Topic: My school now has a Gay-Straight Alliance club.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU started this discussion 15 years ago #12,643
And I'm in Tennessee, so you can imagine the backlash. People are up in arms over there being an anti-discrimination group at the school. Some wackjob-end Christians are even complaining because it has a teacher sponsor, yet teachers can't join their religious clubs (but they do have a sponsor, just like GSA has...). They don't really see that the GSA isn't a religious club. One person did bring up separation of Church and State, though, and they said it was only in place to protect the church from the state, hinting that it doesn't work the other way :/
Oh, and someone said all gays should be killed. The kind soul who said that bills himself as a strong Christian, apparently operating under the pro-genocide wing of Christianity (presumably southern Baptist)
Anyway, rant on my fucked up school.
Oh, and someone said all gays should be killed. The kind soul who said that bills himself as a strong Christian, apparently operating under the pro-genocide wing of Christianity (presumably southern Baptist)
Anyway, rant on my fucked up school.
dreamworksage !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #227,306
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,307
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,310
Gay people (men in particular) make the religious very uncomfortable.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,312
Have you joined?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,319
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,320
@227,312 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I really wanted to join, but I didn't have a chance to get to the after school meeting.
I'd probably be burned at the stake for showing up, though. A guy from my school's newspaper went and came back half-mocking a lot of it, and refusing to accept that the gay suicide rate is higher than that for straight people :/ And then you had other people in the class just being cunts over it, laughing and shit :L
I really wanted to join, but I didn't have a chance to get to the after school meeting.
I'd probably be burned at the stake for showing up, though. A guy from my school's newspaper went and came back half-mocking a lot of it, and refusing to accept that the gay suicide rate is higher than that for straight people :/ And then you had other people in the class just being cunts over it, laughing and shit :L
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,323
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
I was out in high school and never had a problem, but maybe people would be cruel to you. So I understand if you won't join, but which one will make you feel better? Standing up for your beliefs or shrinking in the corner?
I was out in high school and never had a problem, but maybe people would be cruel to you. So I understand if you won't join, but which one will make you feel better? Standing up for your beliefs or shrinking in the corner?
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,328
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I'm in the heart of the bible belt, and it was difficult just to get the club. Not many people showed up from what I heard :/ And I do stand up for my beliefs, I just didn't join the club.
I could do so much more, though. I'm just getting really pissed off at how widespread homophobia is at my school. I didn't even imagine it like this. Seriously, I had a girl telling me today that the GSA shouldn't exist because being gay is a sin. When I said not everyone believes that way, she said everyone should have to believe that way because it's right and that's that. And then she got the crazy, earth-is-6000-years-old girl hounding me as well.
I'm in the heart of the bible belt, and it was difficult just to get the club. Not many people showed up from what I heard :/ And I do stand up for my beliefs, I just didn't join the club.
I could do so much more, though. I'm just getting really pissed off at how widespread homophobia is at my school. I didn't even imagine it like this. Seriously, I had a girl telling me today that the GSA shouldn't exist because being gay is a sin. When I said not everyone believes that way, she said everyone should have to believe that way because it's right and that's that. And then she got the crazy, earth-is-6000-years-old girl hounding me as well.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,331
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,337
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,338
@227,331 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Somehow evolution got brought up (no fucking idea how), and after she said the earth was 6000 years old, I asked about how Adam and Eve populated the earth. She said it works perfectly if you start from two people 6000 years ago. But, it doesn't. Starting at 4004 B.C., you'd only have about 462 people in 2500 B.C. It just gets more ridiculous from there, though.
I didn't get to tell her this, though, because when she saw me looking up the precise figures, she didn't bring it up again and I didn't feel like arguing :/ Seriously, it's tiring arguing with her because she mistakes talking fast and being agressive in her questioning to a layman in terms of evolutionary theory as winning an argument with sound proof and logic.
Somehow evolution got brought up (no fucking idea how), and after she said the earth was 6000 years old, I asked about how Adam and Eve populated the earth. She said it works perfectly if you start from two people 6000 years ago. But, it doesn't. Starting at 4004 B.C., you'd only have about 462 people in 2500 B.C. It just gets more ridiculous from there, though.
I didn't get to tell her this, though, because when she saw me looking up the precise figures, she didn't bring it up again and I didn't feel like arguing :/ Seriously, it's tiring arguing with her because she mistakes talking fast and being agressive in her questioning to a layman in terms of evolutionary theory as winning an argument with sound proof and logic.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,340
@227,328 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
> I'm in the heart of the bible belt
Wow, that must be horrible for you.
> I'm in the heart of the bible belt
Wow, that must be horrible for you.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,341
@227,338 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
I like how she didn't want to see the actual numbers involved. That's just so typical of fundamentalists.
I like how she didn't want to see the actual numbers involved. That's just so typical of fundamentalists.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,346
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
She prefers to argue the old "The bible is right, anything you say is a lie" method. She spends all her time reading anti-evolution books and pro-young Earth books, it's ridiculous. She doesn't bother looking at the sources for her books, which all cite other anti-evolution books which either have no citations or cite other anti-evolution books. The only primary sources in her books about evolution are mined quotes. And she ignores it. When I bring it up, she changes the subject. It's the most annoying thing ever.
She prefers to argue the old "The bible is right, anything you say is a lie" method. She spends all her time reading anti-evolution books and pro-young Earth books, it's ridiculous. She doesn't bother looking at the sources for her books, which all cite other anti-evolution books which either have no citations or cite other anti-evolution books. The only primary sources in her books about evolution are mined quotes. And she ignores it. When I bring it up, she changes the subject. It's the most annoying thing ever.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,353
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Because she's arguing from conviction instead of fact. Nothing that you can tell her will ever change her mind. I would suggest not debating such people unless you are very bored.
Because she's arguing from conviction instead of fact. Nothing that you can tell her will ever change her mind. I would suggest not debating such people unless you are very bored.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,361
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I try not to, she drags me in to them >_< Seriously, I didn't say a word about any of this today until girl 1 came up and asked about my Facebook post about the GSA and then girl 2 whom she pulled in as well.
Also, I made one post on Facebook about people hating on an anti-discrimination club, and commented on one person's status who was kind od in agreement with my side. Today, young-Earthy said I commented on six people's statuses hatefully because they were anti-GSA, and that I was just waiting on them to post them so I could pounce. I then pointed out that I didn't, and checking Facebook proved it, but she denied it and said she saw my posts and nothing I said otherwise would change it. I asked for proof, and she just said "I saw them". I think the evolution debate came up when I mentioned that that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
I try not to, she drags me in to them >_< Seriously, I didn't say a word about any of this today until girl 1 came up and asked about my Facebook post about the GSA and then girl 2 whom she pulled in as well.
Also, I made one post on Facebook about people hating on an anti-discrimination club, and commented on one person's status who was kind od in agreement with my side. Today, young-Earthy said I commented on six people's statuses hatefully because they were anti-GSA, and that I was just waiting on them to post them so I could pounce. I then pointed out that I didn't, and checking Facebook proved it, but she denied it and said she saw my posts and nothing I said otherwise would change it. I asked for proof, and she just said "I saw them". I think the evolution debate came up when I mentioned that that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,365
> lolamerica
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,366
@227,361 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
People get hateful when you question their world views. I've had a fundi come to where I work and give me a pamphlet calling me a Jezebel. Evidently when I spoke to one of them when they were picking up one of the residents, and he thought that I was hitting on him.
People get hateful when you question their world views. I've had a fundi come to where I work and give me a pamphlet calling me a Jezebel. Evidently when I spoke to one of them when they were picking up one of the residents, and he thought that I was hitting on him.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,373
I'm glad this silly crap is illegal to do here. The man who said all gays should be killed would have been arrested and imprisoned in my country for hate speech.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,375
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,378
@227,361 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
> said I commented on six people's statuses hatefully
I suppose had you posted about killing all the gays, that would have been less hateful. Not liking what others like is a grave sin.
> said I commented on six people's statuses hatefully
I suppose had you posted about killing all the gays, that would have been less hateful. Not liking what others like is a grave sin.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,379
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,380
@227,366 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
What? That's so weird. I really hate how crazy and ridiculous religion makes some people. Honestly, people ask me all the time why I refuse to go to college in the South. It's because there are fucking crazy religious people everywhere, and less-crazy religious people everywhere else ready to back them up.
This has become my anthem dealing with all this homophobic, religious bullshit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LuBLpnp7Ck
What? That's so weird. I really hate how crazy and ridiculous religion makes some people. Honestly, people ask me all the time why I refuse to go to college in the South. It's because there are fucking crazy religious people everywhere, and less-crazy religious people everywhere else ready to back them up.
This has become my anthem dealing with all this homophobic, religious bullshit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LuBLpnp7Ck
faggyfaggot !JS8Bu5jSBI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,382
fagget! xD
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,383
@227,375 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes. The book was called "This Woman Jezebel". It had a hand with long red nails, covered with jewelry and clutching a glass of red wine. Inside, it was all about how women use their sex powers to kill children and cause evil.
Yes. The book was called "This Woman Jezebel". It had a hand with long red nails, covered with jewelry and clutching a glass of red wine. Inside, it was all about how women use their sex powers to kill children and cause evil.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,384
@227,379 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
All I know is that in America, you have:
> Some wackjob-end Christians are even complaining because it has a teacher sponsor, yet teachers can't join their religious clubs (but they do have a sponsor, just like GSA has...). They don't really see that the GSA isn't a religious club. One person did bring up separation of Church and State, though, and they said it was only in place to protect the church from the state, hinting that it doesn't work the other way :/
> Oh, and someone said all gays should be killed. The kind soul who said that bills himself as a strong Christian, apparently operating under the pro-genocide wing of Christianity (presumably southern Baptist)
> I've had a fundi come to where I work and give me a pamphlet calling me a Jezebel.
> I had a girl telling me today that the GSA shouldn't exist because being gay is a sin. When I said not everyone believes that way, she said everyone should have to believe that way because it's right and that's that.
And in my country we don't have that.
All I know is that in America, you have:
> Some wackjob-end Christians are even complaining because it has a teacher sponsor, yet teachers can't join their religious clubs (but they do have a sponsor, just like GSA has...). They don't really see that the GSA isn't a religious club. One person did bring up separation of Church and State, though, and they said it was only in place to protect the church from the state, hinting that it doesn't work the other way :/
> Oh, and someone said all gays should be killed. The kind soul who said that bills himself as a strong Christian, apparently operating under the pro-genocide wing of Christianity (presumably southern Baptist)
> I've had a fundi come to where I work and give me a pamphlet calling me a Jezebel.
> I had a girl telling me today that the GSA shouldn't exist because being gay is a sin. When I said not everyone believes that way, she said everyone should have to believe that way because it's right and that's that.
And in my country we don't have that.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,385
@227,378 (I)
The sad part is, is that what you're saying is true. That one girl today didn't care the club was against bullying and discrimination, they shouldn't be gay and that's the end of it.
The sad part is, is that what you're saying is true. That one girl today didn't care the club was against bullying and discrimination, they shouldn't be gay and that's the end of it.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,390
@227,384 (H)
They have the right to say it. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to support the message. As long as there is not a clear and present danger in what someone says, it should be legal, period.
I figure you must love how the government can overreach into your life.
They have the right to say it. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to support the message. As long as there is not a clear and present danger in what someone says, it should be legal, period.
I figure you must love how the government can overreach into your life.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,391
@227,383 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Sounds reasonable. I love fundies and their crazy propaganda.
@227,379 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I'd rather have laws against hate speech than bible thumpers spewing their bile everywhere. To be fair, the club did nothing to warrent that kind of abuse.
Sounds reasonable. I love fundies and their crazy propaganda.
@227,379 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I'd rather have laws against hate speech than bible thumpers spewing their bile everywhere. To be fair, the club did nothing to warrent that kind of abuse.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,396
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,398
@227,391 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I'd rather have laws against hate speech than bible thumpers spewing their bile everywhere. To be fair, the club did nothing to warrent that kind of abuse.
That is a very dangerous position to take, You are no better than them. Trying to restrict what they can and cannot say. They have an opinion against gays, You have an opinion against them, so tell me, how is what you say any different from what they say?
The same hateful message is in both.
> I'd rather have laws against hate speech than bible thumpers spewing their bile everywhere. To be fair, the club did nothing to warrent that kind of abuse.
That is a very dangerous position to take, You are no better than them. Trying to restrict what they can and cannot say. They have an opinion against gays, You have an opinion against them, so tell me, how is what you say any different from what they say?
The same hateful message is in both.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,400
@227,390 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I don't really care. Your free speech isn't worth the hatred it brings. Here you have the right to prejudice, but not the right to discrimination. Protests against an anti-gay-bullying group is unthinkable here. Anybody who did would be derided as a barbarian.
> I figure you must love how the government can overreach into your life.
Yes, very much. Enjoy your horrible fractured society. America is the laughing stock of the world.
I don't really care. Your free speech isn't worth the hatred it brings. Here you have the right to prejudice, but not the right to discrimination. Protests against an anti-gay-bullying group is unthinkable here. Anybody who did would be derided as a barbarian.
> I figure you must love how the government can overreach into your life.
Yes, very much. Enjoy your horrible fractured society. America is the laughing stock of the world.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,406
@227,398 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
It's not dangerous to try to protect gays from angry fundie Christians. It's different because I'm intolerant of their intolerance, not their entire existence like they are with the gays.
It's not dangerous to try to protect gays from angry fundie Christians. It's different because I'm intolerant of their intolerance, not their entire existence like they are with the gays.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #227,409
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,411
Whoops never mind lol
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,416
@227,406 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> It's not dangerous to try to protect gays from angry fundie Christians.
It's dangerous to empower the state to penalize any opinion it deems "offensive" or "hateful".
> It's not dangerous to try to protect gays from angry fundie Christians.
It's dangerous to empower the state to penalize any opinion it deems "offensive" or "hateful".
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,417
Anyone have some good arguments to shut people up when they engage me over this shit?
Also, any way I can beat a football player up for being an asshole?
Also, any way I can beat a football player up for being an asshole?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,418
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Well, maybe you should offer to read one of her books and she can read something from you. Then discuss what you have learned. That way she can defend herself (hopefully in private) without having to get aggressive.
Well, maybe you should offer to read one of her books and she can read something from you. Then discuss what you have learned. That way she can defend herself (hopefully in private) without having to get aggressive.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,419
@227,417 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
> Anyone have some good arguments to shut people up when they engage me over this shit?
Ask them if God could create a boulder so heavy that even he couldn't lift it. That should short-circuit them.
> Also, any way I can beat a football player up for being an asshole?
Challenge him to a duel.
> Anyone have some good arguments to shut people up when they engage me over this shit?
Ask them if God could create a boulder so heavy that even he couldn't lift it. That should short-circuit them.
> Also, any way I can beat a football player up for being an asshole?
Challenge him to a duel.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,420
@227,418 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That's a good idea, actually. And that could at least let her know I don't have my head in the sand.
Oddly, though, when we went over evolution in biology last year, she had all of her points shot down by the teacher yet she just said the teacher was wrong and ignored the lengthy powerpoint about misconceptions of evolution :/ So, she'd most likely ignore the book and say it's wrong.
That's a good idea, actually. And that could at least let her know I don't have my head in the sand.
Oddly, though, when we went over evolution in biology last year, she had all of her points shot down by the teacher yet she just said the teacher was wrong and ignored the lengthy powerpoint about misconceptions of evolution :/ So, she'd most likely ignore the book and say it's wrong.
vocalimjworks+ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,421
op is the reason they have those
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,422
@227,419 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Ask them if God could create a boulder so heavy that even he couldn't lift it. That should short-circuit them.
I like this idea. But it wouldn't work with all the fundies.
> Challenge him to a duel.
Oh, how I wish duelling was still commonplace.
> Ask them if God could create a boulder so heavy that even he couldn't lift it. That should short-circuit them.
I like this idea. But it wouldn't work with all the fundies.
> Challenge him to a duel.
Oh, how I wish duelling was still commonplace.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,423
@227,417 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
> Anyone have some good arguments to shut people up when they engage me over this shit?
Ask your congressperson to criminalize different opinions. That's how they do it in Europe.
> Anyone have some good arguments to shut people up when they engage me over this shit?
Ask your congressperson to criminalize different opinions. That's how they do it in Europe.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,424
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,425
join the GSA, get laid by sexy gay people.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,426
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #227,427
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,450
@227,420 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
She is probably just looking for a chance to reiterate all the arguments she has been reading to someone. If she just wants to shout you down, it could be boring. If she is actually interested in talking over specific points, it could be fun.
She is probably just looking for a chance to reiterate all the arguments she has been reading to someone. If she just wants to shout you down, it could be boring. If she is actually interested in talking over specific points, it could be fun.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,459
@227,427 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Good luck. I would try and ask her this in private so that she doesn't have to save face in front of her religious friends.
Good luck. I would try and ask her this in private so that she doesn't have to save face in front of her religious friends.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,534
Lolfags
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,656
@227,338 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
No wonder you want to move to the UK.
That tactic of trying to drown you out in stupid is a typical creationist tactic. It's called the Gish gallop.
You should join the GSA. It would be good for the gay kids who have to see this shit and it's actually directed at them. You shouldn't care what the ignorant think.
You are in highschool, though, so I understand if you are too intimidated to join. Just showing up would be taking a stand against ignorance, though. It's all you have to do. Show up. You don't need to engage anyone or debate anyone. Just show up.
Think about it. Find out someone who is going or would go and walk together. Walk in a group it possible.
No wonder you want to move to the UK.
That tactic of trying to drown you out in stupid is a typical creationist tactic. It's called the Gish gallop.
You should join the GSA. It would be good for the gay kids who have to see this shit and it's actually directed at them. You shouldn't care what the ignorant think.
You are in highschool, though, so I understand if you are too intimidated to join. Just showing up would be taking a stand against ignorance, though. It's all you have to do. Show up. You don't need to engage anyone or debate anyone. Just show up.
Think about it. Find out someone who is going or would go and walk together. Walk in a group it possible.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,658
@227,450 (I)
She won't listen to what he says. They are trained to argue against it using tactics that have been countered long ago. You can't use truth to combat delusion when the recipient is unwilling.
She won't listen to what he says. They are trained to argue against it using tactics that have been countered long ago. You can't use truth to combat delusion when the recipient is unwilling.
sluggy triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,659
Also, this is what religion does. Remember next time you want to argue any benefit peoples. It's bad for society.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,698
@227,658 (sluggy)
> They are trained to argue against it using tactics that have been countered long ago.
Well, I'm assuming this is a normal teenage girl who is having some Mega-Christian phase or just has a crazy religious family. She would probably enjoy having someone listen to her for a while.
> She won't listen to what he says.
Yeah, she probably won't, but the arguments can be fun. Dismantling some creationist objections can be educational.
> They are trained to argue against it using tactics that have been countered long ago.
Well, I'm assuming this is a normal teenage girl who is having some Mega-Christian phase or just has a crazy religious family. She would probably enjoy having someone listen to her for a while.
> She won't listen to what he says.
Yeah, she probably won't, but the arguments can be fun. Dismantling some creationist objections can be educational.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,711
I went to a few in high school so my 'sister' (my friend's hot awesome cousin) introduce me to a lot of new people during regular school. So i got to meet tons of older (Junior) girls, but had to go to a bunch of GSA meetings as a 'punishment'. This was my freshman year 'hazing'
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,714
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,716
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,722
@227,714 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
I'm sorry. I like being lazy in my explanations if I don't really want to make a new topic out of something when I'm high.
I'm sorry. I like being lazy in my explanations if I don't really want to make a new topic out of something when I'm high.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,723
@227,698 (I)
It's frustrating to explain something to somebody and have them repeat the same bullshit over and over or switch to a new argument thats equally full of shit and moronic.
It's not fun unless you're masochistic.
It's frustrating to explain something to somebody and have them repeat the same bullshit over and over or switch to a new argument thats equally full of shit and moronic.
It's not fun unless you're masochistic.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,724
@227,722 ([^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3.)
Okay. Can you explain the "sister" thing though because I don't get it :-/
Okay. Can you explain the "sister" thing though because I don't get it :-/
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,727
@227,723 (sluggy)
> It's frustrating to explain something to somebody and have them repeat the same bullshit over and over or switch to a new argument thats equally full of shit and moronic.
LOL How do stand the threads here?
> It's frustrating to explain something to somebody and have them repeat the same bullshit over and over or switch to a new argument thats equally full of shit and moronic.
LOL How do stand the threads here?
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,728
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,866
@227,724 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Because it's not his biological sister, just a family friend. People use quotations marks sometimes to express irony or to infer a different meaning, like when people use finger quotes. Get it?
Because it's not his biological sister, just a family friend. People use quotations marks sometimes to express irony or to infer a different meaning, like when people use finger quotes. Get it?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,867
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,909
You don't win by arguing with fundamentalists, you win by making fun of them mercilessly.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,917
@previous (S)
you cant really debate them. they are dishonest in their tactics, or they are balls-to-the-walls crazy.
you cant really debate them. they are dishonest in their tactics, or they are balls-to-the-walls crazy.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,919
@previous (O)
They really are. I worked with a lady who believed that fossils were created by the devil to confuse people.
They really are. I worked with a lady who believed that fossils were created by the devil to confuse people.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,928
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
thats a popular christian school of thought. ive never heard anyone claim it, but I saw Louis CK at bonaroo, and he had this joke about fossils and he said after one of his shows a man came up and very apologetically said basically the same thing.
thats a popular christian school of thought. ive never heard anyone claim it, but I saw Louis CK at bonaroo, and he had this joke about fossils and he said after one of his shows a man came up and very apologetically said basically the same thing.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,933
@previous (sluggy)
When she mentioned it, I was so shocked because I had never heard this irl. I couldn't even form a response.
When she mentioned it, I was so shocked because I had never heard this irl. I couldn't even form a response.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,986
@227,724 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
pretty much this @227,866 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B) she took me under her wing since i was kinda shy before freshman year. And we looked similar and we acted the same so we acted like brother and sister. This happened with a girl I had known since 3rd grade also, we were attached at the hip pretty much, and people always asked if we were dating or brother and sister. Sometimes we said both lol
pretty much this @227,866 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B) she took me under her wing since i was kinda shy before freshman year. And we looked similar and we acted the same so we acted like brother and sister. This happened with a girl I had known since 3rd grade also, we were attached at the hip pretty much, and people always asked if we were dating or brother and sister. Sometimes we said both lol
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,987
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,997
@227,423 (K)
> Ask your congressperson to criminalize different opinions. That's how they do it in Europe.
We don't criminalize different opinions. You're entitled to hold the most horrific, disgusting opinions you can think of. We criminalize acting on those opinions.
> Ask your congressperson to criminalize different opinions. That's how they do it in Europe.
We don't criminalize different opinions. You're entitled to hold the most horrific, disgusting opinions you can think of. We criminalize acting on those opinions.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #227,998
@227,987 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Not anymore, I have the Blond girl on my facebook, but i don't know how to find the other girl
Not anymore, I have the Blond girl on my facebook, but i don't know how to find the other girl
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,056
Basically OP is such a faggot he can't even win an argument against Southern, creationist, teenage girls!You must be sooooooooo dumb.
Anonymous T double-posted this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,057
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,090
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,106
@previous (H)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Europe is still in the dark ages. You are allowed to think the world is round, JUST DON'T SAY IT!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Europe is still in the dark ages. You are allowed to think the world is round, JUST DON'T SAY IT!
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,108
@previous (T)
Why don't you just say what you mean instead of using silly rhetoric?
> Europe is still in the dark ages. You are allowed to think that you hate black people and want to exterminate them all, JUST DON'T SAY IT!
I'm happy for that to be the case.
Why don't you just say what you mean instead of using silly rhetoric?
> Europe is still in the dark ages. You are allowed to think that you hate black people and want to exterminate them all, JUST DON'T SAY IT!
I'm happy for that to be the case.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,110
@previous (H)
You must be retarded then. I am quite happy for people to say this. I am opposed to people doing it.
You must be retarded then. I am quite happy for people to say this. I am opposed to people doing it.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,111
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,116
@previous (H)
> inciting
There you go with your typical eurofag refusal of responsibility. If you do something, IT'S YOUR FAULT.
Typical eurofag:
> it's not my fault i killed all those jews, my superior incited me to do it!
> inciting
There you go with your typical eurofag refusal of responsibility. If you do something, IT'S YOUR FAULT.
Typical eurofag:
> it's not my fault i killed all those jews, my superior incited me to do it!
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,118
@previous (T)
Someone inciting you to do something does not excuse you from responsibility (Nuremburg trials) but that doesn't mean the one who did the inciting should not be punished.
Someone inciting you to do something does not excuse you from responsibility (Nuremburg trials) but that doesn't mean the one who did the inciting should not be punished.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,122
@previous (H)
What are they being punished for? Who was hurt by their speech? They are hurting NO ONE, and are being punished for NOTHING.
What are they being punished for? Who was hurt by their speech? They are hurting NO ONE, and are being punished for NOTHING.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,124
@previous (T)
Who are "They"?
> Who was hurt by their speech? They are hurting NO ONE, and are being punished for NOTHING.
They are being punished for inciting to violence. You have no freedom to oppress here.
Who are "They"?
> Who was hurt by their speech? They are hurting NO ONE, and are being punished for NOTHING.
They are being punished for inciting to violence. You have no freedom to oppress here.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,126
@previous (H)
lol you are defending the freedom to oppress people for their opinions!
Inciting to violence is a completely meaningless term. Explain what they are being punished for without using it.
lol you are defending the freedom to oppress people for their opinions!
Inciting to violence is a completely meaningless term. Explain what they are being punished for without using it.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,155
@previous (T)
Haha, please. Acting like the victims will get you nothing when you won't even say what you want to freedom to say. Nobody sympathises with you people and everybody else thinks you are backwards.
> Inciting to violence is a completely meaningless term. Explain what they are being punished for without using it.
LOL, they are being punished for 'inciting someone to violence'. That's the legal term. It means that you convince someone to commit a violent act. It is not right that you should get away scot-free for doing this. When you tell someone to commit a crime, you are just as liable as they are for that crime.
Haha, please. Acting like the victims will get you nothing when you won't even say what you want to freedom to say. Nobody sympathises with you people and everybody else thinks you are backwards.
> Inciting to violence is a completely meaningless term. Explain what they are being punished for without using it.
LOL, they are being punished for 'inciting someone to violence'. That's the legal term. It means that you convince someone to commit a violent act. It is not right that you should get away scot-free for doing this. When you tell someone to commit a crime, you are just as liable as they are for that crime.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,157
@previous (H)
> Haha, please. Acting like the victims will get you nothing when you won't even say what you want to freedom to say. Nobody sympathises with you people and everybody else thinks you are backwards.
I know government education is common in Europe but there is no excuse for that sentence. Please make sense! Rewrite in English.
> It means that you convince someone to commit a violent act. It is not right that you should get away scot-free for doing this. When you tell someone to commit a crime, you are just as liable as they are for that crime.
Who is hurt by convincing someone? NO ONE. Who is hurt by a violent act? SOMEONE.
You have a typically retarded Eurocentric view of justice, based upon kingship and statism, that bears no relationship to the victim, but to breaking perceived moral evils.
> Haha, please. Acting like the victims will get you nothing when you won't even say what you want to freedom to say. Nobody sympathises with you people and everybody else thinks you are backwards.
I know government education is common in Europe but there is no excuse for that sentence. Please make sense! Rewrite in English.
> It means that you convince someone to commit a violent act. It is not right that you should get away scot-free for doing this. When you tell someone to commit a crime, you are just as liable as they are for that crime.
Who is hurt by convincing someone? NO ONE. Who is hurt by a violent act? SOMEONE.
You have a typically retarded Eurocentric view of justice, based upon kingship and statism, that bears no relationship to the victim, but to breaking perceived moral evils.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,162
@previous (T)
> I know government education is common in Europe but there is no excuse for that sentence. Please make sense! Rewrite in English.
It makes perfect sense, and you understand exactly what it means. You're just saying otherwise because you are unable to admit when you are wrong. The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless and I will not waste any more of my time on you.
> I know government education is common in Europe but there is no excuse for that sentence. Please make sense! Rewrite in English.
It makes perfect sense, and you understand exactly what it means. You're just saying otherwise because you are unable to admit when you are wrong. The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless and I will not waste any more of my time on you.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,170
@previous (H)
lol i reread it. poor grammar. poor syntax. poor logic.
The beauty of freedom is that it doesn't matter what one wants to say. You believe the state has the authority to "allow" speech that doesn't incite. You are insane to give the state that much power.
lol i reread it. poor grammar. poor syntax. poor logic.
The beauty of freedom is that it doesn't matter what one wants to say. You believe the state has the authority to "allow" speech that doesn't incite. You are insane to give the state that much power.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,174
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,177
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,179
ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,183
@227,400 (H)
> America is the laughing stock of the world.
That wouldn't have been the case if the South were allowed to secede.
> America is the laughing stock of the world.
That wouldn't have been the case if the South were allowed to secede.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,189
@229,179 (H)
> I am happy believing things that have been proven wrong.
You'd be more at home in the South.
> I am happy believing things that have been proven wrong.
You'd be more at home in the South.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,191
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,194
@previous (H)
When you say "I just don't want to argue" you actually mean stop talking about the issue where I was proven wrong. You are happy to argue with me here.
When you say "I just don't want to argue" you actually mean stop talking about the issue where I was proven wrong. You are happy to argue with me here.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,195
@previous (T)
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,201
@previous (H)
> Still arguing
just not about the issue... wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you were proven wrong?
> Still arguing
just not about the issue... wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you were proven wrong?
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,203
@previous (T)
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,205
@previous (H)> I just don't want to argue about it any more.
Still arguing...
pic related its my learnings
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,207
@previous (T)
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting. You have not had a victory here.
> The fact that you are unable to admit when you are wrong means that this entire discussion is completely pointless
A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting. You have not had a victory here.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,215
@previous (H)> I just don't want to argue about it any more.
Still arguing...
Aspies gonna asp, I guess.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,217
@previous (T)
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,223
@previous (H)
> I just don't want to argue about it any more.
Still arguing...
What's it like to be a hypocrite?
> I just don't want to argue about it any more.
Still arguing...
What's it like to be a hypocrite?
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,225
@previous (T)
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,231
@previous (H)> I just don't want to argue about it any more.
Still arguing...
If you lie to yourself too long... you start to believe it.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,233
@previous (T)
Note how I said 'argue about IT', and not 'I'm going to stop arguing'. It's not my fault you're so deficient you take a withdrawal from a forum argument as me being proved wrong.
Also
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
Note how I said 'argue about IT', and not 'I'm going to stop arguing'. It's not my fault you're so deficient you take a withdrawal from a forum argument as me being proved wrong.
Also
> A window pops up every time I get cited and I have to click through to read it if I want it to go away. I dislike how smug you're acting.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,239
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,241
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,245
@previous (H)
> 1 hour ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
Still posting...
So you're a liar and an idiot?
> 1 hour ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
Still posting...
So you're a liar and an idiot?
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,247
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,257
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,258
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,399
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,404
@previous (T)I don't think you understand the difference between making an argument and posting gay furry porn and copying and pasting.
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,577
@previous (H)
> doesn't think spamming a forum with gay furry porn is a waste of time
Therefore you think spamming a forum with gay furry porn is a good use of your time.
lolfaggot
> doesn't think spamming a forum with gay furry porn is a waste of time
Therefore you think spamming a forum with gay furry porn is a good use of your time.
lolfaggot
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,762
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,780
@previous (H)
> 1 hour ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
not posting gay furry = homophobic
wow
> 1 hour ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
not posting gay furry = homophobic
wow
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,783
@previous (T)calling someone a faggot because they post gay furry = homophobic
I changed my mind
I can do this because I'm not autistic like you are
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,790
@previous (H)
> 1 day ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
> calling someone a faggot because they post gay furry = homophobic
you just went full retard
> I can do this because I'm not autistic like you are
you can post gay furry porn because you're not autistic... compelling argument
> 1 day ago
> I will not waste any more of my time on you.
> calling someone a faggot because they post gay furry = homophobic
you just went full retard
> I can do this because I'm not autistic like you are
you can post gay furry porn because you're not autistic... compelling argument
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,792
Anonymous T replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,795
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,796
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #229,797
Lol I selected the same one by accidentstickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #230,316
What happened to my thread? I forgot about this completely 51 replies ago..