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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (346466)	1/23/2003 10:41:50 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

So when JLA was talking about those Saddambuttkissing "people", he was actually describing a named group? And the hateful X prevailed? Incredible. Bill Bring back JLA!

To: PROLIFE who wrote (346466)	1/23/2003 11:42:11 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

These guys (and gals) are a pretty new group. JLA is really ahead of the curve on these developments. groups.yahoo.com

To: PROLIFE who wrote (346466)	1/23/2003 1:11:34 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

X simply must have felt JLA's comment struck upon some hurtful truth that so got under her skin she could not use reason and a powerful presentation to confront it, but had to resort to illogic and government force. Pretty dang sad, and its pretty dang sad the fokes here at SI are evidently so unsophisticated they couldn't analyze the situation and respond appropriately. Homosexuals are not a protected class of people because they are not defined by ANY passive and innate attribute like skin color (i.e. race). They are defined by behavior, which is obviously not passive and not innate in that it both does something and can change even if that change occurs for but a moment. A black man cannot change his race, even for a second because his phenotype is innate to him. The fact that his skin does nothing means that we cannot judge it as part of any moral determination. We can and must judge behavior because it certainly does something. We cannot allow homosexuals to spread their queer logic to us such that for their sake we give up the dang right to discriminate based upon behavior. Should we do that, then the jig is up. The fact is, the very thing that defines homosexuals, their behavior, is indeed queer to the vast majority of humanity across the entire globe. It has always been queer and always will be queer because it has no integrity with the fundamental male-female scheme that comprises us all. That homosexuality is queer is nothing new. So using the term "peace queers" would be most accurate and valid even were JLA to have used it in reference to homosexuals. Nevertheless it is obvious to me he did not necessarily use it to reference homosexuals - unless the 200 demonstrators to which he referred were actually "Queers for Peace." And were this the case then SI would still be wrong to ban the dang guy. X just let JLA get under her skin (because he spoke a painful truth) and rather than deal with it using her mind, she wimped out and whined. It seems the fokes at SI just said "X want's him dead, less jess kill 'im and see what happens." That is their right, but the problem with it is it quite lacks integrity because not only did JLA do nothing wrong in this case, but also because very many other people here have used words far more brutal in my opinion and were not kilt for it. If one person violates the TOU by using a simple and most valid general term like "saddambuttkissing peace queers," then certainly those who use such general terms as "religious fundies", "bigots", "facists", "racists" and "right wing wackos" to disparage whole groups are also violating the TOU. Of course, the fokes at SI can lack integrity if they wish. That is also their right. But it ain' very even handed and it dang sho ain' professional - in my dang opinion.