Dumbledore's Gay

Rue · October 30, 2007

Yes, you constructed a better argument to support your opinion. However, I guess, to be technical, Keng can't be proven to undoubtedly be anti-semetic until he explicitly states that he hates Jews.

Lol. This reminds me of a saying from Confucious- some things are self-evident, such as a mean spirit.

Rue · October 30, 2007

Read your words I put in quotationKeng and understand their mean spiritedness and despite your constant denials of their consequences as you repeat them they remain constant in their hatred;

"I made these points to illustrate the fact that people who experience suffering and persecution can themselves become persecuters and victimizers."

But your words did not establish this point. You assume that because certain people suffered, then went on to victimize others-that you can take everyone else who has the same ethnicity or lifestyle as they do, and hold those other people morally responsible for their actions. read your words Keng. They make no sense at all. If a Jew commits an act of evil, does that make me morally responsible simply because I am also a Jew. That is precisely what you are saying and that is why its anti-semitic just as its wrong to do that with anyone what-ever group you perceive them to be in.

Stop and think Keng. Read your words. If Israel as you say has questionable human rights policies or practices, how does that make ALL Jews victimizers or enable you to make an arguement that Jews who suffered from Nazis are now victimizers?

What kind of mind makes such conclusions Keng. What gives you the ability to say ALL Jews or ALL gays are victimizers. That is what you are saying Keng and its absurd.

"Israel is a state that was founded by Jews, many of who survived the holocaust; yet the best way in which they can accomplish this is through terrorism"

Read your above words. You always revert to the word "THEY". Who is they Keng? Read your words Keng. They is not specific to those particular Jews who are Israeli who were part of the process of formulating what you feel is questionable policy-it is a general word you use for ALL JEWS worldwide not just specific Israelis and that Sir makes you a raving bigot and anti-semite because your mind can not distinguish between the category you construct and then assign a general negative quality to and the fact that each person in that group is different Keng.

More to the point you make a sweeping generalization that Israel engages in terrorism just as you do that all Jews are victimziers or all male gays celebrate pedophilia. You do this Keng because you are lazy. Its easier for you to make sweeping subjective opinions that make negative generalizations rather then give specific examples to prove your point-and that Sir is why I strip the layers of your words like skin on an onion to expose the rotted inner corps.

" (Irgun, etc), war, and displacing and forcing millions of people into refugee camps. "

Keng the above is an example of how you fabricate and make statements that are patently false. Irgunnever forced millions into any refugee camps. Anyone who knows the history of what happened knows Irgun may have done certain things, but the decision to place Palestinians in refugee camps was done by the Arab League. Once again Keng you present a comment that has nothing to do with anything other then what you have fabricated in your own mind. Why don't you make an attempt to try read what it is you think you are talking about?

Tell you what Keng show me where you found information to indicate Irgun placed millions in refugee camps. Show me. Here is what I have to say Keng-you won't for the same reason you won't find any information about pollutants making animals gay -you make these things up keng and for me I find it sad you have to do that.

"Of course any criticism of Jews or Israel get's automatic "anti-semite" accusation--that's always the way it is."

We are talking about you Keng and how you do not distinguish between Israelis and Jews, and make subjective opinions about Israel's alleged policies, then use it to suggest its acceptable to make negative generalizations about all Jews.

We are talking about you Keng no one else. The above response tries to make you sound like you are part of a greater whole that engages in the same exercise.

Well if they do Keng of course its anti-semitic just as it is is homo-phobic to do the same with gays. Keng we are talking about YOU and how YOU make negative generalizations of an entire people or perceived group of people and how those negative generalizations are not based on substantiated facts you provide but simply your subjective feelings. Trying to portray yourself not just as a victim but a group of victims is cowardly. Take responsibility for what you do. Don't try hide in a bigger group and suggest this membership gives you legitimacy. It doesn't.

"But I talk about Israel no different than I do about the USA and Americans, China and Chinese, or any other country/people that I have issues with--regardless of race or religion (yes, even "Christians"). "

That is the point Keng. You make sweeping hateful negative generalizations not just about Jews and Gays but anyone else you care to. Does the fact that you hate everyone equally or engage in your negative generalizations to more then one or two groups make it morally acceptable or honourable of course not. Wrong is not made right because you choose to commit the wrong oevr and over. Hate does not cease to be hate because you hate many people not just one or two.

It is a product of a diseased soul to think if one's hatred or anger or wrong is compounded it makes it acceptable and legitimate. No Keng negative thoughts of course multiply and spead like any infection, like any cancer or virus or bacteria.

" Would it have made you happy had I chosen some other country?"

Think how absurd that question is. Would I prefer you to rape and beat a black woman instead of a white woman? Would I prefer you to beat up a gay instead of a Jew? Would I prefer you to have lung cancer or liver cancer?

What kind of question is that Keng? What kind of soul asks a question that tells us all you think hurting someone can be excused and rationalized provided I hate the person as well. Is that how you see things Keng that its o.k. to hurt and victimize people as long as we agree on who the victim should be? Think of the question Keng. Think why you asked it.

"How about the Netherlands who all those years had to suffer under Nazi occupation (except the 60,000 who enlisted in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS) and once freed--by the Canadians no less--went off and started a war in southeast Asia that resulted in c. 250,000 deaths, I believe. Is that better??? Or is this me just being "typical anti-dutchite-using"...???"

The above comment is incoherent Keng and I ask you again why do you think you state such words? Can you see the anger and hatred in them and how they are designed to ask me to engage in the same hurtful exercises you engage in. Think Keng. Challenge your mind to stop screaming out judgements and say something that does not scream. Think. Use basic reasoning. If the Dutch government went out and engaged in genocide of a people based on a government policy, it would be wrong. The fact that Holland was occupied by Nazi Germany in world war two is irelevant to that.

Morality is defined by the consequence of our present actions. If you do something you know is wrong, it can't be turned into a right by what happened in the past. Think Keng.

If Holland is able to take over Europe and establish an eleborate and extensive network of civilian collaboration to commit its genocide, then yes many people must be held responsible.

On the other hand, if I do not like a policy of the Dutch government, does this give me the right to hate all Dutch people and blame them all and hold them all responsible for that policy? Think Keng. Can your mind operate on a level other then extremes? Is is possible for you to see grey and not just black and white? Is it possible Keng there are degrees to things and that they are not all ABSOLUTE but sometimes a bit of this, a bit of that, and can not be so easily defined as you define them?

Thing Keng. Think. Challenge your mind. Resist the urge to scream out. Think. In Holland in World War Two, certain Dutch collaborated with the Nazis, while others did not. Those who did one way or the other will whether in their life during their death process, be forced to deal with the implications of that collaboration. But for those Dutch that resisted, and the many Dutch who had no food and were hungry and were victimized by Nazis, do you think you have the right to speak to them as you do?

See I know something about the Dutch because I made a point to visit Ann Frank's home. Perhaps if you would dare force yourself to read her book you might just see what I am saying. The Dutch have never tried to hide the fact that some of their civilians collaborated. They do not repress that. It is part of their history just as was their resistance. The Dutch never forget the Canadian efforts in their country-ever. They stand by us in Afghanistan and their history never forgets us precisely because they are not afraid to express themselves and do so positively not just negatively.

The Dutch did something no other country did in Europe back when their were world oil boycotts to try pressure the West into turning against Israel. The Dutch people refused to turn their backs on Israel and give in-why? Because the Dutch are decent people and this is how they express their understanding of the holocaust. The Dutch do not need you to take their name in vain like some sort of twisted joke. The Dutch like the Danish also chose to place themselves in danger to save Jews and defend them against Nazis.

Are the Dutch perfect? They will be the first to tell you they have had problems with Mollucans (Indonesians) and now with Muslims. The point is they will tell you. They don't hide it. They don't hide the colonial part of their history that may have hurt or victimized people when they were in Indonesia, etc. They are upfront about it. If you want to make generalizations about them Keng try positive ones.

I will say something else Keng, Dutch culture is very tolerant. It does not go around deeming gays immoral like you do. Dutch people have not been overwhelmed by brain-washing because they are this way. Its who they are-tolerant people. They don't repress the reality of prostitution or gays or drug use. They try deal with such issues openly by discussing them openly and finding ways to manage them without judging people.

Keng are you capable of walking up to a gay man and trying to listen to him? Are you capable of trying to speak with a Jew or a Dutch person? Would they scare you? Would you immediately interupt them and shout them down and tell them they are immoral?

How about in your own Christian world. Do you think its possible you would be able to talk to a Christian who very much loves their religion but does not think gays are immoral or that Jews are collectively responsible for killing Christ or that to be Christian means it gives you the right to hate people and make judgements against them in the name of Jesus?

Keng I do enjoy this. Keep bringing it. What you may hear is a very loud laugh. It is a laugh of sheer joy watching you struggle to hold onto your words because I really do believe you doubt them and that is good because we all doubt things Keng-its just some of us don't try hide our feelings of doubt by trying to sound like if we judge others, we are not doubtful.

Man you should try read some of the Dali Lama's stuff. Just might make you laugh instead of calling people Nazis or brainwashers. He was just in Canada. You think he hates gays? You think he is brainswashed since he does not hate them?

jefferiah · October 30, 2007

Man you should try read some of the Dali Lama's stuff.

The Dalai Lama has said that homosexuality is unnatural.

Tolerance and condoning are too different things Rue. In your world can you conceive of the possibility of someone believing that something is immoral without hating the person who does it?

Although I do not agree with Kengs on all points here, Rue. Especially on Israel. I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but I do not think it is anti-semitic to have another viewpoint. In fact there are Jewish people who do not support Zionism. So while people who are anti-zionist can be anti-semitic, it is not always the case. A is not always B, Rue.

You use the fact that Kengs referred to Jews as "they" (without referring to any specific Jews) as evidence of his anti-semitism, but to me that is over-analyzing. It is quite common to do that. In fact you refer to the Dutch as "they".

Edited October 30, 2007 by jefferiah

Amazing Atheist · October 30, 2007

This is so sad and disturbing. So basically JKR creates a series of books that gets children hooked and then in then end slams them with a revelation that one of the characters is gay, thus forcing young--some very young--children to accept notions of sexual deviance that they shouldn't have to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...000/7054074.stm

The only thing sad and disturbing here is that bigots think that it is both sad and disturbing that a fictional character turned out to be gay.

Seriously who cares?

kengs333 · October 30, 2007

So is Dumbledore still gay or has he been "Born Again"?
The far right have to accept that homosexuality is normal or at the very least acceptable to a majority in current society. They are entitled to be equals in the eyes of the law, anything less is "Discrimination". The far left and far right are so much alike in their intolerance of other views contrary to theirs they'll never agree on anything. I guess they'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not concerned about what the "far right" thinks, and this is not about legal equality; rather the immorality of deviant sexual behaviour.

Drea · October 31, 2007

I'm not concerned about what the "far right" thinks, and this is not about legal equality; rather the immorality of deviant sexual behaviour.

By who's definition is it deviant sexual behaviour?

What if someone thinks the "woman on top" position is "deviant". Will people stop doing it so as to not offend the fragility of this person? Of course not, this person (the woman-on-top-hater) needs to get over it and realize they have no control over people's sex lives.

As long as no one is getting *hurt, there is no such thing as "sexually deviancy".

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

"Israel is a state that was founded by Jews, many of who survived the holocaust; yet the best way in which they can accomplish this is through terrorism"
Read your above words. You always revert to the word "THEY". Who is they Keng? Read your words Keng. They is not specific to those particular Jews who are Israeli who were part of the process of formulating what you feel is questionable policy-it is a general word you use for ALL JEWS worldwide not just specific Israelis and that Sir makes you a raving bigot and anti-semite because your mind can not distinguish between the category you construct and then assign a general negative quality to and the fact that each person in that group is different Keng.

No, the "they" refers back to "founded by Jews," ie. the Jews who founded Israel, many of whom were survivors of the holocaust, right? This is about Jews who survived the holocaust and turned around and created a state that commits human rights violations.

Tell you what Keng show me where you found information to indicate Irgun placed millions in refugee camps. Show me.

I never said they did. I stated that Irgun was a terrorist organization that helped found Israel; then there was war; then people were forced into refugee camps. Three seperate things.

We are talking about you Keng and how you do not distinguish between Israelis and Jews, and make subjective opinions about Israel's alleged policies, then use it to suggest its acceptable to make negative generalizations about all Jews.

No, that's not what I'm doing at all. Israel is a Jewish state. It was founded by Jews, it is politically Jewish, it is populated largely by Jews. What a democratic state does usually reflects the will of a large segment of its population. What I did is no different than saying Canadians did something because of what Canada does. That said, many Jews in Canada do have a strong tie to Israel, am I not correct? Many support specific political parties in Israel, and send money to help Israel through organizations like UJA, right?

Keng I do enjoy this. Keep bringing it.

I think maybe you're getting off on it, by the looks of it. MS Word tells me that your reply is 2093 "words". That's some serious writing. Truth be told I have little interest reading that much from you, so if you really want to continue, try toning it down to 200-300 words, okay?

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

By who's definition is it deviant sexual behaviour?
What if someone thinks the "woman on top" position is "deviant". Will people stop doing it so as to not offend the fragility of this person? Of course not, this person (the woman-on-top-hater) needs to get over it and realize they have no control over people's sex lives.

As long as no one is getting *hurt, there is no such thing as "sexually deviancy".

Honestly, what exactly does a position have in common with a lifestyle/orientation? So if children are groomed from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults, and this is commonplace in society and no social stigma attached, and "nobody gets hurt" it would be okay with you, you would consider it moral????

guyser · October 31, 2007

I'm not concerned about what the "far right" thinks,

Nor the truth apparently.

and this is not about legal equality; rather the immorality of deviant sexual behaviour.

According to whom? You and the church?

guyser · October 31, 2007

So if children are groomed from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults, and this is commonplace in society and no social stigma attached, and "nobody gets hurt" it would be okay with you, you would consider it moral????

Um...yeah.

Relative to the time frame why not?

You are using todays time frame and asking the question of what society thinks of something that is not normal to us. So in our timeframe, certainly not,but in time when that is or was acceptable....it was er...acceptable.

Kind of like wife beatings, driving drunk, smoking, need more?

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

Nor the truth apparently.

Truth is most important to me. But I assume because I don't buy into the myths and lies you do I "don't care" for the truth?

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

Um...yeah.
Relative to the time frame why not?

You are using todays time frame and asking the question of what society thinks of something that is not normal to us. So in our timeframe, certainly not,but in time when that is or was acceptable....it was er...acceptable.

Kind of like wife beatings, driving drunk, smoking, need more?

I'm not really sure what you're babbling about with "time frame". You're basically arguing that pedophelia is okay if it is normalized in a society, right? So basically whatever society deems to be "normal" you'll go along with?

guyser · October 31, 2007

Truth is most important to me. But I assume because I don't buy into the myths and lies you do I "don't care" for the truth?

Oh come on , no its not. You ignore the truth and your words belie that. Dont be so silly.

You make it apparent again when you say you "dont buy into the myths and lies you do".

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not linked as shown by Rue and the his reference from Doctors and Psychiatrists. But you dont believe that even though thats a fact.

Animals have gay episodes, some 400 or more species do. Thats a fact, but you dont believe that. You trot out some bs, without backing I might add in lieu of many requests for it, about ingesting pollutants.

I wont go on as these few points show , perhaps not you, but others that you dont care for the truth.

And that is what makes you a hypocrite. You go to church every sunday , or worship your god for morality and guidance, yet you lie all day about what the truth is.

I really dont care that you are a hypocrite. Thats for you to dwell on. Immorality, deviance, and all the other things you pontificate on , and yet, you commit the great sin of lying . Wonderful isnt it?

Shakeyhands · October 31, 2007

is this pwning of Kengs still going on?

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not linked as shown by Rue and the his reference from Doctors and Psychiatrists. But you dont believe that even though thats a fact.

a) both are forms of deviant sexual behaviour.

b ) homosexuals--I've never said all do this--engage in "man-boy love".

c) many pedophiles are homosexuals because pedophiles tend to abuse children of the same sex.

Animals have gay episodes, some 400 or more species do. Thats a fact, but you dont believe that. You trot out some bs, without backing I might add in lieu of many requests for it, about ingesting pollutants.

No, they don't have "gay episodes" because your concept of gayness in animals implies animals have a human-like disposition towards such behaviour. Whatever the case, it's a non-issue. Compiling a list of anything that animals do and suggesting that it justifies human behaviours has no merit.

Pollutants/toxins causing deformaties/abnormal behaviours is not exactly something that is unheard of. The fact that you would even question such a thing really makes me wonder about you, and what right you think you have criticizing others for not caring for the truth.

Edited October 31, 2007 by kengs333

guyser · October 31, 2007

Wow, still the lies huh?

a) both are forms of deviant sexual behaviour.
b ) homosexuals--I've never said all do this--engage in "man-boy love".

c) many pedophiles are homosexuals because pedophiles tend to abuse children of the same sex.

No, they don't have "gay episodes" because your concept of gayness in animals implies animals have a human-like disposition towards such behaviour. Whatever the case, it's a non-issue. Compiling a list of anything that animals do and suggesting that it justifies human behaviours has no merit.

Pollutants/toxins causing deformaties/abnormal behaviours is not exactly something that is unheard of. The fact that you would even question such a thing really makes me wonder about you, and what right you think you have criticizing others for not caring for the truth.

About the toxins. I see no link, again, but the espousing of more lies. Ok dokey there Francis.

kengs333 · October 31, 2007

Wow, still the lies huh?
About the toxins. I see no link, again, but the espousing of more lies. Ok dokey there Francis.

What lies?

I don't have to post a link because, as I stated, it's fairly common knowledge what effect toxins have of animals. The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening.

But it's clear what you're up to, so don't waste my time.

jefferiah · October 31, 2007

The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening.

No, they are right. It's on you to prove your own claim.

g_bambino · October 31, 2007

I'm not concerned about what the "far right" thinks, and this is not about legal equality; rather the immorality of deviant sexual behaviour.

Yet, you have yet to clearly outline what the benchmark is from which certain sexual behaviour deviates. Until this point of reference can be established, your assertions about immorality are meritless.

capricorn · October 31, 2007

The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening.

I always thought the onus of backing up an assertion was on the poster making that assertion. Somebody set me straight here before I post anything else on this board. :huh:

cybercoma · October 31, 2007

I don't buy into the myths and lies

The factless opinions you demonstrate in this thread completely contradict this.

cybercoma · October 31, 2007

is this pwning of Kengs still going on?

It has made my day to see someone say, "pwned" in this forum. :lol:

cybercoma · October 31, 2007

I always thought the onus of backing up an assertion was on the poster making that assertion. Somebody set me straight here before I post anything else on this board.

It's impossible to disprove something in the sense that kengs is requesting. He can prove his claim by showing what toxins cause homosexual behaviour in animals, but to disprove it, one would have to show that there is not any toxins whatsoever that do this.

It was always thought that swans were ONLY white, until black ones were found. To prove that there is a black swan, you just have to find one. To disprove that there are black swans, you have to somehow show that there are absolutely no black swans anywhere, nor would nature be capable of creating such an animal. It's impossible.

Long rant short, it's much easier for kengs to provide links to research that conclusive shows certain toxins cause homosexual behaviour in animals. He/she claims it's common knowledge, so the proof should be readily accessible for him/her to show. Since kengs has yet to do that, it's safe to assume he/she is full of crap.

capricorn · October 31, 2007

cyberc, so noted and thank you.

Drea · October 31, 2007

Honestly, what exactly does a position have in common with a lifestyle/orientation? So if children are groomed from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults, and this is commonplace in society and no social stigma attached, and "nobody gets hurt" it would be okay with you, you would consider it moral????

Who said anything about children?

Are gay people (or sexual freedom advocates like me) grooming children "from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults"?

Get real.

The moral police (such as yourself) always bring up the strawman that because one believes in sexual freedom they MUST be "grooming" children as sex partners.

Give it a rest. Most people (aside from you) know that sexual freedom does NOT include sex with children (that was the "no one gets hurt" part of my post -- duh).

I notice that you dropped the topic in the other thread "Feminism in Norway goes insane"... Guess I won that debate, eh. :lol: