>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^shang:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

there's those political correct people popping in...
stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.
I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.
You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.

You want to call it what it is? Fine...you're a bigot.


YAY

Now there ya go, Yes I am prejudice against certain things and of course I'm a bigot.

I wouldn't be human if I had certain preferences, if everyone thought alike and had the same morals and ethics we'd be sheep with no individualism which is what political correctness wants to remove from people is their individuality. George Carlin although a comedian was dead right 100% on that point.

And just as he said on stage, Of course I'm a bigot, I'm human. No phobias here other than spiders -grin-

>> ^shang:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

there's those political correct people popping in...
stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.
I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.
You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.


You want to call it what it is? Fine...you're a bigot.

To quote Yoda's undying wisdom.

Fear creates, anger, Anger creates hate, Hate creates Suffering!

Are you telling me you've never killed a spider out of fear? Or Anger? or Hate? If you say no your lying to yourself and everyone else.

For the record I'm Arachnophobic myself so I understand how the process works.
I'm also not gay but I believe anyone and everyone has the free will to be who and what they want period.

>> ^shang:

definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

It's not "political correctness", it's just what the word means. Stop trying to justify bigotry with semantics, homophobe.
>> ^shang:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

there's those political correct people popping in...
stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.
I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.
You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.


there's those political correct people popping in...

stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.

I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.

You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.

>> ^shang:

definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.

political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.

again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.



"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

Being bullied a lot as a kid led me to develop severe social phobia starting at 17, ruining whatever was left of my social life during my twenties and also helped me drop out of college, twice. After two years of therapy as an adult, I can deal with social anxiety a lot better, but I probably won't be able to function socially 100%.

I was also bullied at home by one of my older brothers who, only later in life as a father of three, found out he's bipolar and now takes medication. I love him, he never physically bullied me, it was mostly psychological warfare with that guy, picking apart any shred of self esteem I had as a kid and meticulously crushing it every chance he got. He sometimes humilliates his own kids, my nephews, I'm going to have to explain that he can't just think, "I did that all the time with my kid brother and he turned out OK".

Uh, no he didn't.

>> ^oOPonyOo:

Wow, that is a whole lot of crazy. Public humiliation and such extreme violence. What is with the gun? Do you want to use that gun on your daughter?
Thanks for that link to the belt-whipping guy - again, all kinds of crazy.
Did this guy reach out to his community for advice on how to discipline, or did he just assume that "father knows best"? I think she was reaching out to her community to vent and perhaps find some solution or support.
I think all is well answered above, and a very interesting discussion. I am thinking though that belts and guns are a "Dangerous Method". Wait for the results down the road. Um, movie reference, in case you didn't.


What is it with people and guns?

If he'd driven over it with his car would you all be here asking if he wanted to run over his daughter?
If he'd thrown it in a deep fryer would you all be here asking if he wanted to deep fry his daughter?
If he'd hit it with a hammer?

He (Gasp) owns a gun and used the gun to destroy some of his own property. Get over it already, your own personal phobias and prejudices don't apply here.

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

It's just not a valid comparison, JohnBrown. You can't draw an inference as to what you might do in comparison as to what God might do. God is a much different sort of parent, who has a much different role in a persons life than that of a custodial guardian. He handles issues of life *and* death. Humans obviously want to go through life with the least amount of suffering possible. That isn't always good for them, and as anyone knows, sometimes you have to learn the hard way. Obviously God knows what we can and cannot handle, and what is or isn't beneficial for us.


What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

I'm not sure how you feel you can apply principles of child rearing to God, who handles all of the myriad complexities of the world, and of our individual lives. Do these principles include how to prepare ones spirit for eternal life?

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

Now you segue into this very different subject which is specifically predicated on your unbelief. First you're talking about God hypothetically committing immoral actions, and then when you feel you've established it, you turn the argument into a problem with Christianity itself. The problem is that you haven't established it, and your presupposition about God being compared to a human parent is false.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

If God exists, obviously God comes first. Just like you put your family first before other people. Yet, this isn't a selfish thing. If you put God first in your life you are more likely to love other people. These are the two greatest commandments:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your understanding.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that everything in the bible hinged on those two commandments. As you can see, God felt it was very important that we should love other human beings. This is hardly "violent thinking". Your problem, and the problem of every other atheist, is that in your desperate attempt to dismantle Christianity, you try to find something in the Old Testament to make your case, because it's quite obvious that Jesus taught us to be selfless, compassionate, and loving. You have no argument against verses like this:

Matthew 5:39-48

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So you try to find difficult verses in the OT and completely ignore all of the obvious good in the NT. It really shows the weakness of your arguments.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Full potential? Christians live longer, and are happier and healthier than non-believers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8480505/Faith-good-for-your-health.html

We're also far more likely to give to charity, and when we do, we give four times as much:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/christians-and-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-abc-says/

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

Ridiculous, and unfounded. Putting God first means to obey His commands to love one another, and to see all people, children and adult, in the image of God. There is no connection between putting God first and abusing your kids. Some people may used a warped understanding of Christianity to mistreat their children, but that is possible for any belief system.

>> ^JohnBrown

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

My Japanese Giant Hornet phobia is tingling...

I used to expect that to happen to my dad every time I saw him use the diving board. It was a genuine, anxiety-causing phobia.

I will say this much in his defense.

Where exactly does it say it's a right to not be exposed to diseases? People like to confuse privilege with right all the time.

It's in everyone's best interests that everyone be healthy. Notice though that I didn't say it's a right. However, that is not the same thing as catering to the OCD/germ-phobia that exists in the US. Two completely separate things.

What you are saying, that people shouldn't judge others as long as they are happy, is the definition of political correctness.

So which is it? People should not mock others for the stupid choices they make or "political correctness needs a bullet in the head"? You can't have both.

As for the video, I'm so glad she's American and not going to be a drain on my healthcare, but I feel bad for people who have the same health insurance provider as her. The fact that she is actively aiming for a record makes this so more disgusting/disturbing than if she was just plain fat.>> ^cito:

Glad she's happy. Everyone loves to demonize people's lifestyle.
She chose to be fat.
some people chose to kill themselves smoking
smoking is still allowed in home around kids also.
some people love alcohol and drink at home
some people choose different lifestyles, some like same sex some dont
some like religion some don't

but none of it matters, whatever she choses as long as she's happy, more power to her and I support her.

just shows how hypocritical people are with political correctness, if someone demonizes one lifestyle the political correct crowd will flame and insult the person as they try to force them to believe one way and insert the wrong word -phobia to end of words.
but if a person chooses to be fat oh no call the cops that's insane.
god people are retarded, and political correctness needs a bullet in the head.

She's happy with her lifestyle and I am happy she enjoys it.