Iran Executes Gay Teenagers

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

I like that. Is that original?

Yes, thank you, I made that up on the spot. I could almost use it as my signature, lol.

[crazymf]

Noooo, they wouldn't be useful around my house. Let's see...Iranian queers could be used for what?  Uhhh...damn, I can't think of anything right now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Queer Eye for the Straight Crazymf?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. It's a horrific crime. What can anyone say seriously to even understand it?

I spout sometimes a little off kilter. Walk a mile in my shoes, you'd understand. Of course you can't so you'll have to take my word for it. It was just some dark humor. Discard it after you read it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

Queer Eye for the Straight Crazymf?

Tee hee. Looking at crazymf's photo, I'd say he could use a little help in the 'public image' department. lol

[crazymf]

Some insight to my inner self:

Think Monty Python's Black Knight guarding the bridge skit.

Now THAT'S funny.

[Black Dog]

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

Can't have it both ways.

Can't see why the U.S. would have such a beef with Iran. the differences between the mullahs there and teh religious right that constitutes the backbone of the Republican party are only one's of degrees.

That the corrupt Iranian religious establishment is loathsome should go without saying. But given the costs of direct intervention are borne overwhelmingly by the general populace, and given the titanic failure that Iraq's regime change is shaping up to be (the new, "democratic" Iraq will bear a strong resemblance to Iran due to their mutual idealogy), one should be loathe to pursue such a strategy.

I think it's harsh too. However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them? If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

Of course one must first assume that the "liberator" has the interests of the oppressed in mind. That's seldom the case.

Uncle Sam will straighten them all out eventually. I just expect the same liberal anti everything types around here to be opposed to this just as much as the war.

And if it happens, as in every other historical case, it will be cloaked in such high minded rhetroic to conceal the real political and economic motivations.

Now the new Iran leader is one of the old hostage takers, nice. Won't be long.....boom.

Debunked.

Just remember those poor queer bastards when the USA goes in and starts cleaning out Iran. With the nuclear proliferation problems, it's going to happen IMO.

Your sympathy for the victims is truely heart warming.

Even I do not agree with hanging queers. They could be useful for something besides hanging ornaments. Maybe Iran Airlines needs more stewardesses or something, or perhaps the country needs more hair stylists.

Thanks for backing up my initial statement.

I spout sometimes a little off kilter. Walk a mile in my shoes, you'd understand. Of course you can't so you'll have to take my word for it. It was just some dark humor. Discard it after you read it.

Bollocks. You're loathing for homosexuals has resonated loud and clear since you began posting.

[crazymf]

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

Can't have it both ways.

Can't see why the U.S. would have such a beef with Iran. the differences between the mullahs there and teh religious right that constitutes the backbone of the Republican party are only one's of degrees.

That the corrupt Iranian religious establishment is loathsome should go without saying. But given the costs of direct intervention are borne overwhelmingly by the general populace, and given the titanic failure that Iraq's regime change is shaping up to be (the new, "democratic" Iraq will bear a strong resemblance to Iran due to their mutual idealogy), one should be loathe to pursue such a strategy.

I think it's harsh too. However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them? If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

Of course one must first assume that the "liberator" has the interests of the oppressed in mind. That's seldom the case.

Uncle Sam will straighten them all out eventually. I just expect the same liberal anti everything types around here to be opposed to this just as much as the war.

And if it happens, as in every other historical case, it will be cloaked in such high minded rhetroic to conceal the real political and economic motivations.

Now the new Iran leader is one of the old hostage takers, nice. Won't be long.....boom.

Debunked.

Just remember those poor queer bastards when the USA goes in and starts cleaning out Iran. With the nuclear proliferation problems, it's going to happen IMO.

Your sympathy for the victims is truely heart warming.

Even I do not agree with hanging queers. They could be useful for something besides hanging ornaments. Maybe Iran Airlines needs more stewardesses or something, or perhaps the country needs more hair stylists.

Thanks for backing up my initial statement.

I spout sometimes a little off kilter. Walk a mile in my shoes, you'd understand. Of course you can't so you'll have to take my word for it. It was just some dark humor. Discard it after you read it.

Bollocks. You're loathing for homosexuals has resonated loud and clear since you began posting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, why don't you hand us your stance in the world for a change instead of waiting to see what everybody else has to say and then just trashing them? Posters like yourself are a dime a dozen. The back benches in parliament are full of guys like you. I like meaningful discussion. You don't seem to have a position on anything.

Enlighten us.

[Black Dog]

BD, why don't you hand us your stance in the world for a change instead of waiting to see what everybody else has to say and then just trashing them? Posters like yourself are a dime a dozen. The back benches in parliament are full of guys like you. I like meaningful discussion. You don't seem to have a position on anything.

Enlighten us.

Can you ask a specific question?

[crazymf]

Yes I did. Here's another one. What do you think about the subject of this thread? That question is pre-supposed by the very context of the forum.

Rather than merely counter and twist absolutely everything I say, why don't you stand up for yourself and tell us your views, separate and by themselves. You have a view on the world and life don't you?

You're very good at digging up internet facts, better than I am. How about some views based on your life experience.

I'm interested.

[Black Dog]

Your asking me to take a stand? On what? Choose sides? Why? I'm a progressive, social democrat with an arachistic streak, a solid distrust of the establishment and a dim view of balck and white world views. I can loathe the religious extremists of Iran without making common cause with their idealogical bretheren in the U.S.A. or Canada. I can distrust the power of the state and the free market alike. I'm an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

[B. Max]

Is it true that those who don't stand for something will fall for anything.

[Black Dog]

Is it true that those who don't stand for something will fall for anything.

In the spirit of Greg's new rules, I'll refrain from responding in the way I normally would to such a slur, but will point out that personal attacks are verboten. I'll also point out that such attacks are usually indicative of a losing argument.

[B. Max]

Is it true that those who don't stand for something will fall for anything.

In the spirit of Greg's new rules, I'll refrain from responding in the way I normally would to such a slur, but will point out that personal attacks are verboten. I'll also point out that such attacks are usually indicative of a losing argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I asked a question that you can't or won't answer as usual. You have not been able to make any arguement of facts. I would also suggest there is nothing abnormal what soever.

[Black Dog]

I asked a question that you can't or won't answer as usual. You have not been able to make any arguement of facts. I would also suggest there is nothing abnormal what soever.

I would have to ask what in blazes you're on about. Your "question" was a thinly veiled dig. If you have something to say, say it.

[B. Max]

I asked a question that you can't or won't answer as usual. You have not been able to make any arguement of facts. I would also suggest there is nothing abnormal what soever.

I would have to ask what in blazes you're on about. Your "question" was a thinly veiled dig. If you have something to say, say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You made the statement: Your asking me to take a stand? On what? Choose sides? in response to what crazymf said. I agree with him, but your response indicates that you have your feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. When bush said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists i'm sure he was refering to your like but won't come out and say it. So i asked you the question. If it was a digging question then so be it.

[Black Dog]

When bush said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists i'm sure he was refering to your like but won't come out and say it. So i asked you the question.

False dichotomy.

A dichotomy is evaluated on a premise that only two alternatives are possible.  This is false when other alternatives are in fact possible, which usually is the case. The notion that a binary choice exists usually is implied rather than being stated explicitly.

Predicate 1:

Propositions A and B are mutually exclusive

Predicate 2:

A is {true / false}

Therefore:

B is inverse of A

Examples:

"You are either with us or against us."  -- George W. Bush, November 6, 2001

If taken literally, this neglects neutrality and mixed allegiance for different elements of a set. 

[B. Max]

When bush said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists i'm sure he was refering to your like but won't come out and say it. So i asked you the question.

False dichotomy.

A dichotomy is evaluated on a premise that only two alternatives are possible.  This is false when other alternatives are in fact possible, which usually is the case. The notion that a binary choice exists usually is implied rather than being stated explicitly.

Predicate 1:

Propositions A and B are mutually exclusive

Predicate 2:

A is {true / false}

Therefore:

B is inverse of A

Examples:

"You are either with us or against us."  -- George W. Bush, November 6, 2001

If taken literally, this neglects neutrality and mixed allegiance for different elements of a set. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure he said you are either with us, or you are with the terrorist. He did not leave it up in the air as to whatever else you might be with. It seems clear to me. I think the left have made equally clear theiy are with the terrorists. Nothing else could explain their ridiculous excuses and blame america first attitude.

[Guest eureka]

Bush was obviously as big a fool as those who cannot see the false dichotomy. I, like Black Dog, am not with Bush: I am strongly opposed to him over this and almost everything else he has done.

I am equally opposed to terrorism as Bush is not. Bush has quite deliberately encouraged the growth of terrorism in the foolish belief that he (America) could contain it.

[newbie]

There seems to be a definite insistence in this thread to take stands. In terms of Bush and terrorists, is it not quite possible that you can be with neither? Why do some folks here only see things in terms of black and white? I've been accused of fence sitting by knee jerk reactors because I like to take my time with complex issues and sort things out. I think we should appreciate each other's differences instead of chastizing those who, like me, tend to take the grey and analytical approach. I stand for a lot of things and ideals; I just try to be a little more diplomatic when expressing them.

[crazymf]

You guys are reading way too much into what he said. It was simple.

What he was saying was the USA was p*ssed off and going to kick some major a**.

We're going to shoot everyone who isn't marching with us and shooting in the same direction.

Is that hard to understand?

It was a simple call to arms to warn countries that they better sound off where they stand and to basically rally support for the war that was coming in one way or another.

False dichotomy? People that speak language like that at a time like this get squashed under tank treads.

[crazymf]

There seems to be a definite insistence in this thread to take stands. In terms of Bush and terrorists, is it not quite possible that you can be with neither? Why do some folks here only see things in terms of black and white? I've been accused of fence sitting by knee jerk reactors because I like to take my time with complex issues and sort things out.  I think we should appreciate each other's differences instead of chastizing those who, like me, tend to take the grey and analytical approach. I stand for a lot of things and ideals; I just try to be a little more diplomatic when expressing them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I started this because BD seems to concentrate on opposing most thing I say seemingly because he/she like to disagree with me, or at least does most of the time. I merely pointed that out and wanted to know his/her opinion and position on the issue, as he/she hasn't really said anything past opposing me. Some people, not necessarily or always BD, argue facts by quoting things from books all day without revealing any life experience with anything or taking a stance one way or another. To me you might as well take a typing class to do that. It's like trying to debate a living textbook. Life isn't about books. It's much more than that.

Some things I think of in black and white, yes. This is one of them. I don't about all things and don't post on a lot of purely political threads at all because I'm not informed enough to even have an opinion. I just get tired of getting chewed on for the sake of it

I do not think gays should be killed for being gay, and I wouldn't complain one bit if the USA felt they had motivation to wipe the government of Iran off the map so the people could live a decent life. All the other issues of oil, nukes, etc, are part of it too.

That should be clear.

[Guest eureka]

A decent life as in Iraq? thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers can live a decent life.

Hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and starving Iraquis can live a decent life?

Does Bush's vanity override that?

[crazymf]

I'm a progressive, social democrat with an arachistic streak, a solid distrust of the establishment and a dim view of balck and white world views. I can loathe the religious extremists of Iran without making common cause with their idealogical bretheren in the U.S.A. or Canada. I can distrust the power of the state and the free market alike

You're an Irish union leader with autism?

I'm an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

You're a difficult problematic encased in a religious truth that is incomprehensible to reason and knowable only through divine revelation?

Ok, I understand now.

[crazymf]

A decent life as in Iraq? thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers can live a decent life.

Hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and starving Iraquis can live a decent life?

Does Bush's vanity override that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fairly embellished statement imo, but;

How should I know? It's not over yet. We certainly hope in the end that something good comes out of it. There are good things going on over there. It really depends on who you listen too. What I do think is that Saddam needed to be removed, his sons stopped, and his henchmen rounded up and dealt with so the people of Iraq can live. It's not the nice people over there doing the killing. It some a**holes with warped beliefs of standing up against the western style of freedom merely to oppose things. If those radicals would put down their guns and go get a job and be useful for a change, things would settle down there tomorrow.

[Guest eureka]

Get a job when there is 50% unemployment coutesy of the American social improvement program?

[Black Dog]

I'm pretty sure he said you are either with us, or you are with the terrorist. He did not leave it up in the air as to whatever else you might be with. It seems clear to me. I think the left have made equally clear theiy are with the terrorists. Nothing else could explain their ridiculous excuses and blame america first attitude.

If you can't figure it out by now, I can't help you.

You guys are reading way too much into what he said. It was simple.

What he was saying was the USA was p*ssed off and going to kick some major a**.

We're going to shoot everyone who isn't marching with us and shooting in the same direction.

Is that hard to understand?

It was a simple call to arms to warn countries that they better sound off where they stand and to basically rally support for the war that was coming in one way or another.

False dichotomy? People that speak language like that at a time like this get squashed under tank treads.

It was, then as now, bullshit. It's possible to oppose terrorist attacks on civilians and the unsavoury ideology behind them while simultaneously opposing the militaristic, jingoistic garbage from the other side. Both are worth opposing because both are simply flip sides of the same coin.

By the way, you're Canadian: Bush is not "us".

I started this because BD seems to concentrate on opposing most thing I say seemingly because he/she like to disagree with me, or at least does most of the time.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I was on this forum and oppossing the same stuff I'm opposed to now before you came along. You just happen to be one of the more vocal right-wingers here.

ome people, not necessarily or always BD, argue facts by quoting things from books all day without revealing any life experience with anything or taking a stance one way or another. To me you might as well take a typing class to do that. It's like trying to debate a living textbook. Life isn't about books. It's much more than that.

I think my stance is pretty clear.

Some things I think of in black and white, yes. This is one of them. I don't about all things and don't post on a lot of purely political threads at all because I'm not informed enough to even have an opinion. I just get tired of getting chewed on for the sake of it

Well, if you see things in black and white where others see grey, don't expect to be unchallenged.

I do not think gays should be killed for being gay, and I wouldn't complain one bit if the USA felt they had motivation to wipe the government of Iran off the map so the people could live a decent life.

So a government that opposses equal rights for women, and gays should get to wipe out another country for, uh, oppossing equal rights for women and gays?

If those radicals would put down their guns and go get a job and be useful for a change, things would settle down there tomorrow.

They'd settle down into a nice stable Islamic theocracy is what. That's the direction its going now.