Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How long before free speech is cowered?


and-then

Recommended Posts

I would tend to agree. It is called being Politically Correct. Where it is OK to attack the majority publicly, but not OK to speak against any minority, even in private.

I used to like the show Politically Incorrect that Bill Maher when it was actually politically incorrect. He seems to be swinging back toward neutral these days, but a couple years ago it was like he was the incarnation of the Liberal Platform.

http://www.inquisitr...ng-and-privacy/

He's a liberal libertine in the guise of a libertarian. No one says "peep" if a "comedian" claims that Baptists have sex with their siblings but some people get hysterical when a guy tweets disgust at a kiss between two men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's a liberal libertine in the guise of a libertarian. No one says "peep" if a "comedian" claims that Baptists have sex with their siblings but some people get hysterical when a guy tweets disgust at a kiss between two men.

Probably because Baptists aren't a hated minority in the US with a background of hatred and oppression. It's a bit of a difference.

That has to be worked out before this over reaction dies off.

Edited by HappyMonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because Baptists aren't a hated minority in the US with a background of hatred and oppression. It's a bit of a difference.

That has to be worked out before this over reaction dies off.

Thanks for proving my point on double standards. You'll get more tolerance when you give more tolerance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point on double standards. You'll get more tolerance when you give more tolerance.

The expectation here is that after years of abuse we should expect an entire group of people to come out friendly and willing to forgive.

Maybe in a perfect world it'd be like that, but we don't live in one.

Instead we currently have people, Baptist preachers for example, calling for homosexuals to be beaten, tortured, and put in prisons. Which was pretty much the standard quo until very recently.

That naturally brings a lot of hate, and given a voice the expression of that hate.

And yes, it overreaches, that's the nature of anger, justly deserved or not.

Now, you claim double standards.

Baptists and other Christian groups have had the run of the place for a long time. They are still very much allowed to preach from the pulpit that gays are pedophiles, that they are "worse than murderers," that they are pedohpiles and any number of frankly terrible things.

My personal favorite from the last few months has been the fellow who preaches that homosexuals were the basis of the Nazi party.

It'll be a double standard when both sides are actually playing on a level field.

Currently one is definitely still in the position of power, despite the changes to law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead we currently have people, Baptist preachers for example, calling for homosexuals to be beaten, tortured, and put in prisons. Which was pretty much the standard quo until very recently.

Now, you claim double standards.

Fred Phelps is dead, so kindly provide links to such comments from *current* influential American Baptist preachers in order to back your demonstrably hyperbolic statements. Yep, I definitely do claim double standards, especially when they're excused by shrill nonsense.

Edited by Detective Mystery 2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred Phelps is dead, so kindly provide facts, of such influential American Baptist preachers, to back your hyperbolic statements. Yep, I definitely do claim double standards, especially when they're excused by shrill nonsense.

I wasn't talking about Fred Phelps, and while that man is dead his church is still around and kicking. Thinking it died with him is simple.

As for others, I linked to two separate statements from the Family Research Council where they support the idea of the death penalty for homosexuals.

There's this fellow here:

We have this fellow who preched to his flock to beat their kids if they suspect them of being gay:

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/04/pastor-sean-harris-crack-the.html

In 2010 the Texas GOP had it as part of their platform to not recognize marriages between a homosexual couple outside of the State and imprison clergy who performed a ceremony inside the state, while also seeking to block the partners from getting access to any benefits of even a civil union:

http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop-official-platform-calls-for-imprisonment-of-homosexuals-and-supportive-heterosexuals/

Rick Santorum still supports enforing anti-Sodomy laws, though as of 2012 he is no longer running for office or presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While on the whole I think the main-street Republicans would govern the States much better than Democrats, who seem to think you can correct social ills by enacting laws and taxing "the rich", and seem to not understand the law of unexpected consequences, when it comes to social issues the Republicans may well defeat themselves in their convention, just from assorted wild statements of attendees that the press will pick up and spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They verbally beat up on them for rejecting their views on gay rights, and it endangers the "thought criminal'" livelihoods, affecting their families, so there's that. Bullying is not limited to sporadic incidents of battery.

They're going to be forcing it down our throats next, you mark my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that excuses it then.

It is not the same at all. For one there is solid data that shows that these things you gave work, and those things are actually harmful that they are trying to save them from.

It also doesn't involve having electrodes hooked u to your genitalia to try to change your personality by electrocuting you.

Yes, yes, I understand that your minority group is treated worse then anyone else ever. And no one else has ever been tortured by well meaning people.

I seem to remember that lots of people got electroshock treatment for lots of things, including obesity and mental illness. Apparently someone thought it might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me convincingly how the way the British Govt. treated Alan Turing was not at all unreasonable, and I might believe that they were just trying to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, I understand that your minority group is treated worse then anyone else ever. And no one else has ever been tortured by well meaning people.

I seem to remember that lots of people got electroshock treatment for lots of things, including obesity and mental illness. Apparently someone thought it might help.

First, I am not gay.

Second, I am not saying gays were treated the worst of all. Merely that they are still mistreated here.

Because we are talking about homosexuals, I'm focusing on homosexuals. If you want to talk about how other groups are mistreated, we can talk about that.

I seem to remember that lots of people got electroshock treatment for lots of things, including obesity and mental illness.

You seem o be misunderstanding something here.

The electroshock therapy you are talking about is not the same as what is used in medical treatments.

In medical treatments, such as with severe depression, electrodes are implanted in the brain which are used to trigger mild seizures while under anesthetic.

That's the way it's used today, at least.

It's use is restricted only to severe cases, life threatening ones or where the patient is a threat to someone else.

Which notably homosexuality is not.

It did have more widespread use in the 50's, and it was done much differently, but like all wonder treatments was found to really have a narrow field of usage and could actually worsen the symptoms it was trying to treat.

This is different than method used in gay reparitive therapy which has been soundly denounced by mental health professionals.

They attack electrodes to the genitals and shock people to try to inhibit homosexual arousal.

The evidence for the claims that this reorders the patient's sexuality is nil. The harm it causes is real.

In the historical uses of electro shock therapy we can be forgiven for not having enough knowledge in it's application. At this point this excuse is no longer valid.

but more importantly, homosexuality is not a mental illness, and does not pose a risk either to the person who is gay, or to anyone they interact with.

Do you have the examples of atheists you were going to provide?

If you want to talk about the mistreat of Native Americans by both the US and Canada into the modern day, we can. If you want to talk about the handling of blacks in America, we can.

if you want to talk about how atheists are treated in the US, Im more than prepared for that discussion as well.

This conversation was specifically about homosexuals, your attempts to tangent it aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me convincingly how the way the British Govt. treated Alan Turing was not at all unreasonable, and I might believe that they were just trying to help.

Alan Turing who was charged with homosexuality 62 years ago? The man confessed to a homosexual relationship, and there was a law against such in British Common Law, so he was found guilty in a trial and offered a choice, treatment (a bad treatment) or prison. And he chose treatment. He got shots. That the shots basically sterilized him, and otherwise made him sick, I think is not the point, since it was considered safe at the time.

The only thing wrong in the situation is that the UK law at the time made his actions a crime, just as most of the US and other nations of the world has similar laws. I'm not sure what the prison time was, but I'm sure that it was comparable to other minor crimes.

It was his criminal conviction that ruined his life, not his being gay. If he'd been found guilty of robbery, he'd have ended up just as dead in 1954.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I am not gay.

Second, I am not saying gays were treated the worst of all. Merely that they are still mistreated here.

Because we are talking about homosexuals, I'm focusing on homosexuals. If you want to talk about how other groups are mistreated, we can talk about that.

I'm simply stating that gays are mistreated alongside a whole host of other groups. Their situation is not unique. They are perhaps just the squeekiest wheel?

This is different than method used in gay reparitive therapy which has been soundly denounced by mental health professionals.

They attack electrodes to the genitals and shock people to try to inhibit homosexual arousal.

So how many people are we talking about that have been tortured this way?

I looked up Conversion Therapy. The electric shock bit is referenced to Douglas Halderman's book published in 1991, "Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination", which references a book by Feldman and McCullach from 1965 to show that electro shock was used to convert gays... So, that was almost 50 years ago. How many gay people are being shocked at Gay Reversal Camp today?

Do you have any proof this technique has been used by anyone but complete nutters within the last 50 years?

The evidence for the claims that this reorders the patient's sexuality is nil. The harm it causes is real.

I agree, that is why I suspect it hasn't been used in 50 years. Not since the same era when these techniques were also used on the mentally ill and the obese.

Do you have the examples of atheists you were going to provide?

Do you mean ones that would like to take away religious rights?

If you want to talk about the mistreat of Native Americans by both the US and Canada into the modern day, we can. If you want to talk about the handling of blacks in America, we can.

if you want to talk about how atheists are treated in the US, Im more than prepared for that discussion as well.

This conversation was specifically about homosexuals, your attempts to tangent it aside.

Just, again, pointing out that the treatment of gays is not unique and other groups have been treated worse even in recent times. Being Irish used to be enough to get you beat up and put into jail on made up charges.

Looking at the FRC site and wiki on them.... They seem like a bunch of cranks. 13 million dollars raise each year, with about 100 people in their organization. That is the economic power of like two small businesses. They are nothing unless the media gives them air time. I'd be shocked if they speak for more then a couple hundred souls. They probably should be disbanded as a charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean ones that would like to take away religious rights?

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/25/atheists-demand-military-retreat-from-national-day-of-prayer-114768

http://christiannews.net/2014/03/20/atheist-activists-demand-that-wisconsin-governor-remove-scripture-from-social-media-pages/

Some people look for any loophole they can find to try to remove Christianity from the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for others, I linked to two separate statements from the Family Research Council where they support the idea of the death penalty for homosexuals.

Please prove that's their official position. As for the others, I don't see any current influential American Baptist clergy.

ETA: Google "Floyd Lee Corkins" to see a homicidal "heterophobe". This is to where anti-traditional hatred and propaganda leads.

Edited by Detective Mystery 2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're going to be forcing it down our throats next, you mark my words.

That horse has left the barn. I assume your post wasn't just wishful thinking on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan Turing who was charged with homosexuality 62 years ago? The man confessed to a homosexual relationship, and there was a law against such in British Common Law, so he was found guilty in a trial and offered a choice, treatment (a bad treatment) or prison. And he chose treatment. He got shots. That the shots basically sterilized him, and otherwise made him sick, I think is not the point, since it was considered safe at the time.

The only thing wrong in the situation is that the UK law at the time made his actions a crime, just as most of the US and other nations of the world has similar laws. I'm not sure what the prison time was, but I'm sure that it was comparable to other minor crimes.

It was his criminal conviction that ruined his life, not his being gay. If he'd been found guilty of robbery, he'd have ended up just as dead in 1954.

But it was his homosexual condition and activity that caused his criminal conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan Turing who was charged with homosexuality 62 years ago? The man confessed to a homosexual relationship, and there was a law against such in British Common Law, so he was found guilty in a trial and offered a choice, treatment (a bad treatment) or prison. And he chose treatment. He got shots. That the shots basically sterilized him, and otherwise made him sick, I think is not the point, since it was considered safe at the time.

The only thing wrong in the situation is that the UK law at the time made his actions a crime, just as most of the US and other nations of the world has similar laws. I'm not sure what the prison time was, but I'm sure that it was comparable to other minor crimes.

It was his criminal conviction that ruined his life, not his being gay. If he'd been found guilty of robbery, he'd have ended up just as dead in 1954.

The man who made a major contribution to defeating Adolf Hitler, and was hounded to his death by the Establishment merely for his sexual orientation? And you excuse that on the grounds that "that was the law", and it's justified by the ancient holy texts of a Middle Eastern tribe thousands of years ago?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now homosexuals are miles behind other minorities in obtaining human rights in advanced countries and their situation is dismal in large parts of the world. They also have a somewhat different set of needs, especially when it comes to laws about marriage (although blacks also had to overcome bigoted marriage laws).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply stating that gays are mistreated alongside a whole host of other groups. Their situation is not unique. They are perhaps just the squeekiest wheel?

See as unlike those other groups gays were unable to marry until recently, the comparison isn't valid.

It is also not as while these groups are still struggling to maintain their wins, and change the culture as well, gays are still catching up in these regards.

I looked up Conversion Therapy. The electric shock bit is referenced to Douglas Halderman's book published in 1991, "Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination", which references a book by Feldman and McCullach from 1965 to show that electro shock was used to convert gays... So, that was almost 50 years ago. How many gay people are being shocked at Gay Reversal Camp today?

Do you have any proof this technique has been used by anyone but complete nutters within the last 50 years?

The book is from 2002, and aversion therapy including shock therapy was among the reasons California banned the treatment on minors.

Do you mean ones that would like to take away religious rights?

Yes.

Just, again, pointing out that the treatment of gays is not unique and other groups have been treated worse even in recent times. Being Irish used to be enough to get you beat up and put into jail on made up charges.

Wel obviously gays should just shut up and be happy with what they get then.

Get to back of the bus indeed.

Looking at the FRC site and wiki on them.... They seem like a bunch of cranks. 13 million dollars raise each year, with about 100 people in their organization. That is the economic power of like two small businesses. They are nothing unless the media gives them air time. I'd be shocked if they speak for more then a couple hundred souls. They probably should be disbanded as a charity.

Well until recently they received money directly through Chickfila's Winshape organization. The public backlash changed that.

Their documents and resources are passed around a lot, and are frequently used by politicians who run based off of a Christian platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they want Christians to not wear their uniforms and participate in the National Day of prayer?

In my dad's day you didn't leave base with your uniform on. It stayed on base.

And yes, that is a support of religion, and despite claiming that all religions are welcome, it is very clearly a Christian event.

You can certainly be religious, but you can't do it as a government representative.

Which was pretty standard here in the US until the 50's, damn red scare.

http://christiannews.net/2014/03/20/atheist-activists-demand-that-wisconsin-governor-remove-scripture-from-social-media-pages/

Some people look for any loophole they can find to try to remove Christianity from the public.

Again, as a government official you should keep doing your job separate from religion. The line between Church and State is there for a reason. That it's gotten blurred doesn't mean it can continue to be ignored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please prove that's their official position. As for the others, I don't see any current influential American Baptist clergy.

I can't prove that the KKK endorses lynching black men I do have their history and statements of the people in charge though

Ah, is the American Baptists the only True Baptist then?

ETA: Google "Floyd Lee Corkins" to see a homicidal "heterophobe". This is to where anti-traditional hatred and propaganda leads.

Great. One example of a nut. That balances out all of the mistreatment of homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite nephew is openly gay and belongs to a Baptist church in a small town in Georgia. His church and the community are very accepting of him, especially when he was coming to terms with his sexuality in his teens...so I'm not sure where you are getting your information. I'm sure you will say that there are exceptions to every rule, but I may conclude that the reports you are hearing are the exceptions to the rule of generally open minded people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And could I suggest that based onrates of homeless andsuicide that your nephews experience may not be typical.

Yes, the tde of opinion is changing, but you cant just saythat because of this it isfine toignore the stillvery real problems we still have. I limited to Baptists because of the joke Detective Mystery referred to If I opened up the results to religious and political leaders in general, I'd get warned for spam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it should be noted that Baptists are a diverse group including a number of different sects. From the most liberal to Westboro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.