>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.

Snit fricking fracking fit.

He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.

So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.

You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.

And?

The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.

You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.

If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.

I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.

They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.

They exist.

Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.

But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.

Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.

Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.

@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."

No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.

Ginger Ginger Ginger.

He used profanity in a sentence. That isn't bullying.

He did call those kids pansy-asses for walking out. In a polite tone of voice, actually.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

It is like that Gary Larson cartoon, where the dog owner has a long conversation with the dog, whose name is Ginger. Very complicated and nuanced. And then you see what the dog actually hears -- white noise with "Ginger" showing up now and then.

That is how (some) conservatives seem to hear. The word "bullshit" and "bible" are in the same paragraph and they can't seem to hear what is actually said. They just hear "bullshit" and "bible."

It isn't as if these are stupid people. I know they aren't. But they hear these trigger words and their brains and ability to process language just stops.

It's weird. I swear.

Reincarnated ginger kid thinks to himself, "why me"?

Haha, it might sound like that, but I didn't think about it at all until it came to this thread. And I believe I do just enjoy the show. We can't all be simple creatures who only scratch the surface of everything

>> ^Tokoki:

Sounds like you both spend way too much time thinking about this.
Just enjoy the show!
>> ^legacy0100:
Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.
I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.
I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.
For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.
Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

Sounds like you both spend way too much time thinking about this.

Just enjoy the show!

>> ^legacy0100:

Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.
I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.
I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.
For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.
Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.

I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.

I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.

For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.

Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

>> ^VoodooV:

I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.


I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

I hated this
*bzzz*
Ok, fine, I loved it like I love sexy blonde girls.
*bzzz*
Sigh. OK. Fine. I loved it like I love ginger-haired muscly-thighed rugby-playing men with who like fine wines and crying at Pixar movies with me.

Scarlet-crowned harlot eh? I bet I could get partially through her eye of the needle.. she'd not even feel it...
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^AdrianBlack:
It's ok to reference camel toes if you're female...and a ginger bitch. >> ^Fletch:
Oh great... the inevitable "cute" and base sexual references whenever a video contains an attractive female. You hear her voice and only just kinda see her, yet that's all it takes to massage the man muscle for some of you. And it's not even about her, people. It's about the camel. Yes, the camel. How do you think he feels, his moment in the spotlight waylayed by sophmoric sexual innuendo and ancient memes? To risk injury by running in a manner that is very likely hazardous to camels and other even-toed ungulates just to entertain us, and then see his risk rendered moot by such off-topic and immature comments must be disheartening, to say the least.
After all, he pwn'd that soulless, ginger bitch.


"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a spastic camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a soulless scarlet-crowned harlot to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

It's ok to reference camel toes if you're female...and a ginger bitch. >> ^Fletch:

Oh great... the inevitable "cute" and base sexual references whenever a video contains an attractive female. You hear her voice and only just kinda see her, yet that's all it takes to massage the man muscle for some of you. And it's not even about her, people. It's about the camel. Yes, the camel. How do you think he feels, his moment in the spotlight waylayed by sophmoric sexual innuendo and ancient memes? To risk injury by running in a manner that is very likely hazardous to camels and other even-toed ungulates just to entertain us, and then see his risk rendered moot by such off-topic and immature comments must be disheartening, to say the least.
After all, he pwn'd that soulless, ginger bitch.

Oh great... the inevitable "cute" and base sexual references whenever a video contains an attractive female. You hear her voice and only just kinda see her, yet that's all it takes to massage the man muscle for some of you. And it's not even about her, people. It's about the camel. Yes, the camel. How do you think he feels, his moment in the spotlight waylayed by sophmoric sexual innuendo and ancient memes? To risk injury by running in a manner that is very likely hazardous to camels and other even-toed ungulates just to entertain us, and then see his risk rendered moot by such off-topic and immature comments must be disheartening, to say the least.

After all, he pwn'd that soulless, ginger bitch.






I refuse to use the "sarcasm" button.