Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[rogue06]

I think this is by far one of the biggest hypocrisies of the liberal mindset --- "we want open dialogue, free thought, free speech --- but you shut up, you wretched homophobe!"

hypocrisy-freedom-of-speech.jpg

[Starlight]

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community".

Seems a bit of a weird legal concept to me.

How does that make any sense in the context of TWeb? Obviously we have a wide variety of posters here with very different views and very few things that have widespread agreement.

This describes the goofy accusations you freely spew forth. It's also against Tweb decorum to make such allegations without, at the time of the accusations, providing proof. Your sorry interpretation of discussions of ILGA/NAMBLA as "hate speech" does not qualify as proof.

Dude you've got a multi-year history of opposition to gay rights and acceptance of gay people. You've been in a lawsuit on the subject. Your latest 50-page attempt to connect gay groups to NAMBLA in order to demean them is merely the most recent in a track record years, if not decades, long. You making up crazy TWeb regulations doesn't change what a horrible person you consistently are when it comes to gay issues.

[Starlight]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25975[/ATTACH]

I take it you didn't understand my post explaining why I think speech against the government is different to speech against other people? Or the other post where I pointed out there is more than one liberal in the world and they have different views and do not agree with each other on this issue?

[lilpixieofterror]

Seems a bit of a weird legal concept to me.

How does that make any sense in the context of TWeb? Obviously we have a wide variety of posters here with very different views and very few things that have widespread agreement.

Dude you've got a multi-year history of opposition to gay rights and acceptance of gay people. You've been in a lawsuit on the subject. Your latest 50-page attempt to connect gay groups to NAMBLA in order to demean them is merely the most recent in a track record years, if not decades, long. You making up crazy TWeb regulations doesn't change what a horrible person you consistently are when it comes to gay issues.

[rogue06]

I take it you didn't understand my post explaining why I think speech against the government is different to speech against other people? Or the other post where I pointed out there is more than one liberal in the world and they have different views and do not agree with each other on this issue?

I take it you didn't understand that is a person and not a government. Go back and look at how you said you would like to see him charged with a supposed hate crime in order to stop him from pointing out how the early gay rights groups were figuratively in bed with NAMBLA for an entire decade and only stopped when it became politically expedient to do so.

[RumTumTugger]

I take it you didn't understand that is a person and not a government. Go back and look at how you said you would like to see him charged with a supposed hate crime in order to stop him from pointing out how the early gay rights groups were figuratively in bed with NAMBLA for an entire decade and only stopped when it became politically expedient to do so.

Starlight wants George Orwell's 1984 to become a realty regarding his view being the only view allowed. where he gets to tell folks what the truth is even though it is not the truth he wants to be BIG BROTHER.

he is not an open minded intellectual he's the opposite.

[Starlight]

I take it you didn't understand that is a person and not a government.

You seem to be misunderstanding this through and through. CP is saying things about another group of people (gay people), and that's what I'm saying makes it reasonable for the government to regulate. If he was saying something about the government ("I don't like Nancy Pelosi") then I'm saying that would be unreasonable for the government to regulate.

[Starlight]

Starlight wants George Orwell's 1984 to become a realty

Did you know Orwell was a democratic socialist? I'm also a democratic socialist. He and I held/hold very similar political views.

So maybe think twice (or in your case, once) about saying his critiques apply to me?

[Cow Poke]

Seems a bit of a weird legal concept to me.

How does that make any sense in the context of TWeb? Obviously we have a wide variety of posters here with very different views and very few things that have widespread agreement.

For example, if I were to accuse you of being such a crass despicable deplorable that you support the murdering of innocent children - that would be an accusation of moral turpitude. Unless, of course, it were true.

Dude you've got a multi-year history of opposition to gay rights and acceptance of gay people.

No, I am opposed to homosexuality, but I quite obviously accept gay people, as is evident from the fact that my own exec admin was a liberal Jewish lesbian who was really "out" about her lesbianism. You don't seem to have even the intellectual capacity of a child who can understand "hate the sin, love the sinner".

You've been in a lawsuit on the subject.

Your latest 50-page attempt to connect gay groups to NAMBLA

Um, no... I didn't attempt to connect --- I proved the actual connection, using information mostly from gay/lesbian sources.

in order to demean them is merely the most recent in a track record years, if not decades, long.

Wow

You making up crazy TWeb regulations doesn't change what a horrible person you consistently are when it comes to gay issues.

I made up regulations?

Star, are you smoking something? This is even strange for you! I mean, like - you have really REALLY lost touch with reality.

[Cow Poke]

You seem to be misunderstanding this through and through. CP is saying things about another group of people (gay people), and that's what I'm saying makes it reasonable for the government to regulate.

No, it's you who doesn't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand that I can be against something like homosexuality, yet not have any hate in my heart for homosexuals.

Please use an actual quote where I have attacked gay people.

[Starlight]

No, it's you who doesn't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand that I can be against something like homosexuality, yet not have any hate in my heart for homosexuals.

? Did I actually assert the second? I guess I may have, but I don't recall intentionally doing so. Maybe you are the one equating those two things, not me? "Hate-speech" is a technical term, and is perhaps unfortunately named (I didn't name it), and it need not imply hate in your heart. Again, I will reiterate that conservatives in this forum on the whole seem to have an abysmal understanding of what 'hate-speech' laws cover in the countries that have them, and saying you hate someone is not what they cover. In a similar manner, as we have discussed before, "homophobia" implies opposition to gay rights and of societal acceptance of gay people but the word itself carries no connotations of what is motivating the opposition.

In exactly the same way if you were pro-slavery I would judge you as a bad person in similar measure as I judge you bad for your opposition to gay rights. The question of whether you had hate in your heart or not for black people and whether that was driving your support for slavery as opposed to some other thought-process would be a different question (e.g. the most common explanation I see implied by pro-slavery US right-wingers (Senate candidate Roy Moore most recently) is that Blacks were better off under slavery because they can't take proper care of themselves and so it is more loving to have white people taking care of them).

[Adrift]

And I think they all know that. This is just the typical liberal tactic of accusing their opponent of being bigots and morally reprobate in order to deflect from the actual conversation and try to turn the whole thing 180 degrees and side track the conversation. Rather than engage the actual debate they merely ad hom their way out of it.

While I'm sure plenty of liberals use that tactic (and I'm certain that conservatives have their own tactics), I don't think this is really a liberal/conservative thing. There's something damaged in people like Starlight (and Tassman) as people that goes well beyond his politics. I'm intimate friends with plenty of liberals, and thankfully I don't know anyone who behaves like him. They can definitely be opinionated, but are far more stable and together than he comes off here.

[Starlight]

For example, if I were to accuse you of being such a crass despicable deplorable that you support the murdering of innocent children - that would be an accusation of moral turpitude. Unless, of course, it were true.

Well, as you phrase it, your statement is false. Please mod yourself for the infraction, or get one of the other mods to do it to you. I'm serious.

I do not "support the murdering of innocent children". That is an absurdly and willfully misleading and deceptive statement. It's like saying "CP supports murder" on the grounds that you believe in the possibility of a legal "self-defense" exemption for murder. It would just be an outright lie. That is what I consider you to be doing with regard to my position on the subject.

I am opposed to homosexuality

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

"hate the sin

Ding, ding, ding. Another winner.

Yeah the entire lawsuit against the Houston lesbian mayor just totally slipped your mind. You're just soooo innocently confused about what I'm talking about.

[Cow Poke]

? Did I actually assert the second? I guess I may have, but I don't recall intentionally doing so.

Like I said, you have REALLY lost touch with reality... here....

Your latest 50-page attempt to connect gay groups to NAMBLA in order to demean them ....

Why would I be on this campaign to demean them if I didn't hate them?

Maybe you are the one equating those two things, not me? "Hate-speech" is a technical term, and is perhaps unfortunately named (I didn't name it), and it need not imply hate in your heart.

It's both you and your new BFF Tassman falsely accusing me of attacking gay people as my singular purpose for stating the truth and posting facts. Tassman, in particular, is obsessed with that lie.

Again, I will reiterate that conservatives in this forum on the whole seem to have an abysmal understanding of what 'hate-speech' laws cover in the countries that have them,

Or maybe we just really don't give a flying flip about what stupid things other countries do.

and saying you hate someone is not what they cover. In a similar manner, as we have discussed before, "homophobia" implies opposition to gay rights and of societal acceptance of gay people but the word itself carries no connotations of what is motivating the opposition.

I reject that premise. "Homophobia" is a word the left perverted to justify their hate of people who disagree with them, because everybody knows that a phobia is an unreasonable fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, unreasonable or otherwise -- I simply believe homosexuality is a sin. If I'm a homophobe, the you're a Christophobe. And there's a whole lot more evidence on this board to the latter than the former.

In exactly the same way if you were pro-slavery I would judge you as a bad person in similar measure as I judge you bad for your opposition to gay rights.

Wow, that's a stretch.
A) I've never been pro-slavery
2) "Owning people" is nowhere near on a scale of believing that a particular conduct is sin.

The rest of your post is absolute total nonsense, so I'll ignore it.

[Adrift]

? Did I actually assert the second? I guess I may have, but I don't recall intentionally doing so. Maybe you are the one equating those two things, not me? "Hate-speech" is a technical term, and is perhaps unfortunately named (I didn't name it), and it need not imply hate in your heart. Again, I will reiterate that conservatives in this forum on the whole seem to have an abysmal understanding of what 'hate-speech' laws cover in the countries that have them, and saying you hate someone is not what they cover. In a similar manner, as we have discussed before, "homophobia" implies opposition to gay rights and of societal acceptance of gay people but the word itself carries no connotations of what is motivating the opposition.

In exactly the same way if you were pro-slavery I would judge you as a bad person in similar measure as I judge you bad for your opposition to gay rights. The question of whether you had hate in your heart or not for black people and whether that was driving your support for slavery as opposed to some other thought-process would be a different question (e.g. the most common explanation I see implied by pro-slavery US right-wingers (Senate candidate Roy Moore most recently) is that Blacks were better off under slavery because they can't take proper care of themselves and so it is more loving to have white people taking care of them).

As far as I can tell, that's not quite what Roy Moore said, or meant.

Here's what he said in reply to a question from a black audience member at a rally who asked the question, what does Make America Great Again mean,

He seemed to be saying that, even though the US had a terrible history of things like slavery (something we've thankfully overcome), one of things that made the young nation "great" was that "families were united". It's simplistic, and pretty pathetic jingoism, but almost certainly wasn't intended in the way you seem to think it was. Moore seemed to be a terrible candidate, and (not that I really care) Republicans should have been focusing on another pick well before things got to where they were. The rest of your post is the same goofy nonsense we've discussed before. "Homophobia" implies fear and horror of gay people. It's built into the name.