- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You know this because someone said it was? Evaluate why you're so willing to believe it.
But also address the rest of my quote. Comprehend what is being said. One person isn't the entire problem.
The moral of this thread seems to be that Heterosexuals will seek out the truth, Gays will seek out the truth, but liberals will continue their beliefs no matter what facts are presented.
Odd you pick something that was accurate. The form wasn't real, but even the secretary said it did accurately reflect the situation.
What are you asking for here?
However focus on this point:
The point here is that if it were proven to be not as portrayed, the real problem of violence against gays would still exist. Do you really argue otherwise?
You and Dan Rather are just about the only people left on Earth clinging to that.
Who says I'm "asking" for anything. I'm just pointing out that you're doing what you have to in order to cling to something which turned out to be bogus, just as Dan Rather did.
That ISN'T the point; that's merely the point you'd prefer to focus on, and I am not required to indulge it.
The actual point is that a heinous crime was purported to be something it wasn't in order to push a political agenda during a Presidential campaign, as a smear on one of the candidates. I would say that itself is pretty hateful toward the victim, what with using his brutal murder as an inaccurate political football.
You don't know that it wasn't. You're just overly willing to accept this. Nothing more.
And no, no one of significant changes Rather's point. The NYT's made the same case without the document. This doesn't mean Rather wasn't wrong for his actions. But, don't pretend they mean something they don't. And don't do the same thing here, pretending that anything has been proven.
You know this because someone said it was? Evaluate why you're so willing to believe it.
:roll:
I'm speaking within the context of your assertion that it doesn't matter.
You want to believe it doesn't, but it does, no matter what you'd like to shift "the point" to being.
It's up to the accuser to do the proving. Hint: trying to so with forged documents does not accomplish this, and that's the most charitable thing which could be said about it.
Ok, so you still believe that a couple of redneck homophobes beat him to death....I'll give you this, once you buy into the liberal meme, you really go all in.
Believe? I'm not faith based on this type of thing. Two young men were convicted. That's a fact. Motives are seldom simple. But you're the one willing to leap over everything, on yet another issue, without solid proof, merely because you WANT it to be true. It's not me doing this.
Best move on, J-Mac. When people know what you want to be true then there is little room for debate.
Either way, gay people ARE killed and beaten up for being gay, aren't they?
I mean, years ago while riding around at night with guy friends (I was very young...you know how you hang out...and my boyfriend was there)...anyway, there were times where the guys (not my boyfriend) would joke about how they went gay bashing or were going to go gay bashing. They were talking about hunting down gays and beating them up. It's considered sport by some young men.
Skinheads and such like to ride around and hunt for minorities to beat up or kill.
This is not an uncommon thing. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. There was even a video recently of a guy in drag in Russian getting beaten up by non-gay males.
But I don't know much about the Shepherd case, really. Don't know why there would be a gag order for a criminal case.
There's a reason there's a law against "hate crimes." It isn't based on anecdotal evidence. You are placing too much importance on one incident and extrapolating it to mean something it doesn't. What happened in one case doesn't really matter much, when hate crimes exist. If you believe the book, which may not be true, after all.
So, the KKK didn't kill black people...skinheads don't kill hispanics.....men don't rape and beat up women regularly.....all these things are just anecdotes, in your opinion. Okay, well, head in sand is an appropriate description of you. I think you have something against gay people, minorities, women, and other people who have been the victims of others because of what they are. Why else would you want to take such a hard stance that an obvious truth doesn't exist? Did you believe George Bush's tale that the sky was green, too? (Iraq WMDs)
Ok, so you still believe that a couple of redneck homophobes beat him to death....I'll give you this, once you buy into the liberal meme, you really go all in.
I heard the author last night on the radio talking about his book, and an interesting thing is that he made mention that he was already under attack from people that just a week ago were calling him a friend....Then he told the interviewer that the ironic thing is that the people attacking him know he is a liberal minded person too....!
Another political tactic being revealed here. The power of narrative, and what to do when exposed....They will either
1. attack personally, and viciously
or
2. remain totally silent and continue on with the lie.
I heard the author last night on the radio talking about his book, and an interesting thing is that he made mention that he was already under attack from people that just a week ago were calling him a friend....Then he told the interviewer that the ironic thing is that the people attacking him know he is a liberal minded person too....!
Another political tactic being revealed here. The power of narrative, and what to do when exposed....They will either
1. attack personally, and viciously
and
2. continue on with the lie.
There's a reason there's a law against "hate crimes." It isn't based on anecdotal evidence. You are placing too much importance on one incident and extrapolating it to mean something it doesn't. What happened in one case doesn't really matter much, when hate crimes exist. If you believe the book, which may not be true, after all.
So, the KKK didn't kill black people...skinheads don't kill hispanics.....men don't rape and beat up women regularly.....all these things are just anecdotes, in your opinion. Okay, well, head in sand is an appropriate description of you. I think you have something against gay people, minorities, women, and other people who have been the victims of others because of what they are. Why else would you want to take such a hard stance that an obvious truth doesn't exist? Did you believe George Bush's tale that the sky was green, too? (Iraq WMDs)
There is no doubt that the perps are homophobes.
Either way, gay people ARE killed and beaten up for being gay, aren't they? I mean, years ago while riding around at night with guy friends (I was very young...you know how you hang out...and my boyfriend was there)...anyway, there were times where the guys (not my boyfriend) would joke about how they went gay bashing or were going to go gay bashing. They were talking about hunting down gays and beating them up. It's considered sport by some young men.
Skinheads and such like to ride around and hunt for minorities to beat up or kill.
This is not an uncommon thing. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. There was even a video recently of a guy in drag in Russian getting beaten up by non-gay males.
But I don't know much about the Shepherd case, really. Don't know why there would be a gag order for a criminal case.
In the larger view, no it doesn't matter. Homosexuals don't face violence because of what happened to one young man. And they still face even if the wasn't quite correct. So, not, to that issue it doesn't really matter.
:roll:
That is merely the subject-change you wish to be "the point." We've already been over this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?