• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

People Who Defy Expectations

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Let's say you have someone who doesn't accept homosexuality and/or transgenderism as legitimate, yet believes that they should still have the right/freedom to do as they wish with their own lives/bodies as long as they aren't hurting others and shouldn't be subjected to discrimination, harassment, etc. I.E. left in peace to their own devices.
Would you consider this person homophobic/transphobic?

What you mean like terfs on the left?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This is a problem, but let's not pretend that it's exclusive to the left.
Or that Snowflakey Libs aren't that common. Even in California I've only met a few, and they've even been boo-ed on Bill Maher's show by a LA audience. The Twitter Mob libs seem to be a Left-equivalent of the Right's Tea Party. They're cooky, moronic, and we definitely don't want them getting power like the Tea Party did. Anywhere a Regressive Lefty be, Leftist's need to beat them with the Constitution, Jon Stewart Mill, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Stirner, and other "Left Heavyweights" until they are left crying and running back into the woodworks. And because they want to silence people and make them shut up, don't. They're a proven threat to civil liberties, and they must be opposed.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What you mean like terfs on the left?
RINOs. Or those who think you shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag, do something other than stand during the anthem, or want to censor art, mandate religious stuff, and prohibit the CDC from using the term transgender in publications.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You must know far more about "terfs" than I do.

Yeah I agree with @Shadow Wolf. Not sure exactly what you mean there.

RINOs. Or those who think you shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag, do something other than stand during the anthem, or want to censor art, mandate religious stuff, and prohibit the CDC from using the term transgender in publications.

Well thinking the flag shouldn't be burned isn't the same as wanting to ban free speech entirely. Neither is censoring some art, or prohibiting the CDC from using a term. As you know free speech isn't the ability to say whatever you want unfettered, at least according to the left.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Well thinking the flag shouldn't be burned isn't the same as wanting to ban free speech entirely. Neither is censoring some art, or prohibiting the CDC from using a term. As you know free speech isn't the ability to say whatever you want unfettered, at least according to the left.
According to everyone (that actually knows anything about the debate and has heard the cliche "shouting fire in a crowded theater") free speech is not unfettered. We just keep calling it that, although you cannot say you're going to assassinate the president. As for free speech and the Left, I've met a few who are just outrageous and unreasonable. But most echo a sentiment of most RIghts I've met, which is basically summed up "just don't be an *******." It's usually Evangelicals or dogmatic Authoritarian-leaning Rights that want to impose unreasonable restrictions on free speech. Just as those of the Left who want to strangle free speech are unreasonable. I don't know why we just don't lump them all together. They don't have reasonable concerns (threatening to kill a government official probably should be taken seriously), the demand unreasonable restrictions and hate liberty, no matter what political/economic/religious this or that. Because it doesn't matter what side, they want to change the content of TV instead of twisting a knob or pushing a button to change the channel.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
This was made from a die rather than a mold...
I have some of these somewhere.
original.jpg

Kennedy sure did have a tiny head.
Too many jokes.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
That's a bit pathetic isn't it - equating his views on paedophilia to actually being one? He perhaps is right that what some experience is a lot worse than what some others experience - so why is that so unbelievable?

I mean I don't like Dawkins or Harris either for different reasons. But I wouldn't make up lies about them to defame.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I mean I don't like Dawkins or Harris either for different reasons. But I wouldn't make up lies about them to defame.

So where does this fit in? Because he was interfered with by an adult and didn't see it as so traumatic? Evidence?

Richard Dawkins is apparently a sexist, racist, ableist, and a pedophile.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Yeah I agree with @Shadow Wolf. Not sure exactly what you mean there.

With what, exactly? Specify what you're struggling with.

Well thinking the flag shouldn't be burned isn't the same as wanting to ban free speech entirely. Neither is censoring some art, or prohibiting the CDC from using a term. As you know free speech isn't the ability to say whatever you want unfettered, at least according to the left.

You're flip-flopping on us. So it's bad when the left wants to stop speech that hurt's their fee-fees, but it's alright when the right wants to stop speech that hurts their fee-fees?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Even I'm curious as to what exactly that's supposed to mean.

My post? I trying to summarize a viewpoint that people like my dad hold toward LBGT. Don't really support or oppose, but rather of neutral towards it in a "ain't hurting anyone, ain't my business, leave 'em be" sort of way. Would they be considered transphobic for homophobic?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
My post? I trying to summarize a viewpoint that people like my dad hold toward LBGT. Don't really support or oppose, but rather of neutral towards it in a "ain't hurting anyone, ain't my business, leave 'em be" sort of way. Would they be considered transphobic for homophobic?
I would say no, as they don't hold negative views, aren't opposed, and aren't causing problems, venting hate, targeting people for attacks, and so on. I'm "leave 'em be" about most things in life because most things in life don't actually affect me, and I'm utterly neutral towards them. And as long as they aren't harming anyone, it's no one's business. Does that make me bigoted towards a billion different things?
As for Enoc, he has made posts that do indicate support for transgender people, at least far as living their life (including restroom use) is concerned.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
With what, exactly? Specify what you're struggling with.
It's for some reason we don't know you made a speculation that he appears to know more about TERFs than you. I fail to understand the significance or reason behind such a statement. Especially since I've been bringing up some of their routine arguments that weren't mentioned in the OP. Is there any sort of implication behind that?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
With what, exactly? Specify what you're struggling with.

With this;

You must know far more about "terfs" than I do.

Clarify

You're flip-flopping on us. So it's bad when the left wants to stop speech that hurt's their fee-fees, but it's alright when the right wants to stop speech that hurts their fee-fees?

Non-sequitur.

Banning 1 word here or there isn't the same as banning free speech. Like racial slurs and other derogatory words are not permitted is not a ban on free speech. So opposing flag burning does not equate into opposing free speech. The left has the double standard here.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
With this;

Clarify

Meaning that I don't know anything about "terfs" to say whether or not their views are comparable to what I was describing. How was that confusing?


Non-sequitur.
I'm not sure you know what that term means.

Banning 1 word here or there isn't the same as banning free speech. Like racial slurs and other derogatory words are not permitted is not a ban on free speech. So opposing flag burning does not equate into opposing free speech. The left has the double standard here.

So where exactly is this line drawn? I'm not seeing any difference other than where their fee-fees end and yours begins. And no, you cannot both oppose flag burning and support free speech.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Meaning that I don't know anything about "terfs" to say whether or not their view are comparable to what I was describing.

Well educate yourself then.

So where exactly is this line drawn? I'm not seeing any difference other than where their fee-fees end and yours begins.

Fee fees have nothing to do with it.

And no, you cannot both oppose flag burning and support free speech.

So then people that oppose racial slurs and derogatory terms for LGBT are against free speech as well. This is why you are being non-sequitur. Your logic does not flow consistently. It's not an all or nothing case here. Some speech can be opposed without opposing free speech totally.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Well educate yourself then.
But it was you who was asking me about them. I'm not your google.

Fee fees have nothing to do with it.
You know damn well that opposition toward flag burning, kneeling during the anthem, abstaining from prayer/the pledge, etc. has everything to do with fee-fees.

So then people that oppose racial slurs and derogatory terms for LGBT are against free speech as well. This is why you are being non-sequitur. Your logic does not flow consistently. It's not an all or nothing case here. Some speech can be opposed without opposing free speech totally.
But making bigoted slurs and remarks illegal would be against free speech. You can denounce and discourage people from saying certain things, but that's not the same as insisting that they be censored and silenced by the government. You can strongly disagree with what someone says yet still respect their right to say it.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
But it was you who was asking me about them.

You were the one unaware of them. :shrug:

You know damn well that opposition toward flag burning, kneeling during the anthem, abstaining from prayer/the pledge, etc. has everything to do with fee-fees.

Nah, it's about morality!

But making bigoted slurs and remarks illegal would be against free speech.

They already are illegal in some areas. NY and in Canada come to mind.

You can strongly disagree with what someone says yet still respect their right to say it.

Well I'll believe that, when I see the left do it.
 
Top