Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Gays and liberals will take historic figures for their own - You can have Oscar Wilde if you wish - it is documented that he was gay - so what - but as for Alexander the Great and others - it's ancient hear say and rumor...what the heck - The great men of the world for the most part were men...not men mimicing females. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Question - Why is it that if a person has a different perception of something..or judges things differently - or thinks differently - or comes up with conclutions that might be different than those of others ---is he called a bigot? Definition: Bigot....One intolerant of or pre-judiced against those differing religious beliefs, political opinions etc. First - all "opinions" are not fact they are theory. Second - one has the right to tolerate one thing and not the other...for instance - I tolerate crack heads but not crack heads that will break into your house and steal. Tolerance and intolerance are choices - I am pro-choice when it comes to making personal judgement calls - If I don't approve - that is my right! As for prejudice - That is a subjective term - some might pre - judge accurately and others miss the mark completely...and judge with horrific inaccuracy. There was this black guy that used to come to visit...he would bring his shifty friend. I found out that my black friend did not allow this shifty guy in his house because he was a habitual theft artist. YET he brought him to my home - Things started to disappear...so I barred them both...Then the black friend started the rumor that I did not like "N**gers" - I had to correct him on the street - I was preturbed that he was slandering me...It had nothing to do with his race but with his character...but I was for a time called a bigot. If a person wants to be a bigot...again they have the right to freedom of thought and experssion - IF that bigot acts out in a way where phyicial and finacial harm is inflicted on those he does not like - then - that is not just a bigot but a crimminal - there is a difference...You are entitled to be discriminatory and a bigot - but under rule of law - you are not entitled to bring harm to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well Michael - this bigot is going out back and put up some strings for the Morning Glories to climb on - This bigot loves beautuful things and makes an effort in the stewardship of nature...I believe that those that can not keep a plant alive - or toss garbage into a planter - are uncivilized and creeps - Some one put a cigarette but into the pot of my 27 year old Palm tree - I don't allow that barbarian in my home - cos' I am a bigot and they are trash ....I like being a bigot - it helps weed out those that will lower the quality of life...as for the Californian educational system - and those that manipulate it _ teach the kids to grow a garden..that would be useful - more practical than a study of those that grow nothing and produce nothing and re-produce nothing - This bigot...will now go and beautify his world _ I suggest you do the same Mr. Hardner - and stay out of my world...grow your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) You can have Oscar Wilde if you wish - it is documented that he was gay - so what - but as for Alexander the Great and others - it's ancient hear say and rumor... No, for Alexander, that would actually be the anachronistic application of a modern label onto a man who would've had absolutely no idea what it meant. [+] Edited July 19, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Part of the problem is, I think, that if you never mention homosexuality in history, it gives the impression that it is somehow merely a modern phenomenon. Tolerance and the celebration of it is a modern phenomenon and I believe it is only a temporary social aberration forwarded in an effort to keep propagation levels low. It seems to be working, the white race is disappearing. I might be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 I believe it is only a temporary social aberration forwarded in an effort to keep propagation levels low. Um... Explain, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 It speaks to the main condition of gays or sexual deviants, that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual nature. I doubt if all sexual deviants identify themselves primarily by their sexuality. But gay people definitely do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 But gay people definitely do not. There are some that do; they wear their chosen sexual label on their sleeve for all to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Gays and liberals will take historic figures for their own - You can have Oscar Wilde if you wish - it is documented that he was gay - so what - but as for Alexander the Great and others - it's ancient hear say and rumor...what the heck - The great men of the world for the most part were men...not men mimicing females. Oscar Wilde isn't a bad example of just what this topic pertains to; he got in some seriosu legal trouble for homosexuality. That's legitimately historically important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 There are some that do; they wear their chosen sexual label on their sleeve for all to see. Yes, and there are some heterosexual males and females whose heterosexuality is an important and celebratory aspect of their public persona as well. My point was that most gay people do not behave in any "obvious" way, but simply go about their daily business like you or I do. You made the promiscuous overgeneralization about their "main condition." Now you alter your own stated opinion, by (correctly) diluting it as "some." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Tolerance and the celebration of it is a modern phenomenon and I believe it is only a temporary social aberration forwarded in an effort to keep propagation levels low. It seems to be working, the white race is disappearing. I might be wrong though. Jaw-dropping conspiratorial lunacy usually is wrong, in my opinion. Perhaps there are exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Yes, and there are some heterosexual males and females whose heterosexuality is an important and celebratory aspect of their public persona as well. I don't know about "celebratory", but I can say from experience there are those who feel there's a need to convince the world they're 100%, Grade-A heterosexual. You made the promiscuous overgeneralization about their "main condition." No, I didn't. My name isn't Oleg. [c/e] Edited July 19, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I don't know about "celebratory", but I can say from experience there are those who feel there's a need to convince the world they're 100%, Grade-A heterosexual. True. But there are those who are merely profoundly and overtly sexual, and their very open sexuality just happens to be heterosexual. It isn't always some sort of explicit or implicit negation of other sexualities. Same goes with the overt sexuality of some homosexuals. (Again, a minority anyway.) No, I didn't. My name isn't Oleg.[c/e] The "main condition" of gays (which is factually incorrect, by the way) isn't an overgeneralization??? Edited July 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 This new gay history requirement is another example of why the education system has gone to shit over the last several decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 The "main condition" of gays (which is factually incorrect, by the way) isn't an overgeneralization??? I think we're both all mixed up. Neither I (as you thought) nor Oleg (as I thought) said anything about any "main condition". It was Sir Bandelot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 It is always going to be a matter of critical judgement whether sexual preference played an important role in the accomplishments of any particular individual. The unimportance of the sexuality Bell to the invention of the telephone should not be used to reason that the sexuality of Alexander the Great was not important to understanding his success. Why would the sexuality of either be important to their success? Do you think sexual preference is a factor in one's success? Was the sexuality of Grant and/or Lee important to understanding their success? Prior to the last forty or fifty years, when exactly is the sexual preference of a given figure not going to figure into the inequalities, abuses, legal battles, and punishments they faced? How do we know that it does in every instance and how do we know what everyone's sexual preference was? Surely there were a lot of "closet gays" throughout history, so by singling out the sexual preferences of some, and giving the impression that everyone else was heterosexual, isn't that a bit misleading? As I said, I agree with teaching the history of homosexuality - the inequities et al where they existed - but I'm not sure I agree with 'individualizing' it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 I think we're both all mixed up. Neither I (as you thought) nor Oleg (as I thought) said anything about any "main condition". It was Sir Bandelot. Right. My apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Why would the sexuality of either be important to their success? Do you think sexual preference is a factor in one's success? Was the sexuality of Grant and/or Lee important to understanding their success? How do we know that it does in every instance and how do we know what everyone's sexual preference was? Surely there were a lot of "closet gays" throughout history, so by singling out the sexual preferences of some, and giving the impression that everyone else was heterosexual, isn't that a bit misleading? As I said, I agree with teaching the history of homosexuality - the inequities et al where they existed - but I'm not sure I agree with 'individualizing' it. Leopard frogs do not sit around discussing the sexual "preference" of other frogs. Why do we bother - sexuality is a tiny part of what human beings are - to fixate on the genitals and who and what these genitals engage with is a very minor element in society...as for the closet - not a bad idea...sex in any form is private. As a kid if someone was "as gay as a rose" - that was that..."Joe down the road is "queer" - which was not such a derogatory term _ It just meant that he was strange - different - as a person there was something strange and queer about him...big deal! After someone would state that someone was "queer" - or the other term was a "gearbox" which meant he could switch sexual gears from one setting to the next - I suppose this was to define bi-sexuality....any way if it was stated someone was queer - it was stated then forgotten - We did not fixate on this as the persons full identiy... What is irksome these days is this on going social and political thing - concerning homo-sexuals....It appears at every turn - and it is interesting because all queer things are interesting...much like looking at a car crash as we pass...I suggest we move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 I like being a bigot - it helps weed out those that will lower the quality of life... ... I suggest you do the same Mr. Hardner - and stay out of my world...grow your own. Well being a bigot is definitely easier. Taking the time to understand people who appear to be difficult can be tedious and take a lot of time, as my efforts on this thread attest. I'm sorry to upset you by holding up the mirror of your own words back to you. You prefer to look at a handsome picture sitting in a store window and say 'that is me'. I'll step back and give you your own world back again ok ? There is only one world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Geography Report Card Finds U.S. Students Ill-Preparedfewer than one in three American students are proficient in geography, with most eighth graders unable to explain what causes earthquakes or accurately describe the American Southwest, according to a report released Tuesday morning NYT Oh well. At least they'll know their gay history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In october of 1940, Cesar Romero stars as the Cisco Kid in the Gay Caballero.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjiIHfKwi0Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Why would the sexuality of either be important to their success? Do you think sexual preference is a factor in one's success? Was the sexuality of Grant and/or Lee important to understanding their success? What part of " critical judgement " do you not understand? How can I even be expected to comment on Grant and Lee? I am Canadian, and this is a Canadian message board, or had you forgotten? But for what it is worth, both of them have several children before the Civil War. Do you think this detail too is irrelevant? That family may have not affected their judgement and resolve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 What part of " critical judgement " do you not understand? I understand every aspect of it just fine. But history is supposed to be about facts. I would have thought I made that clear regarding my opinion, my view on the issue. How can I even be expected to comment on Grant and Lee? I am Canadian, and this is a Canadian message board, or had you forgotten? Ummmm. No. I haven't forgotten that. But I'm assuming that you're familiar with the Civil War. Or am I wrong to make such an assumption? But for what it is worth, both of them have several children before the Civil War. Do you think this detail too is irrelevant? That family may have not affected their judgement and resolve? You prove my point. Whether they had children or not, never mind how many, is not a part of the history requirement, nor has it been included in any history course I've ever taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.