Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10935)	4/27/2002 4:31:45 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"I don't care to make the effort to compensate for your lack of sight in this case." Aren't you cute. I did not have any lack of "sight"...(Oh, Brother) "There is no reason for you to think that I accepted your argument" You appeared that you had accepted it. You let it stand, and you have not tried to refute it... "No, I read it and saw that the subject had been covered." Good! "How many of those are relatively new words" A lot of them!! "Of course. Any one who reads any of your arguments is going to be so dazzled by your brilliance that they will be unable to argue their points any more... And since we all know that you are always right about everything there is no need for further discussion one you have had your say." I am not surprised to encounter this childish outburst of invective and personal insult from you, Tim! Your propensity for personal attack has surfaced in the past from behind your disguise--although this is much less furtive than your usual. This tirade sounds to me like the popping of some bubbles of anger and guilt. Are you angry because you don't like the proposition that homosexuals are persons, Tim? Nobody on this planet should need to be born with the default status of being lesser than others such that they require to be "tolerated"...should they, Tim? People are not born with a "better" colour or a "better" gender, or a "better" sexual orientation...are they, Tim? You use the same arguments that used to be proffered by those who were "tolerant" of woman, and who did not mind them so long as they could not vote--and so long as they realized they were morally inferior. Do you think that either coloured people or women were fighting for the right to be "tolerated"--as just "a little bit" persons? "Keep discriminating against us and hating us and feeling morally superior and smug...just so long as you are big enough to "tolerate" us--just a litttle...please?? Equality does not come in a can of baby peas, Tim. A person either IS, or is NOT a PERSON. You wish to reserve your secret scorn, disdain, pity, moral abhorrence, and moral superiority--while at the same time pretending that your "tolerance" ought to exempt you from the ranks of those of more vicious and ugly character. Well...sorry. It doesn't. You need to do a little growing up. Sexual orientation is not a mental illness; it is not a disease. The APA has been telling you this for over 30 years. Even if they WERE born diseased, they would neither require nor appreciate your moral "tolerance". Who in the Hell do you think you are?? You wish to be exempted from the term "homophobic" because you only hate or discriminate against them to a level at which you feel comfortable. But equality does not exist in levels of comfort. They were either born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...or they were not. It is not a moral feather in your cap that you were born as a white male heterosexual. What merit is there attached to the manner or disposition in which one tumbles out of the womb? I grant you that the history of society is one of caste and moral privilege based on accidents of birth. But that was then, Tim. This is now. How can you believe that human beings born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ought to be somehow gratified by your "tolerance"? Should someone born a woman feel affirmed by your "tolerance"? Should someone born an African American? Nobody born on this planet should need to be born with the de facto status of requiring to be "tolerated" because they are born a lesser human being. What a load of crap. Nobody is a "better" colour, or a "better" gender. You are following in the footsteps of our bigoted forebears who also wanted to be "tolerant" of woman and colours--just so long as it was understood that they were not fully human, and that they were morally defective and repugnant. Frankly, I could care less about your claim that "homophobic" confuses you, and that you find it frustrating. That is a truckload of pig manure. You looked up the word in half a dozen dictionaries, and you are not at all confused by what it means. Frankly, I think anyone who believes they are born "better" than anyone else and who are so tight-assed about their moral extremism that they fight for the right to ride a moral high horse of smug superiority because they were born with a certain colour, gender, or hormonal make-up, are simply hypocritical a-sholes. I'm sorry you don't like the word "homophobe". I think it is far too mild myself. It lets a lot of supercilious pr-cks off the hook, don't you agree? Glad to have you on the same page. "Tolerant"?? They don't need your bloody "tolerance" for Christ's sake. Have you been standing on your head in the cotton patch, Tim?? What do you think? Should I "tolerate" you because you are a white male??? "Solon I've been all over my argument in my other posts I don' care to repeat it again" Not that I saw. It seemed to me that you were just pissed that there should be a word for people who feared homosexuals, felt that they were repugnant, OR wished to freely discriminate against them. Your "argument" seemed pointless. I pointed that out, and you apparently accept it as accurate. However, you may simply have been responding to the subject matter of my post--unread--because you felt the subject had been covered. So just for others, I will re-post it here. I could probably name you 50,000 words which are substantially different in meaning than their prefix and suffix and body roots...but you don't seem to have a problem with those, LOL! If you have already read this then I will consider that you accept my point, and that the matter is closed. Thanks for listening