[Tom Bishop]

Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

Feel free to quote them directly from the document rather than giving your hot take that they want to destroy the country. I simply do not believe you.

[Rama Set]

Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

Feel free to quote them directly from the document rather than giving your hot take that they want to destroy the country. I simply do not believe you.

You don’t believe the thing I didn’t say? Incredible turn of events. This is such a poor deflection from my response I can only assume you have nothing to say about their inconsistency about the values they claim to uphold. Thanks for playing.

[Rama Set]

There is so much that is comically villainous in this platform that I forgot the nugget where, for some reason (I wonder what it could be), the Texas GOP asserts that the equal protection clause expired in 1979.

[Action80]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

[stack]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

How do you interpret the usage:

deviating from the normal or average

OR

unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way

[Rama Set]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.

[Action80]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.

Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

[stack]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.

Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Where does it end?

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.

[Fortuna]

Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.

Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

[Rama Set]

Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.

Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.

[Action80]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.

Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

Where does it end?

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

[Rama Set]

Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

Where does it say it has nothing to do with assault, specifically?

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

Who has faced criminal charges for simply stating they do not condone homosexuality?

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

It’s unnecessary discrimination in a lot of cases.

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

First off, Pride celebrations are not just about a sexual act so your characterization above is already off the mark. But if you want to know why Pride celebrations exist (I am going to assume you are ignorant and asking in good faith) well that’s simple.

Society largely made homosexuals feel ashamed and often made it unsafe to be homosexual for centuries. No one should feel threat or shame for being themselves and everyone should feel pride for who they are. Pride celebrations are a peaceful way to push back against people who want to discriminate against, propagate hate towards and oppress LGBTQ+ folk.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

So everything people value is traditional.

[Action80]

Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

Where does it say it has nothing to do with assault, specifically?

Since you are such a huge fan of inference, that remains an aspect for you to explain where it does.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

Who has faced criminal charges for simply stating they do not condone homosexuality?

No one yet, and that is what the language hopes to establish and prevent.

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

It’s unnecessary discrimination in a lot of cases.

You being the sole judge of what constitutes necessary and unnecessary, of course.

People have a right to engage in free enterprise with whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want.

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

First off, Pride celebrations are not just about a sexual act so your characterization above is already off the mark. But if you want to know why Pride celebrations exist (I am going to assume you are ignorant and asking in good faith) well that’s simple.

Society largely made homosexuals feel ashamed and often made it unsafe to be homosexual for centuries. No one should feel threat or shame for being themselves and everyone should feel pride for who they are. Pride celebrations are a peaceful way to push back against people who want to discriminate against, propagate hate towards and oppress LGBTQ+ folk.

Actually, the shame comes from the same mentality that is incapable of understanding the word abnormal without negative connotation and the strong urge people have to engage in blaming others for their current physical and mental state.

Only weak-minded, superfluous people have the need to show off or claim pride in anything.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

So everything people value is traditional.

Mostly, yeah.

[Fortuna]

Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.

Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.

You’re far too biased for your opinion on anything political to matter.

[Rama Set]

Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.

Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.

You’re far too biased for your opinion on anything political to matter.

Apprently it mattered enough for you to comment with a vapid “muh both sides!” Being honest about one’s feelings is important. Let’s talk more after you’ve read the GOP platform, k?

[stack]

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.

Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.

Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".

Where does it end?

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?

[Action80]

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone. You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

But, anyone committing assault on a homosexual and subsequently apprehended, would likely face criminal charges.

There is nothing in the platform indicating otherwise.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".

There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

Where does it end?

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?

I achieve no sense of pride out of either.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?

Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.

[stack]

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".

But, anyone committing assault on a homosexual and subsequently apprehended, would likely face criminal charges.

Cool.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".

There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.

Where does it end?

It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?

I achieve no sense of pride out of either.

No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.

Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?

Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.

Ok, cool, so I guess you agree that if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values".

[AATW]

There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

Care to elaborate?

[Action80]

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?

It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".

Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.

Me being banned has nothing to do with my spot-on characterization and any lack of moderator action related to your posts is more a statement related to poor moderation than a justification for what you do here on a daily basis.

A little thing called "discrimination".

There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.

You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.

Which is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.

I usually ignore worthless questions.