391 replies to this topic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 15.52, said:

Soooo the "appropriate" response, when someone donates money to strip you of your rights, is to say "Fine, I won't buy from you any more"?  Is that seriously the response all of you would give?  I guess I'm the odd duck because I would actually fscking fight for my rights.

So we already know that going the legal route to address injustice set's your cause back, and now going the vigilante route also set's your cause back.  I'm guessing this is another case where the only way to advance an unjust cause is to sit down and be very, very quiet?

Under this logic opponents of Gay Marriage in States that have passed it should be knocking heads.  Violence and destruction of property are not the way to go in my sincere opinion.

[Ken Stone]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Jan 19 2009, 15.06, said:

Ken,



Under this logic opponents of Gay Marriage in States that have passed it should be knocking heads.  Violence and destruction of property are not the way to go in my sincere opinion.

Whose rights are being curtailed in your scenario here?

[Tempra]

TerraPrime, on Jan 19 2009, 14.24, said:

That's right. You tell them what to do, Tempra, you champion of equal rights and combatant in the trenches of equal rights for LBGT people you.

Feel free to support vigilantism.  Just don't be surprised when the other side pushes back...much harder.

potty said:

Ahahahahaha!!!!

Of course not, and you know it. He's poking fun at Tempra, who richly deserves it.

Perhaps a few people could do with rereading the rules of etiquette for this board.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 16.07, said:

Whose rights are being curtailed in your scenario here?

No one's.  But you are advocating violence when someone loses on the flip side of this scenario.  If violence is appropreate here those on the flip side will see it justified in their situations whether you do or not.  If you up the anny that way bad things happen.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 19 January 2009 - 04:20 PM.

[Ormond]

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 15.07, said:

Whose rights are being curtailed in your scenario here?

Well, gee, most people who are opposed to same-sex marriage believe that it is not and should not be considered a "right".

I profoundly disagree with them, but if I want them to refrain from being violent against me or destroying my property, maybe I should extend them the same courtesy?

This disagreement needs to be resolved through verbal argument and personal contact, not through anger, hatred, and violence in either direction.

[Stego]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Jan 19 2009, 15.54, said:

Stego,



So, if "Bob" is really upset about the U.S.'s action in Iraq and comes onto the property of someone flying an American flag, tears down the flag, burns it, and spray paints "imperialist" on the front of their house, you're cool with that?

You never argue actual points, do you Scott? You just set up Straw Men that have nothing to do with the argument and ask them.

If there was a sign in the front yard that said "I support the War in Iraq and every single action taken by the Administration in the waging of it." ... then yes, it would be fine with me.

I great big baby jesus buttplug in your eye if you think hanging an American flag is the same thing as saying such.



These people aren't even those who VOTED to strip human beings of their rights. These are people who supported this bigotry with monetary donations.

Edited by Stego, 19 January 2009 - 04:24 PM.

[Ken Stone]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Jan 19 2009, 15.15, said:

No ones.  But you are advocating violence when someone loses on the flip side of this scenario.  If violence is appropreate here those on the flip side will see it justified in their situations whether you do or not.  If you up the anny that way bad things happen.

I never said that any losing side of any scenario should get violent.  I said that if you donate to a cause that strips me of my rights I'm not going quietly, and don't expect others to either.  It's hypocritical of me to tell gays to sit down and shut up when if my marriage was legislated away from me I would not.

[G'Kar]

Deluge, on Jan 19 2009, 15.58, said:

That's part of the reason why this map doesn't particularly bother me. If the information is already available, putting it into an easy to use format isn't exactly a crime.

Thats a good point, except I don't like the idea of making it easier for people to be targeted for their beliefs and who they support. Maybe not criminal...(edited because sentence made no damn sense).

thebadlady,

Why is it important for me to know that Joblo from 123 Fake Street donated $20 to support Prop 8?

Edited by G'Kar, 19 January 2009 - 04:29 PM.

[Stego]

Scott, you're a bloody hypocrite.

You support the Southern side in the Civil War and then you pretend to be against violence.


I am not advocating violence in any way, but I can certainly understand it. And used in this manner it certainly does not bother me.

[Ken Stone]

Ormond, on Jan 19 2009, 15.18, said:

Well, gee, most people who are opposed to same-sex marriage believe that it is not and should not be considered a "right".

I profoundly disagree with them, but if I want them to refrain from being violent against me or destroying my property, maybe I should extend them the same courtesy?

This disagreement needs to be resolved through verbal argument and personal contact, not through anger, hatred, and violence in either direction.

I suppose people could be pacifistic if that is the route they deem the most appropriate.  That's not really my style though.  It also wasn't the style of the Founding Fathers who founded the US.  If they resolved conflict with verbal argument then we don't exist as a country.

[Shryke]

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 16.29, said:

I suppose people could be pacifistic if that is the route they deem the most appropriate.  That's not really my style though.  It also wasn't the style of the Founding Fathers who founded the US.  If they resolved conflict with verbal argument then we don't exist as a country.

Agreed. Gays should violently secede from the US.

Edited by Shryke, 19 January 2009 - 04:33 PM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stego,

Stego, on Jan 19 2009, 16.22, said:

You never argue actual points, do you Scott? You just set up Straw Men that have nothing to do with the argument and ask them.

If there was a sign in the front yard that said "I support the War in Iraq and every single action taken by the Administration in the waging of it." ... then yes, it would be fine with me.

I great big baby jesus buttplug in your eye if you think hanging an American flag is the same thing as saying such.

These people aren't even those who VOTED to strip human beings of their rights. These are people who supported this bigotry with monetary donations.

Look, you are setting up a situation where some people get the protection of law and others don't (I do see the irony) based upon whether you like the political positions they hold.  I think Prop 8 is wrong, but I don't believe supporting it means these people are opening themselves up to property damage because many don't like their position.  

Either we protect people's right to property or we don't.  I don't think anyone opens themself up to violence because they advocate a postion many dislike.  Going there is the road to anarchy.

Quote

Scott, you're a bloody hypocrite.

You support the Southern side in the Civil War and then you pretend to be against violence.

I am not advocating violence in any way, but I can certainly understand it. And used in this manner it certainly does not bother me.

No.  That is a completely different situation for reasons I'm not going to go into detail on because it would cause a complete thread derail.  I will simply say all States in the American Union, not just the Southern States, retained the reserved power to voluntarily choose to leave the Union.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 19 January 2009 - 04:39 PM.

[Rhom]

Shryke, on Jan 19 2009, 16.31, said:

Agreed. Gays should violently secede from the US.

Maybe if everyone of them moved to Rhode Island and then just seceded from there...

[Ormond]

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 15.29, said:

I suppose people could be pacifistic if that is the route they deem the most appropriate.  That's not really my style though.  It also wasn't the style of the Founding Fathers who founded the US.  If they resolved conflict with verbal argument then we don't exist as a country.

This isn't your style?

What are you doing in Nebraska to fight against our anti-same-sex marriage amendment?

You really think that as a gay man living in Nebraska I should be engaged in some sort of guerilla warfare to obtain my rights?

If I come to Lincoln to deface the state Capitol, will you help? Are you going to help with  harrassing or threatening emails and phone calls to the Roman Catholic bishops and other religious leaders in Nebraska who supported our amendment? Do you really think that would accomplish anything in terms of getting the amendment repealed?

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to realize to know that trying to resolve this particular issue in non-verbal or threatening ways is counterproductive, to say the least.

[Ken Stone]

Ormond, on Jan 19 2009, 15.39, said:

This isn't your style?

What are you doing in Nebraska to fight against our anti-same-sex marriage amendment?

You really think that as a gay man living in Nebraska I should be engaged in some sort of guerilla warfare to obtain my rights?

If I come to Lincoln to deface the state Capitol, will you help? Are you going to help with  harrassing or threatening emails and phone calls to the Roman Catholic bishops and other religious leaders in Nebraska who supported our amendment? Do you really think that would accomplish anything in terms of getting the amendment repealed?

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to realize to know that trying to resolve this particular issue in non-verbal or threatening ways is counterproductive, to say the least.

I'm not some superhero for gay marriage or anything but I do see the unjustice of it.  I specifically said if someone stripped my rights I would go ape-shit.  If you don't choose to do that that's fine.  I'm not judging you here.  I'm saying that I understand why people would and would do the same thing in their shoes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 16.45, said:

I'm not some superhero for gay marriage or anything but I do see the unjustice of it.  I specifically said if someone stripped my rights I would go ape-shit.  If you don't choose to do that that's fine.  I'm not judging you here.  I'm saying that I understand why people would and would do the same thing in their shoes.

Are you saying that if someone does "go ape-shit" and take the law into their own hands they should be prosecuted?  Regardless of how much you could understand their anger and frustration?

[G'Kar]

Ken Stone, on Jan 19 2009, 16.45, said:

I'm not some superhero for gay marriage or anything but I do see the unjustice of it.  I specifically said if someone stripped my rights I would go ape-shit.  If you don't choose to do that that's fine.  I'm not judging you here.  I'm saying that I understand why people would and would do the same thing in their shoes.

So you are defending any violence perpetrated against supporters of Prop 8? Wow.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ser Scot

Please read for context.

This was Tempra's post, to which I responded:

Tempra, on Jan 19 2009, 08.14, said:

These type of tactics by Prop 8 opponents will only increase the resolve of Prop 8 supporters.  Good job idiots.

Notice that he said "this type of tactics" without specification on what. Given the context, the most reasonable deduction is that he was referring to setting up a google map for donors who supported Prop 8, and that he included both the boycotting and the threat of physical violence.

Also, notice that my comment was on the credibility of Tempra as a commentator on strategies for LBGT equal rights, not about the tactics themselves.

But since you asked.

I think threats of violence and harassment are not productive. I think it will be wrong for any organization to promote the use of violent threats as a means to achieve a goal.

I also think that it's a good idea to express just how angry we are. Sitting down nicely with our hands under our laps isn't going to do anything for us. I think some outlets of anger and frustration will be good for the LBGT community, as well as for those who voted for the Prop8. I am sad that if those allegations of violent threats were true, that the anger and frustration had taken an unproductive form of expression. I think it took some people aback when, say right after the passage of Prop 8, that there were so many angry people out marching for the cause. I think many people voted to support Prop 8 with the mistaken impression that it's some minor thing, something so mundane and so pedestrian, that nobody will care too much. I don't think they realized how personal this is to many folks. I think a good demonstration of this would be a good thing.

Finally, I'd like to see some evidence of these threats, e.g. some documented cases of threatening phone calls or messages, before I conclude that these things are going on. If someone's crying wolf, I'd like them to show me some evidence before I bring out the hunting party.



Re: Shryke

Shryke, on Jan 19 2009, 14.47, said:

I look at that map and can't help but think "What if they did it for OPPOSERS of Prop 8?". How would those people feel about being boycotted, harrassed, threatened etc.

Yeah, wouldn't it be an ironic twist for opponents to Prop 8 to experience a life of being ostracized and harassed and perhaps even threatened? That'd certainly be a great "shoe-on-the-other-foot" experience! :thumbsup:

[TerraPrime]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 15.48, said:

So you are defending any violence perpetrated against supporters of Prop 8? Wow.

Ken Stone said he understands, not that he condones.

Please stop your inanely facile arguments for the sake of making a point.