Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination

---

Skydude: You're wrong on two counts; a) Ann Coulter - what she said is bollocks. There are no magical codewords that anyone left of Mussolini knows about to call other people racist. It's called common sense.

...

Like Dracoon, I just get a vibe from his posts. I can't substantiate it, but I just get that feeling.

---

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination

---

"I also find it rather hypocritical that earlier in the thread you were talking about people playing the victim of being accused of exactly the things you've been accusing people of just today!"

And this is where you lose again. Your argument here falls apart because I never said I was being accused of being - I was being attacked because I am.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

My point was that liberals like to play the "vibes" and "hidden meanings" game and accuse anyone who's moderate to conservative of being bigots because of these...which is exactly what you did, after suggesting that no one does that.

I would say my side has ALL the evidence needed to prove the point.

---

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination

---

And really with Silvershield, I'm waiting for my impression to be broken. Like Dracoon, I just get a vibe from his posts. I can't substantiate it, but I just get that feeling.

---

Originally posted by Kasumi-Astra

---

Ziff's right. None of you correctly guessed my situation so it looks like you have to invent a three-state boolean, or add more information to your model. I have a feeling that you're going to need an awful lot more to correctly represent everyone, and don't complain when people fall outside your model. They don't do it on purpose just to spite you.

---

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination

---

But you've just regressed again in your argument, because the conservative side more often than not uses the exact same methodology in order to defend itself using hazy terms like "morality" and superstition.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Kasumi, your desire to call yourself a female makes the job of classifying you much easier. You are bisexual. Period. I know you - or more likely, Ziff - will be terribly offended by that, even though there is no reason to be.

---

Originally posted by Kasumi-Astra

---

To disrupt your conclusion, I am not simply bisexual. I am attracted to women sexually and romantically. I am only attracted to men romantically (but only manifested as crushes so far). I am genetically male. I am also sexually male. However, I am female by gender and in common behaviour. I have breasts and wear women's clothing appropriate to my secondary sexual characteristics and gender. I am both neither, and both sexes.

---

Originally posted by Skreename

---

Waitwaitwait... When did such feelings about people suddenly become purely the domain of one political group? It IS possible for conservatives to get certain feelings off of people without being able to thoroughly explain them, too, you know.

And Vyper: Do you like the KKK? If not, you're a bigot too.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

Seeing as I'm not conservative, nor do I use those supposedly "traditional" arguments, there's no reason for you to bring that up with me, and it's if anything merely more proof of your making unfair assumptions rather than using any evidence whatsoever. Which you need to do in order to advance a point, since you have no evidence.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

And homosexuality is not inherently political...but at the moment, it is, and as such, like any issue of that sort, it's not the place for school teachers to be teaching the morality of it and superceding the parents.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

To respond simply to both points, I don't think the teachers should take it upon themselves to decide what moral values to teach children. As for Dr. Suess, I would have opposed teachers foisting it upon children when the books first came out, yes. If the parents approved, fine. If not, then those parents who wanted to anyway could still get the book. I'm not for censorship at large, after all. In this case, if the parents are alright with it, fine, but otherwise, no, I don't think it's right. Perhaps eventually it can move towards the model you suggest, but I hardly think it's this teacher's place to decide when to do that.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

No, they decided they were alright with gay marriage. They didn't decide they were alright with the teacher teaching that morality.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I won't go off on my own tagent because Skydude is pretty much approximating how I feel about this. It's not a matter of being pro- or anti-gay, it's a matter of morality being taught to young children in schools. To address your question directly: no, teachers should not read "whatever they want" to their grammar school-age students. Especially if the content they propose to use has material that some parents might find objective.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

No, because heterosexuality is the "norm" and, as such, acts as a sort of control group. It describes the overwhelming majority of America's population and, even so, appears as a neutral rather than an influence in one direction or the other. However, since the homosexual issue has yet to be settled here in America, it is still politically charged (as was pointed out earlier) and so it carries with it the sense of a teacher imposing a political or moral standard on his students.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I was operating under the impression that you were sexually attracted to both sexes.

But, you've corrected me and said that you feel that way for females only. So, you're homosexual. You are female, and you are attracted to females.

You are whatever sex your mind tells you that you are. It so happens that people are sometimes born with ambiguous physical characteristics, but they will invariably identify themselves more strongly as one sex than the other. Although in most cases it is reasonable to base a person's sex on his or her physical attributes, it is also reasonable for a person to contest that his or her mental state does not match the body he or she was born into. So, you were born into a body with which you do not identify and, even though you retain some of that body's sexual anatomy, you are no more a man than any "real" woman is.

Anyway, I guess I better stop talking now and start hating you, because that's what homophobes do, and Ziff's vibes have proven that I am a homophobe.

---

Originally posted by Captain Subtext

---

Dracoon you fail. You have completely misinterpreted everything under the sun.

Most of you seem to be bigots against conservatives. Namely Dracoon, Ziff, and Kasumi. You WANT to make Silvershield out to be a homophobe because it makes things easier. It makes classifying him as a conservative easier by associating traits you believe to be common amongst them.

---

You're labeled as a homophobe in this thread. But you insist you're not, and put try to rationalise with people in this thread. Do you see? This is the position I am in. If someone makes an arguement about something about me that I feel is incorrect, I feel that they should not be able to say that if I have something to say about it.

Originally posted by Tarale

---

And personally, I think Kasumi has every right be frustrated about this thread, when it seems that nobody is either willing or able to think "outside of the box" and outside of boolean characteristics in regards to her.

I wonder if anybody will work out the "riddle"...

---