>>72444
I'd be curious to know what your definition of tolerance is. I just don't see what's wrong with letting people live the way they want to live. Even if they are harming themselves, what business is that of yours? There are millions of smokers out there that are unabashed addicts harming themselves many times a day. I don't feel the need to call them out on the internet and take them down a notch, though. And I don't get terribly offended at "smoker's rights" websites and people taking their addiction too far. You seem to have some kind of personal stake in this, like you're afraid you might have to talk to one or show a modicum of respect to one at some point in the future. One might be a coworker, or even your boss! Imagine the horror. That's why we call these things homophobia or transphobia, because most of them are simply afraid that they might have to deal with a situation they haven't before, and that naturally scares people. Most people have no problem remembering every character/family/kingdom in Game of Thrones but learning a few new words like "pansexual" is some kind of affront to your very being.

Here's the hint: if that scares you, then you're not tolerating them. Though chances are if you actually spent some time with one of these people (which I find most haven't, after all there really aren't that many transgender people who are open about it, and they tend to confine themselves to certain places), you might not be such a sourpuss about it anymore. I deal with numerous people who I don't "accept" on some level, maybe because they're plain assholes (like you), because they're casually racist or sexists (not in the overreaction way either, but people who aren't shy about it), overly religious fundies who don't accept anything about me or want to teach our kids fairy tales as fact, all sorts of things. I don't "accept" these people's beliefs, but I tolerate them, I have no problem with them trying to live their lives and I wouldn't mind going to some social event with one. I'm not going to deny them service at my restaurant or use my position to make their life harder.

>>72438

If I were afraid, I wouldn't be talking to you now. If it scared me, I'd let it fade away so I didn't have to think about it anymore. You see, tolerance is about action, not feeling. If my neighbor pees in cans, but I leave them alone except to say "That's pretty gross and unhealthy. You might want to avoid doing that", then I am being tolerant. If I take action like calling the CDC about his herpes piss, then I am not tolerating because I took action against it. Why would I say anything? Because you can't fix a problem until it is acknowledged as a problem. Delusions about one's self, addictions, self-doubt, victim complexes and so on, these are problems. If you can overcome them, then you will wind up a better and almost certainly happier person. If words can help you do that, then I freely give them.
Note: if something scared me and I let it be, then I am being even more tolerant as I would have greater incentive to take action to remove it. The water colossus in SotC unsettled me, though. Blyech.
Not just mine: Tolerance: The act of allowing something, Acceptance: the act of accepting something, Acceptable: generally approved or used, Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of

>I don't "accept" these people's beliefs, but I tolerate them
>overly religious fundies who don't accept anything about me or want to teach our kids fairy tales as fact, all sorts of things.
So your tolerance includes belittling and insulting. Then what is the problem? I wasn't even being excessively rude. Tip: you don't need "quotation marks" around accept there, (unless you do accept their beliefs?).
Regardless, this thread should move somewhere else. Get other boards some love. Or, in your case, hate. Whatever. I'll do that if I feel like responding.

>I'm not going to deny them service at my restaurant or use my position to make their life harder.
So was this whole thing an attempt to fulfill the original request of the thread? Are you real? Is this real life?

>>72458
Again, fear has little to do with whether or not you're shaking in your boots at the sight of a gay. It has to do with a fear that society will accept it as normal, and all the apocalyptic consequences that will come as a result.

>Delusions about one's self, addictions, self-doubt, victim complexes and so on, these are problems. If you can overcome them, then you will wind up a better and almost certainly happier person.

Those are your opinions. I have them to, that doesn't make them authoritative. This is a discussion about tolerance, your opinions on what could be done to "help" them is largely irrelevant, and unless you are a professional that people are seeking for help, they are also completely irrelevant.

Keeping jars of piss in one's house is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions (because they can be used to make bombs, regardless of how sanitary it is, which is also a problem). As you alluded to, it can even hurt or sicken others who live close by.

Your argument is basically "well I'm not going about and beating them with baseball bats, so I'm tolerating them!" which is dumb. Public shaming is a form of intolerance. Many of these people have mental disorders and aren't shy about saying so, they just don't like being lectured at by people who are not doctors and don't know what they're talking about, but feel they need to stick it to them anyway. Going up to every gay couple you see and telling them they're going to hell is not tolerance.

>So your tolerance includes belittling and insulting.

When did I insult anyone? "Religious fundamentalist" (or 'fundie') is not an insult, unless you think strict adherence to religious fundamentals is a horrible thing (I don't). You may object to the characterization that the religious stories are fairy tales (even when they have literal fairies in them). In the end I have no problem with these beliefs, I just think it is very important that facts be taught in schools, rather than stories, and I am intolerant of attempts to spread specific interpretations of religious texts in what are supposed to be secular institutions filled with people of a wide variety of beliefs. I think that's as core to our society as representative government. If someone tried to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, I'd be intolerant of that as well.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf

I think we need to talk about the absurdity of certain "microagressions".

>>73146
Most of those things are pretty sensible, though. The idea of sensibilities changing over time is not a new thing. Pointing out how articulate and clean a black person is considered racist by sensible people. Why shouldn't we hold the same standard when it comes to everyone?

Don't assume people to be a certain way because of their race or gender. Don't be a d to people for no reason. Don't claim that race is completely irrelevant in society when it clearly isn't.

These aren't hellza hard principles and they will likely be a "given" in the future, just as we look back on racist "comedy" in the past and see it as mean rather than funny.

The real problem in my view is the way people react to these things. People may not know the implications of what they say when they say it, and rather than flying off the handle every time it happens it's important to engage.

>>73153
The general concepts being outlined are fine, the problem is the specific examples they wrote down.

Apparently saying "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" or "America is a melting pot" is offensive and telling a black person to be more quiet is racist.

>>73154
They were giving examples within certain contexts, namely contexts of racial or sexual discussion in classrooms. There's nothing wrong with meritocracy as a general concept, but when it's the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion about affirmative action, it denies the reality of employment discrimination and assumes that everyone who has every hired anyone is free of prejudice and hires solely on merit like a robot.

That's what is frustrating about these discussions, people think they are taking a principled stance when they say "the world SHOULD be this way!" and expecting everyone to pat them on the back for it. Except these are conversations about the way things ARE and how they might change them to reach Shouldtopia.

>>73153
I'll be a d to people for no ballza reason if I fucking want to, free speech doesn't end where your feelings begin.

>>73161
Speech is always a two-street. No one's saying you can't say things, only that others have the right to call you a big floppy dong for it. That's all this is about. At a college, you don't have to go there. If you go around calling every black person you see a filthy basketball american, you shouldn't be arrested, but no one owes you a college education, job, or respect.

>no one owes you a college education

Honestly, if you're paying your bills and it's a public university, I think you should be able to be a racist and not get kicked out. Just my opinion.

>>73165
There's no prohibition on having racist thoughts or beliefs. Once you drag your speech or beliefs into public however, they might have consequences, such as trying to intimidate other students or refusing to treat others with some basic dignity. I hate the fact that I could curse at my teachers in elementary/middle/high school either. They even made me get along with other students! What a hellscape, not being able to speak my mind in any place or time without consequences.

>>72530 respondee cont.
Well, shit. I was going to just let you quietly disappear for the sake of everyone else, but you popped back up (I even tried putting a response elsewhere, but my intent was mistaken). So:
>It has to do with a fear that society will accept it as normal
You seem to hellza want to paint me as afraid. Like it's important to you. Putting your likely problems aside, I'll put it this way: I fear widespread acceptance of gays as normal like I fear widespread drinking of budweiser. Both are foolish, but mine and I will be fine either way because I know better thanks to personal research and critical thinking. It might be lamentable that so many people do it, but it's hardly inspiring of anything other than pity for the poor idiots. If you truly believe that homosexuality is not a disease despite the fact that it is a perfect example of the literal definition of disease, then you are just deluding yourself. And the piss thing was an example, not meant literally.

>Your argument is basically "well I'm not going about and beating them with baseball bats, so I'm tolerating them!"
My argument is: "If I don't like what they're doing, but I allow them to do it, I am tolerating them". If you don't like it, take it up with a dictionary. By your criteria, stating that gays or people telling them they're normal are wrong is not intolerant (see: your religious statement backpedaling).
>Those are your opinions.
No. Self-delusion to the point of gender confusion, addiction and basing your identity on being a victim are literal definitions of problems. That is an objectively correct statement.
>When did I insult anyone?
I already pointed it out: "overly religious fundies who don't accept anything about me or want to teach our kids fairy tales as fact"
You're calling their beliefs fairy tales, implying their beliefs are wrong and using a cutesy name to infantilize them. Like calling fags "buttrammers" or "flamers". All this despite their tolerance of you by your own admission.
Don't like the "fag" part? Well they probably don't like the "fundie" part. Gratz, you just learned how to relate to someone else.

>>73168

Hello reddit.

  This shows that feminists are communism's useful idiots

>>73165
I don't agree with racism, but I'd actually have to agree with that. Plenty of people are unpleasant, vindictive, mean or just plain assholish without getting kicked out. But if you're a d in this one way, you're out.

>>73153
Most of those things are not sensible, though. Examples: if you say "That man with the coat" instead of "That black man with the coat", you're being racist.
If you don't speak someone's name perfectly because their language is completely foreign to you, you're racist.
Or a storeowner following a black man around his store: what if that black man looks like a thug? Should he not follow him? Do you think they give white thugs a free pass?
Here are bad things to say: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job." “Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement.” “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”
“Affirmative action is racist.” I'm not saying if it's ballza or bad, but it is racist and it is an unfair racial advantage black Americans have. It was specifically crafted to be that way since that was the whole point.
Basically, whoever made that PDF was an over-sensitive stupid.

>>73171
It's funny how you talk about rock facts and dictionaries and "objectivity" and then go on to defend religion and implying that a shortening of the word "fundamentalist" is an insult.

Regardless of what they "believe", I think facts should be taught in schools. Not fairy tales. Speaking of fairies:


[fair-ee]
1. (in folklore) one of a class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs.

Sounds a lot like God/Angels to me. I can back it up with appropriate scripture if you want. On to tale:

[teyl]

1.a narrative that relates the details of some real or imaginary event, incident, or case; story

So calling stories in the Bible fairy tales is a factually correct statement. You could call the whole thing a fairy tale since God is a fairy and pretty much every story is him intervening in stuff. And I'd rather have verifiable facts being taught in schools than fairy tales.

Thing is, not many Christians believe much of these stories literally. The only people who do are the fundamentalists. But even then, there's nothing inherently wrong with believing those things. It doesn't make one an intolerable person. I don't tolerate the belief that religious belief or principle should be taught in schools, so I'm intolerant of that stance, but not of the people who hold it.

As for "intolerant"...

[in-tol-er-uh nt]

1.not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

2.unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually followed by of):
intolerant of very hot weather.

Whether or not that describes you is something only you can.

I'm not hellza interested in the "homosexuality are disease cuz abnormal" debate. Even if homosexuality is unquestionably a disease, who gives a shit? Many people get/have disease that last a lifetime. I have chronic migraines. I'm not shamed for it. No one debates whether or not I should marry or have kids. People who suffer from migraines aren't endlessly mocked and ridiculed in popular media. No one tries to claim any great wisdom or insight into how I might combat my headaches either.

Even if you believe the endgame is some kind of miracle pill that turns people straight, we're not even to the point of fully understand homosexuality and the brain yet. So in the interim I don't think it's unreasonable to say to let them do what makes them happy, and encourage people to do it safely.

>>73174

haha what is this video even

That introduction is so fuckin' overwrought and the first few minutes did not live up to the hype even remotely. She's just some random Youtuber talking about how she thinks leftists are stupid and irrational. Also.

>Some say she received death threats

dem weasel words

>>73174
It's funny how many people talk about "Cultural Marxism" or try to conflate social justice causes automatically with some form of communism.

The fact is, Marx actually stated more than once that things like ethnic struggle is just a way to keep the proletariat turned on each other in order to keep them off the bourgeoisie. This cuts both ways, the entire race (and while Marx didn't talk as much about it, sex) dynamic from the majority getting mad at the minority to the minority reacting to racism, is orchestrated and predictable as a way to split the working class into warring factions.

So people who spend all their time talking about race/sex/ethnic inequality are actually being anti-Marxist, and falling into the trap Marx himself predicted.

It can also cut the other way, however, as focusing solely on wealth inequality does ignore some of the unique challenges of blacks.

>>73176
Colleges, including public colleges, usually have extremely broad behavior policies. You can be reprimanded for damn near anything that people might complain about, regardless of social justice issues. If you go around farting on people some people might take issue with it, the college might tell you to stop doing it, and when you don't you can get kicked out.

It's the same basic principle in public schools for children. That being said, public colleges tend to be a lot more lenient even with that stuff, and you won't get kicked out for "micro-aggressing"

Also you might want to look at the very top of that PDF. It says in bold lettering that the relationship and context of the conversation and who you are talking to is CRITICALLY important. Not only that, but you seem to be making shit up and ascribing it to the guidelines.

What you may see as a "thug" others might see as normal. It gets to the point where a young black man has very narrow dressing choices if he doesn't want to look like a thug. A polo shirt, maybe with some denim jeans (but by god keep it on the waistline!), hair cut short and tidy without any embellishments. If you wear a long tee-shirt (possibly with a rapper's face on it), loose-fitting jeans, a baseball cap askewed to the side, you're a thug. Travel with friends? Group of thugs trying to rob a place.

Now imagine what a "white thug" might look like. He basically has to be going out of his way to look like a thug, a wife-beater with a tattoo sleeve and/or shaved head and drug-addict eyes. Or he can dress "black" and look like one. Take the recent biker shooting, I almost never heard the term "thug" leveled at them, and despite eight people being murdered (eight more than the number of people murdered during the Baltimore riots), no one was talking about "problems within the white suburban/rural community". They were just bad apples! Nothing more to see here.

This double standard is also held in sports, where a black player who just won a big game gets a little to loud and excited next to a white woman and everyone calls him a thuggish ape, but two Nascar drivers and their pit crews get into an all-out brawl and they're not thugs, they're "ballza-ole-boys letting off some steam hurr murrica"

But if you want "horrible SJW content" you have to find the stuff even SJWs think is retarded.

>>73163
I could just as easily say
>No one's saying you can't say things, only that others have the right to call you a censorious moralfag for it. That's all this is about.
We can circlejerk like this all day, but in the end it'll end up like all circlejerks: a lot of effort expended but nothing to show for it other than someone having to clean up the carpet afterward.

>>73179
>the relationship and context of the conversation and who you are talking to is CRITICALLY important
but the eventual goal is to make it so that doesn't matter anymore, right? Isn't the point of pointing all this out just to make sure fewer people get hurt on the way to actually erasing those distinctions instead of merely pretending they don't exist?

Even if it does sound like giving a cancer patient a morphine drip instead of chemotherapy, I can at least understand the motivations behind it better if that's the case.

>>73180
You can, that's the beauty of it. The essence of free speech is that it's a two-way street. What the entitled neoreactionary masses and such are complaining about is that when they say something and others call them problematic shitlords, they conflate that with "censorship" to try and make it seem Nazi-esque. It's alarmist dog-whistle blowing.

Never before in history, in any organized society, have you been able to say as much in public as you are now. Never before in history and not currently has their been a society that has tolerated anyone saying anything they want to anybody. There are still people alive who fondly remember a United States where you could be arrested for cursing in public or possessing a porn magazine in the wrong place.

>>73181
I think the purpose of this is less about hurt feelings, and more about, well, education. Just like some kids think they know everything about feminism after a single women's studies course and/or tumblr-surfing, others come from rural/suburban and mostly white communities where their white teachers taught them about tolerance and think they have the whole book on it. But those people might not actually think about what their saying, they just say it because it's what they've been taught as children or it sounds nice ("we're all one human race!").

And again, I think the biggest mistake in these kinds of discussions is taking those people and perhaps getting too mad at them, which causes backlash and reactionism. At the same time, it's hard to tell someone who is perpetually assumed to be a criminal no matter where they go to chill out.

>>73176 cont.
>So calling stories in the Bible fairy tales is a factually correct statement.
I am going to tell you what your words mean, because I don't think you do. The exact thing that you are telling me is that it's ok to call something by an insulting name if it's factually correct. So if I called a gay man a "cock-sucking fudge-packer bundle of sticks"? That's ok according to you. Or I could probably call some butch feminist a "mannish, hairy, sasquatch-like creature". What about "rice-eater" or "whiteboy"? "basketball american"? "Illegal wetback"? Ok according to you. Don't like it? Then look to the Golden Rule for guidance.
Also, your definition says "in folklore". By your own admission, to them the bible is truth which is not folklore. And don't take up so much space. Just put a link or relevant bits and don't hit "Enter" so much.

>homosexuality are disease cuz abnormal
I never said anything about abnormal. Homosexuality directly interferes with (if it doesn't outright prevent) a vital process of the human body, hence it is a disease.
"a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disease

I'm also not saying that they should be harassed and ridiculed, just stating facts. Personally, if they keep their shit away from me, I will certainly let gays get all the STD's they want. I only care about gayism insofar as it's biologically (and, to me, morally) wrong and it's gross. But I tolerate it because how people live is not my choice to make. You need to learn that it's also not yours.

>>73187
Again, "wrong" and "gross" are qualitative assessments which are 100% your opinion. Like I said, I get migraines, they interfere with my life, yet someone would find it quite bizarre to think that I'm gross and wrong for it. By the same logic I should make a big inforgraphic about how infertile or impotent people are bad and have higher depression rates, which is probably as true, statistically. You seem to hold only gays to this standard, where Scott Pelley has to read homosexual STD and depression rates on the Evening News every night.

This is putting aside the rather obviously absurd notion that "not being attracted to women" prevents a man from having a baby with her which is something that is not true. Diseases don't discourage you from doing things, they outright prevent you. If they can shoot sperms out of their wee-wees, they are fully capable and ready to have children. Hell, this is true even in prehistoric nomad times with no modern science whatsoever. You seem to have a problem with their ability to not accidentally have a child. The reason why gays have more sex is pretty obvious if you're not a drooling retard (men have stronger sexual urges than women and thus choose to have sex more). STDs are very easy to avoid if you use protection, and isn't a prerequisite for being gay (even being sexually active isn't a prerequisite for being gay).

>>73187
re: that pic

correlation =/= causation

ad hoc ergo propter hoc

>>73189

It also uses hella outdated and inaccurate statistics. Yes, I'm sure the one study from 40 years ago that says that about half of gay men have had 500 or more sex partners is the only study that has ever been done on gay sex. And he just doesn't even blink or think about how apparently 83% of gay men have had 50 or more partners, something only a fraction of a percent of straight men have had. Has this guy ever met gay people in his life?

>>73182
>when they say something and others call them problematic shitlords, they conflate that with "censorship"
Why do you think they do that?
>the entitled neoreactionary masses...try and make it seem Nazi-esque
Swing and a miss.

Let's try thinking up an alternative that doesn't involve shallowly demonizing large swaths of human beings. After all, that's the goal here: overcoming our lazy generalizations in order to treat more people with dignity and respect.

It is easy to hear the word "problematic" and assume that if there's a problem the implication is that it would be ideal to try to come up with a solution to the problem. You can understand how someone could hear "what you just said is problematic" and infer from that "the most obvious solution is to restrict your speech so you can't cause problems by saying bad things."

>>73192

>It is easy to hear the word "problematic" and assume that if there's a problem the implication is that it would be ideal to try to come up with a solution to the problem. You can understand how someone could hear "what you just said is problematic" and infer from that "the most obvious solution is to restrict your speech so you can't cause problems by saying bad things."

But it's not reasonable to extrapolate that. There's plenty of other solutions, like education. You can't just go and assume that because they say there's a problem they must want the most extreme possible solution.

>>73179
>Take the recent biker shooting, I almost never heard the term "thug" leveled at them

I definitely heard "biker gang" which is pretty much the same thing as thug, and it carries a lot of the same negative connotations which thug represents in the eyes of middle america. Also probably a reason why you're not hearing them called thugs is somewhat because that thing was chock full of conspiracy, as that whole incident kind of was one.

>>73193
You keep flinging about the word education as though if everyone knows the same things you know they'll believe the same things you do.

What if they don't? Do they then need to be, ahem, "reeducated" harder?

>>73187 cont.
I never said "causation". The fact that a certain group is largely a certain way is enough for me to want to avoid them. Regardless, while correlation does not equal causation it can, in sufficient numbers, imply it. It is at least made worthy of inquiry. Even if you're right about the studies (just found them, put it down because it has sources), if they were off by 50%, those numbers still mean a lot.
>I get migraines, they interfere with my life, yet someone would find it quite bizarre to think that I'm gross and wrong for it
Gayism is not a disease because it's gross and wrong. It's a disease because it impairs a very important function of the human body.
>Again, "wrong" and "gross" are qualitative assessments which are 100% your opinion.
I never said they were anything else. Aside from the provably physiological wrong part. puttingwordsinastrawmansmouthblablabla
>"not being attracted to women" prevents a man from having a baby with her which is something that is not true. Diseases don't discourage you from doing things, they outright prevent you
Look at the definition again: "a condition of the living animal . . . or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"
It does not say "unconditionally prevent", it says impair. A limp is an impairment, having no legs prevents. Homosexuality impairs impregnation by making the gay prefer sex with their own gender. While there are ways around it, workarounds do not constitute a cure. Just like wheelchairs did not cure FDR. And the "likes own gender" thing is definitely a distinguishing sign/symptom.
>You seem to have a problem with their ability
I already told you: gayism is sex gone grossly wrong. Beyond that, if they respect that I don't like it, I respect their freedom to do it.
>STDs are very easy to avoid if you use protection, and isn't a prerequisite for being gay
lolwut

>>73192
That's just the thing though. Me calling your thoughts wrong, shitty, problematic is not censorship. It doesn't mean I want you silenced. Yeah, some common cultural attitudes and ideas are "problematic" as they continue to cause problems for various groups in society. The thought of "black people tend to be criminals" is a sentiment that makes life harder for black people who aren't criminal.

All "problematic" ultimately means in this context, however, is that something is indicative of a larger problem within society. If I say "the rising teenage pregnancy rates is problematic", I'm not automatically advocating for spaying every teen girl. Sure that COULD be what I'm indicating, but it seems like a strange thing to assume. You're just perceiving some kind of progresso-fascist dog whistle where there is none.

>>73194
That's the thing, though. "Biker gang" is a reasonable, factually accurate statement. Even "drug gang" or just "gang" is fine when you're describing actual gang members. "Thug", even though it was a word that was actually leveled at white criminals at one time, has almost exclusively been saved for blacks today. Having a special word for criminals of a certain color that make them seem different or worse than other criminals is... problematic.

>>73197
Except a gay person can have a baby without impediment. A person with a limp cannot choose to walk normally without impediment at certain times. Gay people can have babies if they want, without impediment, at any time they so choose.

Again, your insinuation is that gay people not be sexually attracted to women has any bearing on their ability to have children. It doesn't, objectively. The only thing that prevents someone from having a child is the inability or hardship in trying to have children. Men and women have children with each other without sexual attraction all the time. This is especially true for women, who can literally get pregnant in their sleep without even knowing they've had sex. All it takes to get a boner and bring it to orgasm is physical stimulation. It has everything to do with ability, not with willingness. You're basically saying that a tall person who is hellza ballza at basketball is diseased unless they play basketball for a living.

Your theory hinges entirely on the idea that two people need to be sexually attracted to each other to breed and have children, so I would like to see you prove that logically, if not with evidence.

>>73195

Then we go about our merry ways.

>>73188
>Like I said, I get migraines, they interfere with my life, yet someone would find it quite bizarre to think that I'm gross and wrong for it


You aren't asking for special treatment because of your migraines which makes this different. A more accurate strawman would be to say you have recurring migraines at work and want your employer to pay you while you rest, and that you refuse medicine or any health consultation. If I worked with you could I call you "lazy"? Well yes and no, because there is no lazy meter that I can measure laziness with, but I can compare your productivity and think that you should be fired or made to work, but I'd be an ableist then. Oh look, there is a group for that.

>>73189
Parroting that is just so stupid. You can say it for any implication, especially for anything with real world data (and that in itself makes it a useless thing to say). It absolutely cannot be used to refute an argument on its own, and all it says is that you don't believe in the other person's argument.

>>73198
If you want blacks to stop being called whatever shorthand term for criminal that has just come off the treadmill then they'll need to stop being conspicuously problematic criminals. In reality though, everyone talking about policing and crime can just shut up as everywhere is continually becoming safer, like 10% drop every five years. It is also funny that you don't know that the Thugs were Indian highwaymen and the term was subsequently brought back to Britain as the BEIC began suppressing them.

>>73209
Since when did gays ask for the right to not work and still be paid for it? I would like to see that in the GLAAD platform. You're just rambling about random shit at this point.

Strangely, having health problems is one of the reasons you can take time off, often paid, depending on your work contract. I've been asked to go home before because of a particularly bad migraine.

>>73204
>>73209
>>73198

are you hooligans even capable of holding an argument with anything besides shallow strawmen and retarded metaphors?

For those of you who can't be bothered reading inane walls of bullshit:

>>73209 thinks gays are icky but doesn't hellza care as long as they're not touching ds in his living room
>>73215 thinks >>73209 is a big dumb poopyhead

you are now up to speed on the argument.

>>73197 cont. (starting as my 2nd+ posts have)
>>73204
I don't know what it would take to show you the truth. It seems you're just not ready for it yet. Almost as though you're scared of it (callback. oh, snap). So I'll just leave you to your little world. Mostly.
>The only thing that prevents someone from having a child is the inability or hardship in trying to have children.
Yes, exactly. Hardship like having to find someone to carry a kid to term for you, or getting babyjuice from a man willing to put himself at the kind of risk that being a biological father puts him.

>>73220
A bit simplified, but not entirely wrong. Except I'm not 73209. And being gay is literally a disease with known symptoms/signs. Other than that, meh. 'nuff said.

Since someone brought up the original Indian thugs:
Basically, the word thug means "thief" (or "conceal") and was adopted into English as describing bands of murdering thieves that killed people on the road. Thanks go to William Sleeman for recognizing them as the threat and stopping them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
https://books.google.com/books?id=tAc7BESPBYkC&pg=PA104&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>73224
If we're talking about biology and nothing else, a gay man (or couple) could capture/enslave/rape a woman to force the having of a child if they so wanted. The only impediment is society. There is no risk to having a child if you are a man, either, the only risks are the ones societies impose. Objectively, there is nothing stopping a homosexual man or woman from having a child, at least no more than your average person. "Going through the trouble to get the juice" is no more an impediment to gays than it is an impediment to straights, who also have to go through the trouble get a partner willing to have a child with them in today's society. Biologically and objectively speaking, there is no more of a barrier for a gay to have a kid than a straight. The only difference is that straights can make babies inadvertently and without trying.

Unless you want to assert that diseases are subjective measured up against other societal factors.

Plugging up your ears and yelling at the top of your lungs won't change the fact that objectively, gay men and women tend to have fully functional reproductive systems that can be put to use without impediment. If it were impossible for men to get boners from being in the presence of a lady, you might have an argument, but you don't.

>>73205
If that's the case, then all of this is pointless bloviating that is as safe to ignore as a Kardashian tweet. That is ballza to know.

>>73224 cont.
>>73226
Nope. You don't want to listen, so I'm done wiyya. I'd like to help you, but you'd rather insult and imply because I believe you honestly can't handle the truth. Instead have a nice song cover. Song's about 24 seconds in (first one only). Also, Gordon Liu (Lucy Liu's dad) was not only in Kill Bill with her, but what other retro-styled kung fu movie presented by Quentin Tarantino? He played the "wise, old teacher" "shifu" type in this movie. It's not Kill Bill 2. I have to admit, I liked the first Ghost Rider movie enough. At least the action scenes. The boss guys all did die fairly lame-like, though. Either way, I think they should not remake Big Trouble in Little China. I don't think it can go anywhere but down. And while I like the Rock, he seems like he enjoys his job, seems charismatic enough, Jack Burton is supposed to be a mostly normal dude. The Rock is not normal sized. I dunno. If I were to make a movie, I'd want to put detective Munch in it yelling the wilhelm scream at some point. Don't know if I actually would, though. Might be tacky or something.
Too bad about grooveshark. I heard there's a copy, but it sounds like it would be shady.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OR_Jbfz0mE
I like this cover too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLpgtGDwsRs
One more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMYyxqaaWew

>>73230

what

>>73230 cont.
See, Detective Munch from Law & Order SVU has done a bunch of cameos in other shows putting him in the universes of "X-Files", "30 Rock", "The Wire", even "Sesame Street" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live". This means that all these shows are in the same setting. This would not be remarkable if it weren't for the fact that they can all be traced in a similar manner to that one show where the autistic kid imagines the entire show up. Thus, everything in "X-Files", "Sesame Street" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live" are all part of an autistic kid's imagination. No, this is not original research on my part.
He's done enough of these cameos that it's a bit jokey. Since the wilhelm scream was old 15 years ago, you combine the two jokes and get something new. But probably cinematically tacky.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/JohnMunch

"Belzer had played Munch for 21 years and for 22 consecutive seasons as a regular on two different shows (along with cameos and crossover appearances on 8 others), making him the character who ran longest as a regular on TV . . . as American television's longest running live action character."

>>73246
You're far from reaching the character limit. Stop this cont. bullshit.

>>73266
On the contrary, "oh shit I thought of something else to say about this same topic that I didn't think of before" is a valid reason to have a "cont." in there.

Then again, maybe I'm one of the few on here that doesn't have a problem with seeing a few more fresh, dripping cont.s on here.

cont.
It ain't about character limit, mang. You must activate your true self and go beyond your character limit. But hellza, it's just a temp identifier to avoid confusion like with >>73209.

>>73339
I was wondering when we'd see a "cont." in here.

You're all a bunch of conts.

>>73361
And your an irreverend overpoaster.