know is...Does Fat Andy press the thanx button on every post Is he the least sincere person on the forum?

May be his is just a naturally charitable person :) And for what its worth, I don't think that is a crime! :coffee:

MickeyTong
25-04-2012, 21:11
what?

Rusmeister wrote this: "I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it."

Rusmeister accepts that Spock can understand, but disagree with, a viewpoint. But his own position is that anyone who disagrees with his (Orthodox Christian) viewpoint does not understand it. IOW: understanding Orthodoxy = agreeing with it, and disagreeing with Orthodoxy = not understanding it.
No doubt, there will be people who understand and agree, but their obdurate moral degeneracy will prevent them from accepting the salve of Truth.

blackrussian
26-04-2012, 02:32
understanding Orthodoxy = agreeing with it, and disagreeing with Orthodoxy = not understanding it.
No doubt, there will be people who understand and agree, but their obdurate moral degeneracy will prevent them from accepting the salve of Truth.
How can you be so obtuse? Orthodoxy teaches one thing and one thing only: love people like you love yourself. By making an effort of loving other people, your soul will become lighter and brighter. That's it. There's no hidden values, no secret enemies or foes, only true love. How that can be wrong?

PeteD
26-04-2012, 02:59
Rusmeister wrote this: "I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it."

Rusmeister accepts that Spock can understand, but disagree with, a viewpoint. But his own position is that anyone who disagrees with his (Orthodox Christian) viewpoint does not understand it. IOW: understanding Orthodoxy = agreeing with it, and disagreeing with Orthodoxy = not understanding it.
No doubt, there will be people who understand and agree, but their obdurate moral degeneracy will prevent them from accepting the salve of Truth.

If I was looking for the words, I couldn't have described it better!

(I wasn't looking, but, hey, this describes how I feel! - Nice one, Mickey)

peppermintpaddy
26-04-2012, 03:26
Not on every.
Only on those posts in discussion I like ;)

I don't think youre sincere F A -but youre funny-thanx (without the button)

rusmeister
26-04-2012, 06:40
Rusmeister wrote this: "I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it."

Rusmeister accepts that Spock can understand, but disagree with, a viewpoint. But his own position is that anyone who disagrees with his (Orthodox Christian) viewpoint does not understand it. IOW: understanding Orthodoxy = agreeing with it, and disagreeing with Orthodoxy = not understanding it.
No doubt, there will be people who understand and agree, but their obdurate moral degeneracy will prevent them from accepting the salve of Truth.

Thanks for stating what you think clearly, Mickey. I think clear expression of thoughts to be in rather short supply and appreciate people who can really do it.

Only you have made a mistake in using the word "anyone". It is true that I think YOU (and most people here) really do not understand the Orthodox position. To understand it, you have to be able to say "This is what they say and believe regarding x" so that we can say, "Yes, that is what we say and believe." No one ever does that. Instead, they generally repeat the same expressions, buzz words and catch phrases repeated in the media on a daily basis.

So your equation is wrong. I think it possible to understand Orthodoxy and disagree with it - but it is very difficult to do so, and you would have to have a world view of great cohesion, one that can stand against a tradition affirmed by millions of minds, and thousands of great ones for millennia - a rather daunting task for the lone individual with his mere thirty to sixty years (less if we only count adult thinking). I think the Dalai Lama can understandably disagree with Orthodoxy on a rational (and partially mystical) basis. I think well educated rabbis and imams can do it - but their authority is not merely their lone self. It IS possible to disagree and be rational. One can be wrong, and REASONABLE in being wrong, and I accord you the freedom to hold that about me. The thing I kick hard is the idea that the defense of Orthodoxy is unreasonable, and I do think most unbelieving thought in our time to be unreasonable and half-baked - but do respect the kind that shows that it really does try to grasp my side on the rare occasion when it comes along.

MickeyTong
26-04-2012, 13:46
How can you be so obtuse? Orthodoxy teaches one thing and one thing only: love people like you love yourself. By making an effort of loving other people, your soul will become lighter and brighter. That's it. There's no hidden values, no secret enemies or foes, only true love. How that can be wrong?

Apparently, being obtuse is part of my "fallen" nature, so please forgive me - I was born this way by divine decree.

"That which is hateful to yourself, do not do unto others. That is the heart of the Torah; all the rest is commentary." Hillel (some Jewish bloke).

All religions claim that they teach compassion and love. The devil is in the detail.

Matt24
26-04-2012, 14:26
Rusmeister wrote this: "I am reminded of Spock in the old Star Trek episode (A Taste of Armaggedon, I believe?) when, upon having the reason for a virtual war with very real casualties explained to him:
Spock: "I understand."
Council Head: "I'm glad you agree!"
Spock: "I did not say 'I agree'. I said "I understand."

I'll let those capable of thinking work out how it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it."

Rusmeister accepts that Spock can understand, but disagree with, a viewpoint. But his own position is that anyone who disagrees with his (Orthodox Christian) viewpoint does not understand it. IOW: understanding Orthodoxy = agreeing with it, and disagreeing with Orthodoxy = not understanding it.
No doubt, there will be people who understand and agree, but their obdurate moral degeneracy will prevent them from accepting the salve of Truth.

Gotcha - thank you

Matt24
26-04-2012, 14:31
How can you be so obtuse? Orthodoxy teaches one thing and one thing only: love people like you love yourself. By making an effort of loving other people, your soul will become lighter and brighter. That's it. There's no hidden values, no secret enemies or foes, only true love. How that can be wrong?

Apart from the obtuse bit - I think Blackrussian makes a much more attractive case for the Orthodox Church - I'd certainly hire him/her for comms manager above/before the other dude. Well done.

FatAndy
26-04-2012, 18:32
I don't think youre sincere F A -but youre funny-thanx (without the button)
;)


I'd certainly hire him/her for comms manager above/before the other dude. Well done.
It's too late. He's banned foreva.