Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I don't recall a single person actually intentionally calling you by anything except "Aaron." Only disagreeing with your worldview, and disagreeing isn't not an attack and never will be--for the same reason you can disagree with us and not worry about being called a bigot.

I was repeatedly inferred to be a woman when I posted something about facial hair / my care routine. I've been called a woman several times in other threads (eg one where I mentioned I was non gender conforming some years ago). It's not funny.

I looked back at raynebc's back-and-forth and found he used gender-neutral pronouns (not using they, instead choosing some clunky phrasing, but props nonetheless). But he still trolled with his misrepresentation of some 1800s English style guidelines as grammatical rules when I mentioned I prefer they/them/theirs and took the magnificent leap that I'm some hateful person because I didn't tolerate it.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

You don't have the right to expect anybody to cater to unorthodox language requests. Especially with the threat of punishment from the community or the government. The speech police demanding otherwise are a terrible threat to everybody's freedoms.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

It's not unorthodox.

They is the proper gender-neutral pronoun in the English language since the 1300s.

Gender, in language, is social, and does not refer to sex. (What is the sex of a table?)

I'm not male or female (gender), thus he and she aren't correct pronouns to refer to me. By using the pronouns to refer to sex, you're not proper following grammatical usage. (Again, look at languages that use gender for objects).

Therefore, grammatically, the only proper pronoun is they.

If you want to reject 100 years or linguistics, sociology, psychology, and other sciences, then be my guest, but you're literally wrong. Conservative ideology doesn't apply to science--when new information proves older theories or models wrong, you don't reject the new information, you update your theories or models.

...

And I'm not demanding (nor would I ever) under any sort of threat. I'm requesting it in the hope you're a decent human being. But I can say you're a jerk if you don't. Free speech and all that.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

Seems like Bam hates the military and anybody who wants to protect this country and its allies from our collective enemies just has a gun fetish as far as he's concerned.

Your country is a bully and most of the groups or nations that dislike or hate you do so because you've earned it. The entire planet pretty much looks down upon the US, especially within the last few decades. You're far from innocent in all of this. And what you're doing overseas right now is not protecting your country. It might be protecting your interests in other people's resources, at best. Or it's trying to keep your victims weak so that they cannot retaliate or defend themselves. But I guess you can just fabricate a bunch of imaginary WMDs again to suit your political interests and hide behind the guise of being the good guys because terrrrrrrsts. Your government may be fooling a lot of people, perhaps you included, but they're not fooling me anymore.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

The entire planet pretty much looks down upon the US, especially within the last few decades.

Keep talkin' like that and we're gonna free the democracy lovin' crap out of you. :P

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

It's extra amusing that you say that considering that the electorate has the power to veto your vote! And you're basically choosing between two corrupt candidates every time. If America knew the first thing about democracy it would demand to change its electorate system.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Aaron: I'll just have to accept that "feminine" and "female" are going to be used interchangeably, but I am unlikely to get to the point where I believe it's mandatory to not refer to a woman as female as a general rule. Men can be feminine and women can be masculine, but men cannot become women and vice-versa. Until science radically changes, that will be the case. I do not and likely will not prescribe to the idea that it's necessary or useful to invent and use dozens of gender pronouns, and even recently minted ones like "zir" seem extraneous to me. "They" and "them" will probably be as far down that hole as I go, but I'll just as likely avoiding that usage by restructuring sentences to refer to (name) or "that person".

Bamccaig: If the USA is a bully, Canada is a pu**y. If we're going to be that reductionist I think it's fair for me to say so.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

Bamccaig: If the USA is a bully, Canada is a pu**y. If we're going to be that reductionist I think it's fair for me to say so.

Sure, if a pussy is a guy with a functioning brain that doesn't find it enjoyable to pick on somebody smaller just to feel strong or fit in; I guess Canada is a pussy. But Canadian forces don't hesitate to fight when they need to. Canadian forces have their own history that you probably are completely ignorant of. So quit while you're ahead. While American forces were busy bombing allied forces because they were trigger happy, Canadian forces were risking their lives to preserve peace in turbulent territories where they didn't get to just shoot and had to just face the danger. So shut up. Nobody cares about the American small dick macho trip.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Someone needs to research Canada's history in WW1 and WW2. Canada was on the ground fighting while the USA debated whether they wanted to support Hitler or not.

On D-day Canadian troops made it further inland, than any other when they hit the ground.

Canada doesn't seek fights all the time, we're fairly pacifist, that is, until you piss us off or attack one of our allies, then we hit the ground fighting. We don't hesitate like certain southern neighbours of ours.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Democrats got almost bombed, and 11 Jews got gunned down in a synagogue and we're talking about pronouns. :/

[edit]

ALSO, RIP Europe, we hardly knew ye.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/

A woman was literally fined (and "freedom of speech" denied) because she mentioning during a lecture about the Prophet Mohammad, who marred a 9 year old girl, a pedophile.

"Freedom of speech doesn't outweigh religious feelings". I cannot make this up.

I dare any Atheist to try and defend that.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Muhammed is a false prophet. Bite me. God Bless the US.

You have been fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute.

video

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Both countries were extremely important in WW2. It is a bit odd that Bam and Nite are chastising the USA for not being quick to enter WW2, and chastising them now for being proactive instead of reactive like Canada. I think both my blanket statement and Bams's were similarly flawed, that was the point of mine.

The would-be mail bomber seemed to be a crazy right winger. We can all be thankful that he was too incompetent to pull it off.

That Europe article is in line with their continued downward spiral into freedom-less dystopia. I don't think anybody can argue that a guy who marries and has sex with a child is a pedophile. Unless I'm mistaken, that historical record on Muhammad is accurate.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Jihad! Jihad!

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/cartoon-jihad

https://www.thetrumpet.com/2215-cartoon-jihad

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/sweden-man-fined-342-for-posting-satirical-cartoon-about-child-marriage-in-islam-on-facebook

Court prosecutor Mathias Larsson charged the man for both the satirical image and his commentary on the image. According to the prosecutor, the post indicated that the 64-year-old “threatened or expressed disagreement with the public or another group of persons on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin or creed.”

EDIT - oh, found some!

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/subject/The-Jihad-Comics-and-Cartoons.php

You have to view the pages to see them :

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=132646

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=22719

WARNING these are offensive, and I don't care

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

I don't think anybody can argue that a guy who marries and has sex with a child is a pedophile.

Paedophilia actually refers to the sexual attraction to children. Getting married or even having sexual relations wouldn't necessarily imply that the adult was a pedophile. That said, girls are generally not able to bear children until at least 12 or 13 at the earliest so there would be little other reason to do it (though I guess if you wanted to nitpick you could just argue it was working with what you had for your own needs)...

If you look at the history of humanity, however, it is not at all an uncommon occurrence for girls to be married off young, sometimes extremely young, and also to be forced into sexual relations with their husbands. The Bible itself also seems to condone this behaviour in a few places.

The world when the so called "Jesus" and "Mohammad" characters lived is not the same world we live in today. The point is that it should not be ridiculed with the sensibilities of today. If we do that, the Bible is a terrible fucking disgrace of a book. It was a different time. We cannot really begin to comprehend how these people really lived. It is so far detached from the world that we all know in every conceivable way.

In terms of discrediting the religion, it's an irrelevant fact. People just use that argument because they're ignorant and emotional. Of course, there's plenty of other legitimate ways to discredit the religion. Like, for example, there are no fucking magicians in the sky. So that's one. Works wonders for discrediting the Bible too. But the whole "Mohammad was a paedophile!" argument is stupid and weak.

Of course, I still believe in freedom of speech so the woman should not have been punished for stating it, whether or not we accept it as fact or an interpretation of events in literature. I might condone punishing her if she was teaching children, but it shouldn't be a criminal charge.

Then again, if it was up to me I'd punish anybody that taught any religion to children as fact. That should be criminal.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Leave it to bamccaig to support pedophilia. :/

bamccaig said:

The Bible itself also seems to condone this behaviour in a few places.

Unsupported, unreferenced, untrue afaik.

bamccaig said:

If we do that, the Bible is a terrible $#@%ing disgrace of a book.

How many times do I have to prove you wrong before you stop spouting this shit?

bamccaig said:

Like, for example, there are no ing magicians in the sky.

Good thing God gave you free will, so you can think what you like. ;)

bamccaig said:

Then again, if it was up to me I'd punish anybody that taught any religion to children as fact. That should be criminal.

Such a silly hypocrite. You would have us teach our children there is no God, and that everything magically evolved from nothing into life. That should be criminal.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

video

I have been rewatching Star Trek: The Next Generation again. By sheer coincidence it seems, I found the current episode, S4E21, relevant. Above is a random video with relevant snippets from it for those without access or interest to watch the entire thing. The video quality is poor, but that's likely either a limitation of the copying method used or intentionally done to evade automation. In any case, the dialogue is what matters most, and that is clear. It doesn't do the full episode justice. There is important context missing. I encourage you to watch the full thing, but this is readily available to link/share.

This wisdom is not new. This episode is over 27 years old. And the wisdom predates even this episode probably by centuries, but at least decades. It's very easy for foolish men to believe they're doing righteous deeds in the pursuit of evil, but it turns out evil is not so easily identified, and often is carried out by those very men who believe themselves to be righteous.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig said:

This wisdom is not new. This episode is over 27 years old. And the wisdom predates even this episode probably by centuries, but at least decades. It's very easy for foolish men to believe they're doing righteous deeds in the pursuit of evil, but it turns out evil is not so easily identified, and often is carried out by those very men who believe themselves to be righteous.

1 In the beginning when God created[a] the heavens and the earth,
2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God[b] swept over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

This wisdom is not new. This book is over 27 centuries old. And the wisdom predates even this chapter probably by centuries, but at least decades. It's very easy for foolish men to believe they're doing righteous deeds in the pursuit of evil, and it turns out evil is easily identified, and often overlooked by those very men who believe themselves to be righteous.

FTFY. ;)

The very first thing God did was create light! Imagine the most massive cosmic supernova ever coming into being! A white hole! That's your Big Bang right there. And what is light? It's good! And he separated it from the darkness, which is bad / evil. So if you want to know the difference between good and evil then you know who to ask! Ten Commandments come to mind?

Without light, there is only darkness. With light, you can see!

I am the light of the world 8-)

John 8:12-58

:D

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

bamccaig said:

Paedophilia actually refers to the sexual attraction to children. Getting married or even having sexual relations wouldn't necessarily imply that the adult was a pedophile.

I thought Islam required you to be married to somebody to be allowed to have sex with them? If that's the case, I think it's logical to conclude he married his several child brides so he would be "allowed" by his religion to act on pedophilia. I'm not saying pedophilia was forbidden back then, but people shouldn't demand that nobody speak the truth merely because the truth is insulting. Certain Islamic communities are very intolerant of criticism to their religion and that is a problem they have to deal with. If they can't integrate with diverse cultures, they should stay in their countries and not put blasphemy demands on other countries.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Yay! Religious debates! I'll pass on this. We'll all find out the truth in the end, if there is a God, I think I will be okay with Him. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of someone who attacked Him though. If there isn't, I'm still fine as I will never know. I do believe in God (actually I KNOW he exists) and I am not ashamed to say so. I just have no need anymore to waste my time arguing about Him with atheists (and it is a waste of time).

And now for something funny...

{"name":"611741","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/9\/89865a0db00fe46823409a05accd7403.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/9\/89865a0db00fe46823409a05accd7403"}611741

;D

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

It's very easy for foolish men to believe they're doing righteous deeds in the pursuit of evil, but it turns out evil is not so easily identified, and often is carried out by those very men who believe themselves to be righteous.

That sums up my apprehension of the left perfectly. Burning down neighborhoods and getting people fired "for the greater good." But when you get someone who makes a bad joke on Twitter, fired, do you create a "better person"? If that person was racist, will they magically become unracist now?

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

I thought Islam required you to be married to somebody to be allowed to have sex with them? If that's the case, I think it's logical to conclude he married his several child brides so he would be "allowed" by his religion to act on pedophilia.

According to Wikipedia it was suggested instead that the marriage was strategic to form closer ties with the girl's father who was apparently influential at the time. Apparently both of the girl's parents were also associated with Muhammad, and they approved of the marriage (as was done, marriages were typically decided by the parents).

How many child brides did he have? I'm very ignorant of Islam, but I can only find reference to the one. It sounds like most of his wives were already widowed by the time he married them.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Finding the age of each of his 11 wives is taking longer than I care to spend, but Wikipedia did confirm he "consummated" his marriage with Aisha when she was a preteen and he was in his fifties. Even though we may not be able to prove he was sexually attracted to children in general, I think this is close enough to pedophilia to meet that classification for most people.

Post Reply


Go to: