>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^bcglorf:
And once again the internet destroys my hope for humanity. How is it people can't even agree that "bashing" is bad, PERIOD!
Instead of agreeing on such an obvious point, people would rather fight over which group is the bigger victim. Stop it already!
Churches are burnt down by arsonists and gays are beaten nearly death in the streets, all of this goes on in America today! Condemn both acts already so everyone get on with stopping the ignorant, violent criminals responsible for both crimes. If you defend either act or even lessen it in anyway you are part of the problem.


The point is that Christianity's intolerance encourages ignorance and violence, so if they want to discourage intolerance, their own would be a good place to start.
It's virtuous to seek to hold responsible those elements within a group that promote excesses and fallacies.


No, the point is ignorance like the belief that Christianity's intolerance encourages ignorance and violence is what actually does encourage ignorance and violence. Ignorant and/or violent people come in all colors, Christian and gay are just one of the many banners that might happen to be worn by violent ignorant criminals.

Once again condemn people for beating up gay people, but do it WITHOUT condemning Christianity unless you somehow enjoy the endless cycle of violence and revenge that is human history and you just can't help but want to be a part of it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^burdturgler:
It should be obvious that my quote there was in response to stephenfryftw's idiotic comment, not to the video.

Actually, I was referring to your original post and it's ongoing defense. ; )
Just thought I'd save some space on the quote.
All I see is a guy debunking 10 pieces of propaganda and countering them with displays of people who were truly "bashed".


I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, because I haven't said anything in defense of my post.
I'm not going to argue about it. I said what I wanted to say in my first post and I'm leaving it at that. People are entitled to have different opinions than me and I respect that. That doesn't mean I won't call out someone for being a fucking troll though.

>> ^burdturgler:
It should be obvious that my quote there was in response to stephenfryftw's idiotic comment, not to the video.


Actually, I was referring to your original post and it's ongoing defense. ; )

Just thought I'd save some space on the quote.

All I see is a guy debunking 10 pieces of propaganda and countering them with displays of people who were truly "bashed".

>> ^bcglorf:
And once again the internet destroys my hope for humanity. How is it people can't even agree that "bashing" is bad, PERIOD!
Instead of agreeing on such an obvious point, people would rather fight over which group is the bigger victim. Stop it already!
Churches are burnt down by arsonists and gays are beaten nearly death in the streets, all of this goes on in America today! Condemn both acts already so everyone get on with stopping the ignorant, violent criminals responsible for both crimes. If you defend either act or even lessen it in anyway you are part of the problem.



The point is that Christianity's intolerance encourages ignorance and violence, so if they want to discourage intolerance, their own would be a good place to start.

It's virtuous to seek to hold responsible those elements within a group that promote excesses and fallacies.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.

Not exactly sure why you're taking this video so personally unless you are a member of CADL...
It seems aimed at them specifically, not Christianity in general.


It should be obvious that my quote there was in response to stephenfryftw's idiotic comment, not to the video.

>> ^solvent:
who cares??? about either sides...


Quite a few people I'd imagine. Those wishing to debate equal rights, symantics, definition, homosexuality and religion.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this debate has evolved or if people are just missing the mark. As previously mentioned, he's not trying to reclaim the word or win a competition of 1-upsmanship. He's trying to convey his opinion that the definitions of 'bashing' used within the CADL are inappropriate.

However, you can't really invalidate the use of 'bashing' in cases of verbal attacks (I use 'attack' for reference rather than a descriptor) by giving evidence of physical attacks as a counterpoint. Even if you're trying to prove definition, which I'll get back to later.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.


Whilst this comment isn't really relative to mine, I'd like to point out that historical terms of discrimination cannot be used effectivly to reference modern socialogical arguments or positions. Using that logic you could argue to the same degree/direction for black/jewish/muslim/intelligent/aristocracy/chinese whatever. Unless theres a definate example of a similar case in modern society, the point of homosexuality/christians only serves as a point of irony.

Saying that, stating that 'Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest.' after giving examples of christian hardship also has a scent of irony about it.

>> ^notarobot:
The video's author has instead focused on returning the use of words to their definitions so that their meanings are not diluted into obscurity. What would someone say in a call to 911 when their friend is being a assaulted or having their brains bashed in when the meaning of both words was reduced to mean "insult" or even less? Would police rush to the scene of a reported name calling? Should new words that actually have mean something be invented to replace the words we have once their meaning is reduced to nothing?


That depends on how you define the 'definition'. And if its the definition thats not being observed here or the context.

1. the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing: a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.
2. a decisive defeat: We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
3. (used in combination)
a. unprovoked physical assaults against members of a specified group: gay-bashing.
b. verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing.

According to dictionary.com, both versions are covered. Context is a fundamental concept of using language, which this video has neglected to observe.

Essentially, the video proposes an argument, in an unfair manner, disreguarding context of language, and substituting severity of case as a valid counterpoint. To quote Stephen Fry; 'Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong'.

As for our debate. Either way, I think we're all in agreement that discrimination is wrong, English needs to be used correctly, and that both groups have their points, but neither are really compatable with each other.

Now, time for a cup of tea.

>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.


Not exactly sure why you're taking this video so personally unless you are a member of CADL...

It seems aimed at them specifically, not Christianity in general.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^rougy:
I like shrooms and do consider them theraputic.
It bugs the shit out of me when I read people bashing them, because they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Yes, some people do have abreactions, but that's no reason to spoil it for the rest of us.


You can't say "bashing' .. sorry. That term is taken.

i think humans already have the right to marry the person they love, though. why put people into groups if you don't have to? what "gay rights" exist that a heterosexual person doesn't have?


In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
>> ^imstellar28:
what rights do gay people need, that humans don't already have?

Perhaps the right to marry the person they love, for example.

>> ^imstellar28:
what rights do gay people need, that humans don't already have?

Perhaps the right to marry the person they love, for example.

>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I like to sucker punch lordoderus because he has a big nose.


I may have a giant nose, but I also have hair.


oooooh sick burn!

haha

>> ^Psychologic:
...how can this guy use the term "lesbian" to describe someone who isn't from Lesbos? It's their word and I am offended that he thinks he can use it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7376919.stm


omfg that is so gay.