It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by LL1
Good point, as I've seen here how members generalize, and throw
a blanket statement to cover an entire group of people for a few
that have committed a wrong (9/11 and the beheadings).
[/url]
Thanks that was my entire point
People want to take the words and actions of a few and blame EVERYONE in that group, well if ALL Gays, and ALL Muslims, and ALL Jews, etc; are evil what does this say about us?
Im white so ill take a crack at this, but i dont speak for all whites.
It's when whites want special privileges that bothers me. They want special days now? They had everyday for the past 200 years! Why can't they just be happy, being white, without forcing their agenda on me?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Well your point still escapes me. The support you are getting seems to be from those who revel in the idea that there are bad whiteys, too.
And, you say, we should not condemn the entire group for the actions of a few?
Uhh.. yeah, so what's the point? That seems to be self -evident. Intuitively obvious. Readily apparent to the most casual observer. Once again, so what? It's something that most of us learned by the age 10 or so. If not, it is, as I said, intuitiveky obvious to most adults.
So your point is still a mystery. Unless you want to stir things up? Or are you simply looking for confirmation of something that most of us know?
Originally posted by CazMedia
Why is it wrong to hate someone/thing?
Where is it legislated that hate and expousing it is against the law? in fact as long as no crimes are being commited, i thought ALL views were to be allowed to be heard under the first ammendment.
OR
are many of you advocating censorship against them, it surely seems you are just as biggoted against them as they are against the groups they hate...
Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Amuk,
Are these people working in cognito with the Homosexuals and thier agenda to take over the world ?
Deep
Originally posted by Amuk
If this point WAS "self -evident and Intuitively obvious" why do we have on almost a daily basis crap like "The Homosexual Manifisto" and "The Jewish Menace" and the "Muslims are all terrorists" and "The Christans are out to get us"?
All backed up with "proof" found on the internet.
If you still cant see my point I will spell it out for you.
1. The words of a few do not represent the entire group.
2. You can find "proof" to back any whaco theory you want on the internet.
No certantly under free speech,you can "expose" people for your perceptions of what they are. You can also express this opinion.
But let me turn the tables here are you saying that for free speech we cant expose them for what they are?I have no problem with them spewing hatred as long as no one has a problem with me saying how ignorent that hatred is.
Originally posted by CazMedia
I find it amusing that so many have expressed condemnation for one special interest minority group, but seem to welcome others.
Hypocracy at its finest.
Yes everyone has an agenda, i just think its funny that so many hide theirs behind political correct inclusivness when they are really discriminating under a cloak of niceness.
Originally posted by CazMedia
My point is that doing that...listening to them and then labeling them, you have commited discrimination on the spot....youve decided that their group deserves your condemntion at the least.
Id agree to a point....they have no right to FORCE their agenda, but id say they have every right to campaign, spread, and be politically active thru legitimate democratic means to push for their agenda.
they have NO right to FORCE their Beliefs on any one else
CAREFUL CAREFUL here Amuk....go search all my posts and find where ive EVER condemed gays for being amoral, sinners, perverts, or any other such negative phrase. (good luck, there is like a hundred posts by me with this subject.) I say this all the time...show me where ive said "gays are bad"....what ive said is no to gay marriage on a cultural level, never gay is bad.
You condeem Gays yourself and do not want them to to have Equal rights
my responce is the same as before, here it is again, (post 880365 from this thread)
So only THEY are allowed an opinion? As long as they stay out of my face they can hate all they want, and whenever I hear it I will comdeem it for the stupidy that it is
i guess you missed this as your having to really hustle now-a-days being your busy MODing and all.
No certantly under free speech,you can "expose" people for your perceptions of what they are. You can also express this opinion.
discrimination is discrimination is picking one group before another for whaterever, even just suppo
to know this occured really made me feel like i was reverse discriminated against because of my race/sex
Originally posted by CazMedia
IF as you allege that no special interest minority group should FORCE their agenda, then you would have to agree that the fiasco in California, where a gay supporting activist mayor and judge buddies tried to STEAL away the democratically derived state law barring gay marriage, and IMPOSE their non majority stance onto ALL citizens there was wrong. DO YOU? I do. So did the courts when they overturned the marriages
You must also feel the same way about the gays suing the boy scouts. Because the gays tried to force their agenda upon the scouts...and the courts came back and said, the scouts have the right to do as they were...yet they are condemmed as bigots for this?
If you truly support the contention that no group should be ramming their agenda's down the necks of others, then you would agree that the gays were wrong to do so against the scouts eh? (i suspect a kerry flip-flop comming soon from amuk because i dont see where he can have these examples both ways.) Im not asking if you agree/disagree with the scouts or the gay position, im asking if the agenda pushing was appropriate.
Another question i have, and not just to Amuk, is at what point does a democratic society have the RIGHT to set cultural boundaries for itself in order to define the culture?
I agree, but this assumes that a majority concensus supports affirmativa action to start with...this hasnt been put to the people to my knowledge but has been legislated...also note that affirmative action has been being challenged all around as being a devicive quota system promoting not the best for the job, but a feel good fill in.
If most people think that affirmative action is a good thing, you may or may not agree, but that will be imposed on you nevertheless.
Again i must ask that you avoid equating not being able to hold your lovers hand in the hospital with being made into personal property...the 2 issues are not even close to being the same magnitude of oppression.
They tried to make ALL citizens Gay? Show me were they tried to force every one in the state into a Gay Marriage. I guess you would be against the people that helped the run-away slaves because after all the were stealing someone elses LEGAL property, right.
So you agree, yet have reservationsbased upon a percieved "right/wrongness" of the cultural decision.
To a point yes. Our democratic society legalized slavery. Did that make it right just because it was legal. Would you support slavery if it was legal today?
Yes we have this right, but isnt this pushing your agenda onto others as well? There is a line seperating, speaking freely about your agenda by recruiting willing people to your cause, AND violating the law by disruptive means. Thats pushing!
A democratic country has the right to pass laws as it sees fit but we as Americans have the right to fight against what laws we dont think are right and civil disobediance is a part of our culture.