I am hispanic. I do not use the hateful epithets associated with my people. Were you to use them in front of me, I'd probably deck you. Using hate speech is a disservice to the hated as well as to humanity no matter who uses it. Those words should all be abandoned.
This is not a hard concept.
While I agree, I have been around the gay community enough to know they throw around the F***** word enough without decking each other. The socal norms of your specific group are not the same as the social norms of a community at large. If a close friend of yours who you know respects you, used a derogatory comment about your race in a light setting I doubt you would deck them.
The intent of the word is what is important. Why Kaptain used the F*** instead of saying "gay" is of his own choosing but I doubt he meant it in a negative way. He just wanted to be more provocative which is what he got :-p
While I agree, I have been around the gay community enough to know they throw around the F***** enough without decking each other.
I know how it is. I've been around enough gay people to know the same thing. I live in the ghetto, too. I hear n*gger roughly 10000 times a day, from one black person to another. And I know that I cannot say that word in any context around a black person.
I also know that it's not typically used as an insult within the community. There is context to be considered. It's like when I call Rym an "asshole." It's acceptable for me to do that, because of the social dynamic of the group. It's less acceptable for a newcomer.
However, that is not where the double standard lies. The problem is when a gay guy comes along and says "You are such a faggot" to someone, and is using it as an insult or an item of ribbing. That is a different situation than a group of friends calling each other "faggots."
Think about it this way - Let's say you have a dirty joke. You can tell that joke to your friends, awesome. Someone who overhears, they might get offended, but is it any of their business to get up in your face about it? Probably not. If you tell that joke to friends who all understand your intentions, nobody really cares. If you start telling that joke in the wrong company, with people who aren't as comfortable with you and vice versa, someone may be bothered or otherwise greatly offended. Whether you like that they're offended or not, it's probably your fault for using that joke in the wrong company.
Now, replace that joke with a word/phrase, where the default intention behind it is hatred of other people based on race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Now, if you use that word in anything but company that knows your intentions behind it, the default conclusion is that you're using it as hate speech. This is completely regardless of who is using the phrase - in a society where everyone is equal, or at least in a society that is trying to reach that state, nobody should use hate speech in any situation except with people who understand your intentions.
So, if you want to hang around with your close friends and start calling them "faggots"/"aspies"/"niggers"/what have you, I couldn't care less. You call someone else one of those words, and it's not perfectly clear what your intentions are, you're a hate-speech using asshole.
I've repaired, re-fueled and fixed up this old lighter that was my grandfather's, from WW2, and it's actually has a few little clever bits of design.
It's a fuel oil lighter, about the length of a regular butane disposable, but slightly flatter, slightly longer, and slightly wider. It's brass, and the top has a pull-off cap, which you take off to light it, but it's not attached in any way. the bottom also slips off, but is held on much more firmly, and allows access to the flint, flint spring, and cotton padding. The wick was similar to 450 cord, but made of cotton.
The smart parts of it - not only is it the tried and true zippo-style flint-wheel-and-fuel-oil indestructible sort of design, but it also uses the space in the bottom which would be otherwise wasted as a spare fuel tank, and the plug to the fuel tank has a long bit in the center, which unscrews to hold two flints inside. It also has a little wrap storage space on the inside of the lighter for storing a spare wick. The way the wheel is, it's actually somewhat more comfortable and easy to strike than a zippo, though they are quite similar.
It could be improved, with a small cable or wire of some sort in the lid, to keep the lid from getting lost, and it could be designed slightly differently at the bottom - it tends to leak fuel slightly when it's freshly filled.
@ His Cheese-ness: That video ticked me off not for the anti-religious message, but because he was essentially asking him to sell his right to express himself as he saw fit and when the man politely declined, he continued to badger him and (IMO) degrade him on camera.
@ His Cheese-ness: That video ticked me off not for the anti-religious message, but because he was essentially asking him to sell his right to express himself as he saw fit and when the man politely declined, he continued to badger him and (IMO) degrade him on camera.
He was definitely being a jerk about it, but I'd still say a valid point was made. You can say he was asking the homeless man to "sell his right to express himself", but the fact is that it's just a sign, and after having "God" crossed off it he could just go and make another one. Not only that, but they said they wouldn't even cross "God" off for a million dollars.
Recently, I've seen a picture on this forum of one of you doing the troll face. I mentioned it to a friend and now I can't find it. Does anyone know where that picture is?
@ His Cheese-ness: That video ticked me off not for the anti-religious message, but because he was essentially asking him to sell his right to express himself as he saw fit and when the man politely declined, he continued to badger him and (IMO) degrade him on camera.
He was definitely being a jerk about it, but I'd still say a valid point was made. You can say he was asking the homeless man to "sell his right to express himself", but the fact is that it's just a sign, and after having "God" crossed off it he could just go and make another one. Not only that, but they said they wouldn't even cross "God" off for a million dollars.
...So? I really shouldn't get into this argument, but...What he's showing there isn't a flaw of religion at all. It's the guy's right to believe, and if he doesn't want money from someone whose entire point in doing this is not charity, but to further his own message that goes against what the homeless man believes? That's entirely valid. This guy is rude, stupid, and a dick. While the family is more extreme in their beliefs than I am, I agree with them. And you're saying that it's illogical for them to not give up their beliefs for a million dollars? What if I told you to speak out against abortion for a million dollars? You wouldn't do it, because you probably aren't anti-abortion (reverse the statement if you are). That's because it's something you believe. Why would you ever do something that goes against your beliefs just for money? What that guy is saying is that people SHOULD be selfish, and that's just a stupid message.
@ His Cheese-ness: That video ticked me off not for the anti-religious message, but because he was essentially asking him to sell his right to express himself as he saw fit and when the man politely declined, he continued to badger him and (IMO) degrade him on camera.
He was definitely being a jerk about it, but I'd still say a valid point was made. You can say he was asking the homeless man to "sell his right to express himself", but the fact is that it's just a sign, and after having "God" crossed off it he could just go and make another one. Not only that, but they said they wouldn't even cross "God" off for a million dollars.
...So? I really shouldn't get into this argument, but...What he's showing there isn't a flaw of religion at all. It's the guy's right to believe, and if he doesn't want money from someone whose entire point in doing this is not charity, but to further his own message that goes against what the homeless man believes? That's entirely valid.
It would be, if accepting the money were to further the message of the video, which it clearly does not. In fact, it was by not accepting the money that they actually made this video at all relevant.
This guy is rude, stupid, and a dick. While the family is more extreme in their beliefs than I am, I agree with them. And you're saying that it's illogical for them to not give up their beliefs for a million dollars? What if I told you to speak out against abortion for a million dollars? You wouldn't do it, because you probably aren't anti-abortion (reverse the statement if you are). That's because it's something you believe. Why would you ever do something that goes against your beliefs just for money? What that guy is saying is that people SHOULD be selfish, and that's just a stupid message.
Again, my point was that it's just a sign. No one is being asked to even pretend to give up their beliefs, let alone actually do so.
I also don't see what this has to do with selfishness - if anything, it's not accepting the money that would be the selfish choice. The video is about rational decision-making (or lack thereof), not selfishness.
I dunno. It doesn't seem very rational to me. I mean...What if you had a sign that said "Give gay people the right to have marriage," you were homeless, and a Christian offered you $20 to add in "Don't" at the top. Would you? I mean, you're just changing a sign, and you can always make a new one. I have a feeling you wouldn't, and you would probably say it's about the principle. And even if it wasn't you, if this video was made by a Christian doing that to try and get some homeless person to change a sign about gay rights, the homeless person would be praised as a wonderful person standing up for the rights of gay people. So, why should it be any different when a Christian doesn't feel like crossing a word off of their sign for some money?
What if I told you to speak out against abortion for a million dollars? You wouldn't do it, because you probably aren't anti-abortion (reverse the statement if you are).
For a million dollars there's lots of different things I would say, but I'd make it obvious that I didn't actually believe those things. That same option was available to the homeless guy.
I dunno. It doesn't seem very rational to me. I mean...What if you had a sign that said "Give gay people the right to have marriage," you were homeless, and a Christian offered you $20 to add in "Don't" at the top. Would you? I mean, you're just changing a sign, and you can always make a new one.
I definitely would accept the $20. Then I'd cross of "don't" once again, burn the sign, chuck it out, etc. (possibilities abound). It would probably make a nice video of how I got $20 off a Christian.
I have a feeling you wouldn't, and you would probably say it's about the principle. And even if it wasn't you, if this video was made by a Christian doing that to try and get some homeless person to change a sign about gay rights, the homeless person would be praised as a wonderful person standing up for the rights of gay people. So, why should it be any different when a Christian doesn't feel like crossing a word off of their sign for some money?
You're right; it shouldn't be any different, because in both cases it's just a sign. However, there is also the additional problem of the Christian's beliefs lacking evidentiary support.
What if I told you to speak out against abortion for a million dollars? You wouldn't do it, because you probably aren't anti-abortion (reverse the statement if you are).
For a million dollars there'slotsof different things I would say, but I'd make it obvious that I didn't actually believe those things. That same option was available to the homeless guy.
Not really. If he had gotten another sign that said something about God, the guy probably would've criticized him as being dishonest and money-grubbing, and then make that claim. It's not just religion that stops rational thought, it's a lot of things. Maybe you'd take the money, but a lot of people would not take the money for a lot of different things, like the gay rights example I brought up. The fact is, he can criticize religion for stopping rational thought as much as he wants, but quite frankly, a fanatical devotion to ANYTHING can prevent "rational thought," and I still don't think taking money from someone whose against your cause to act like you're against your cause is actually a rational and logical thing. I mean, what if a politician did that? Actually, a lot of politicians probably do that. The fact is, changing how you'd act just for money, even if you're obviously lying? That's completely insane. What this guy is asking only seems logical because it's from Bible-thumpers, who everyone wants to hate. If it was about a different issue, like Gay rights, abortion, etc., responses would be different, and I bet yours would be as well.
The fact is, changing how you'd act just for money, even if you're obviously lying? That's completely insane.
This is something many, many people do on a day-to-day basis. Ever heard of something called a "job"?
Not really. If he had gotten another sign that said something about God, the guy probably would've criticized him as being dishonest and money-grubbing, and then make that claim.
Admirable qualities in a homeless person. Seriously, who would criticize a homeless person as "money-grubbing"? The thought is hilarious.
The fact is, changing how you'd act just for money, even if you're obviously lying? That's completely insane.
This is something people do on a day-to-day basis. Ever heard of something called a "job"?
That's not what I meant. I mean doing something against your beliefs or what seems right just for money. You change your behavior at a job in terms of serving people, or doing work instead of gaming or whatnot, yes. But it's generally looked down upon when you get paid to say you are for some cause you're not, or to lie about where you beliefs lie, or to take money to remove yourself from something that's maybe a bit controversial.
Not really. If he had gotten another sign that said something about God, the guy probably would've criticized him as being dishonest and money-grubbing, and then make that claim.
Admirable qualities in a homeless person. Seriously, who would criticize a homeless person as "money-grubbing"? The thought is hilarious.
You argue just like Rym and Scott, you pick and choose which parts of my post you want to address, the one's that make me look stupid. You haven't addresses multiple parts of my argument, and are just going to ignore them until they're forgotten about and you get me into an argument chain that I can't win, because you haven't addressed my main point. Don't do it. It's a dick move.
Also, one other thing, it wouldn't be wrong if the guy did take the money and crossed "God" out, that's his choice. The fact is, his choice shouldn't be criticized either way, because it's his choice.
You argue just like Rym and Scott, you pick and choose which parts of my post you want to address, the one's that make me look stupid. You haven't addresses multiple parts of my argument, and are just going to ignore them until they're forgotten about and you get me into an argument chain that I can't win, because you haven't addressed my main point. Don't do it. It's a dick move.
What is your main point, exactly? In any case, I'll respond to that which I haven't responded to yet.
It's not just religion that stops rational thought, it's a lot of things. Maybe you'd take the money, but a lot of people would not take the money for a lot of different things, like the gay rights example I brought up. The fact is, he can criticize religion for stopping rational thought as much as he wants, but quite frankly, a fanatical devotion to ANYTHING can prevent "rational thought,"
So you yourself admit that religion plays a role in stopping rational thought? Sure, any kind of fanaticism deserves criticism. Since religion is the biggest of the lot, it's hardly surprising that it should get the most criticism.
and I still don't think taking money from someone whose against your cause to act like you're against your cause is actually a rational and logical thing. I mean, what if a politician did that? Actually, a lot of politicians probably do that.
This is quite simply a straw man. I drew a clear distinction between acting like you believe what you're saying, and making it clear that you do not. Also, money is money, no matter who it comes from.
The fact is, changing how you'd act just for money, even if you're obviously lying? That's completely insane.
This is something people do on a day-to-day basis. Ever heard of something called a "job"?
That's not what I meant. I mean doing something against your beliefs or what seems right just for money. You change your behavior at a job in terms of serving people, or doing work instead of gaming or whatnot, yes. But it's generally looked down upon when you get paid to say you are for some cause you're not, or to lie about where you beliefs lie, or to take money to remove yourself from something that's maybe a bit controversial.
You're missing the point when it comes to jobs here. How many people pretend to like their boss?
What this guy is asking only seems logical because it's from Bible-thumpers, who everyone wants to hate. If it was about a different issue, like Gay rights, abortion, etc., responses would be different, and I bet yours would be as well.
This last point I've already responded to, but since it was in an edit I'll assume you didn't read it.
Also, one other thing, it wouldn't be wrong if the guy did take the money and crossed "God" out, that's his choice. The fact is, his choice shouldn't be criticized either way, because it's his choice.
Setting aside the inevitable discussion on free will, you're entirely wrong. Choices are the correct and only thing that people should be criticized for.
Comments
The intent of the word is what is important. Why Kaptain used the F*** instead of saying "gay" is of his own choosing but I doubt he meant it in a negative way. He just wanted to be more provocative which is what he got :-p
I also know that it's not typically used as an insult within the community. There is context to be considered. It's like when I call Rym an "asshole." It's acceptable for me to do that, because of the social dynamic of the group. It's less acceptable for a newcomer.
However, that is not where the double standard lies. The problem is when a gay guy comes along and says "You are such a faggot" to someone, and is using it as an insult or an item of ribbing. That is a different situation than a group of friends calling each other "faggots."
Now, replace that joke with a word/phrase, where the default intention behind it is hatred of other people based on race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Now, if you use that word in anything but company that knows your intentions behind it, the default conclusion is that you're using it as hate speech. This is completely regardless of who is using the phrase - in a society where everyone is equal, or at least in a society that is trying to reach that state, nobody should use hate speech in any situation except with people who understand your intentions.
So, if you want to hang around with your close friends and start calling them "faggots"/"aspies"/"niggers"/what have you, I couldn't care less. You call someone else one of those words, and it's not perfectly clear what your intentions are, you're a hate-speech using asshole.
It's a fuel oil lighter, about the length of a regular butane disposable, but slightly flatter, slightly longer, and slightly wider. It's brass, and the top has a pull-off cap, which you take off to light it, but it's not attached in any way. the bottom also slips off, but is held on much more firmly, and allows access to the flint, flint spring, and cotton padding. The wick was similar to 450 cord, but made of cotton.
The smart parts of it - not only is it the tried and true zippo-style flint-wheel-and-fuel-oil indestructible sort of design, but it also uses the space in the bottom which would be otherwise wasted as a spare fuel tank, and the plug to the fuel tank has a long bit in the center, which unscrews to hold two flints inside. It also has a little wrap storage space on the inside of the lighter for storing a spare wick. The way the wheel is, it's actually somewhat more comfortable and easy to strike than a zippo, though they are quite similar.
It could be improved, with a small cable or wire of some sort in the lid, to keep the lid from getting lost, and it could be designed slightly differently at the bottom - it tends to leak fuel slightly when it's freshly filled.
We can only hope. Got plenty more missiles, that's for sure.
You can say he was asking the homeless man to "sell his right to express himself", but the fact is that it's just a sign, and after having "God" crossed off it he could just go and make another one. Not only that, but they said they wouldn't even cross "God" off for a million dollars.
I also don't see what this has to do with selfishness - if anything, it's not accepting the money that would be the selfish choice. The video is about rational decision-making (or lack thereof), not selfishness.
I have a feeling you wouldn't, and you would probably say it's about the principle. And even if it wasn't you, if this video was made by a Christian doing that to try and get some homeless person to change a sign about gay rights, the homeless person would be praised as a wonderful person standing up for the rights of gay people. So, why should it be any different when a Christian doesn't feel like crossing a word off of their sign for some money?
It's not just religion that stops rational thought, it's a lot of things. Maybe you'd take the money, but a lot of people would not take the money for a lot of different things, like the gay rights example I brought up. The fact is, he can criticize religion for stopping rational thought as much as he wants, but quite frankly, a fanatical devotion to ANYTHING can prevent "rational thought," and I still don't think taking money from someone whose against your cause to act like you're against your cause is actually a rational and logical thing. I mean, what if a politician did that? Actually, a lot of politicians probably do that. The fact is, changing how you'd act just for money, even if you're obviously lying? That's completely insane. What this guy is asking only seems logical because it's from Bible-thumpers, who everyone wants to hate. If it was about a different issue, like Gay rights, abortion, etc., responses would be different, and I bet yours would be as well.
Also, one other thing, it wouldn't be wrong if the guy did take the money and crossed "God" out, that's his choice. The fact is, his choice shouldn't be criticized either way, because it's his choice.