Trump to become first president to speak at anti-LGBT hate group's summit

[*bfine32*]

Perhaps we should wait to see what POTUS has to speak on before we out of hand thumb our noses at this.

These people have different beliefs that others and just because their beliefs differ from yours do not make them a hate group.

Nothing is less tolerant than the open-minded left.

[Benton]

[quote='Sociopathicsteelerfan' pid='447077' dateline='1507921033'

If the left applied the same level of scrutiny to islam that they did to the religious right in America then they would be engaged in non-stop outrage.  Instead, you have liberal leaning sources like HuffPo and the Guardian constantly seeking to mitigate or ignore these excesses.  It's more of a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance but it's still an alliance.  How could a pro women movement include Linda Sarsour as a main leader if this were not the case?  She told an anti FMGM activist that she wished that she wished an asswhopping upon her and wished she could take their vaginas away?  I don't recall much if any outrage over that or any of her other highly questionable statements or beliefs.




Tacit approval is still approval.  If you stay silent or fail to speak against something, for whatever reason, then you are condoning it.  M
[/quote]


I think many on the left think if everybody treats everyone the same, everyone will get along. It’s a noble goal, but we’re a long way off from that working.

Until we get to the point where everybody likes everybody, we need some realistic ways to handle things, like your example of female mutilation. It’s not so much about trying to oppose someone culture as much as it is trying to protect people.

[Belsnickel]

It's so intolerant of us tolerant liberals to think that all people deserve equal protection under the law. I mean, how dare we think there should be laws to protect such a thing!

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 04:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's so intolerant of us tolerant liberals to think that all people deserve equal protection under the law. I mean, how dare we think there should be laws to protect such a thing!

The fact that you cannot see what the intolerance is, is quite telling.

Who the hell said there should be no laws for equal protection? This is just a buzz phrase folks use to excuse their intolerance of folks that have different opinions (BTW Opinions cannot be wrong) than them.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2017, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The fact that you cannot see what the intolerance is, is quite telling.

Who the hell said there should be no laws for equal protection? This is just a buzz phrase folks use to excuse their intolerance of folks that have different opinions (BTW Opinions cannot be wrong) than them.

Difference of opinions is one thing.

Hating others because of the sexual preferences? That's different.  As is actively lying to try and have rights removed from those people.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The fact that you cannot see what the intolerance is, is quite telling.

Who the hell said there should be no laws for equal protection? This is just a buzz phrase folks use to excuse their intolerance of folks that have different opinions (BTW Opinions cannot be wrong) than them.

The Family Research Council, the group we are saying is discriminatory.

And please explain how I have been intolerant? I have no objections to them having whatever opinions they like, I just have a problem with discriminatory public policies.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 04:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Family Research Council, the group we are saying is discriminatory.

And please explain how I have been intolerant? I have no objections to them having whatever opinions they like, I just have a problem with discriminatory public policies.

Oh I thought you were responding to my comment about intolerance toward those that have a different opinion (an opinion cannot be wrong) than you being considered a hate group.

Do you consider the Family Research Council a hate group? As I see they just have a difference of opinion on whether or not homosexuality should be a protected group. Who is to say their opinion is wrong; even if it is contradictory to current rule?

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 04:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Difference of opinions is one thing.

Hating others because of the sexual preferences? That's different.  As is actively lying to try and have rights removed from those people.

And you "hate" them for being a "hate' group.

To quote POTUS: There appears to be hate on both sides.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I thought you were responding to my comment about intolerance toward those that have a different opinion (an opinion cannot be wrong) that you being considered a hate group.

Do you consider the Family Research Council a hate group? As I see they just have a difference of opinion on whether or not homosexuality should be a protected group. Who is to say their opinion is wrong; even if it is contradictory to current rule?

I think they are discriminatory and hateful, but I don't classify them as a hate group. It's not a term I use. I also never said their opinion is wrong. I will say it is against the law, against the Constitution, it is anti-liberty, and it is harmful to society, but I will not say they are wrong on their overall opinion.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2017, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you "hate" them for being a "hate' group.

To quote POTUS: There appears to be hate on both sides.

I think they are wrong.  They think I am wrong.  Doesn't have to do with hate.

Maybe we should wait to see what the POTUS says first?  Maybe he'll condemn their stance that certain citizens should have rights taken away from them because of their sexual orientation.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 05:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think they are discriminatory and hateful, but I don't classify them as a hate group. It's not a term I use. I also never said their opinion is wrong. I will say it is against the law, against the Constitution, it is anti-liberty, and it is harmful to society, but I will not say they are wrong on their overall opinion.

So you disagree with the OP labeling them a hate group good thing we found common ground. I'm just not 100% sure that we agree on their opinion being wrong. 

As I've said we form more opinions based on ignorance than we do understanding. Perhaps that is what this group is currently doing, but I do respect their opinion and their right to voice it. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 05:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think they are wrong.  They think I am wrong.  Doesn't have to do with hate.

Maybe we should wait to see what the POTUS says first?  Maybe he'll condemn their stance that certain citizens should have rights taken away from them because of their sexual orientation.

So  you also disagree with the OP as labeling them a hate group. We are growing in our understanding as a forum and I am happy to see it. 

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you disagree with the OP labeling them a hate group good thing we found common ground. I'm just not 100% sure that we agree on their opinion being wrong. 

As I've said we form more opinions based on ignorance than we do understanding. Perhaps that is what this group is currently doing, but I do respect their opinion and their right to voice it. 

(10-13-2017, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So  you also disagree with the OP as labeling them a hate group. We are growing in our understanding as a forum and I am happy to see it. 

Now we are getting somewhere.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 06:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Now we are getting somewhere.

It is my desire to make this forum more understanding of others thoughts and opinions. Admittedly it is an uphill struggle but small steps are indeed steps in the right direction. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-13-2017, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps we should wait to see what POTUS has to speak on before we out of hand thumb our noses at this.

These people have different beliefs that others and just because their beliefs differ from yours do not make them a hate group.

Nothing is less tolerant than the open-minded left.

It is sad the right accepts gay bashers, nazis, and white supremacists with open arms. 

The little game you and fox news likes to play about the intolerant left is amusing.

Yes the concept is equality. The left preaches equality. When we dont celebrate and accept a hate groups we are not breaking from our moral high ground and being hypocritical. We are calling out the people with a broke ass message and twisted view on life. We dont accept that as equal because it is wrong and goes against the core concept of equality.

Sure everybody has an opinion. Some opinions are just dumb as hell. And instead of saying sure buddy spread your ignorant message of hate to as many peole as possible. We say listen up clown go screw yourself and learn something.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2017, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Gay people do not needcivil rights. Civil rights are for black people who suffered in this country thanks to a legacy of Jim Crow laws and slavery.

Stop trying to insert whichever group is your latest darling into the civil rights bubble. You take away from what happened to black people in this country when you do so.

This is some of the funniest shit, yet.

The guy who falsely portrays himself as some sort of civil rights victim because he can't use insults as "descriptors," just abdicated not only his civil rights, but the civil rights of all Americans who aren't black.

Are you really going to keep up this libertarian charade any longer?

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 06:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It is sad the right accepts gay bashers, nazis, and white supremacists with open arms. 

The little game you and fox news likes to play about the intolerant left is amusing.

Yes the concept is equality. The left preaches equality. When we dont celebrate and accept a hate groups we are not breaking from our moral high ground and being hypocritical. We are calling out the people with a broke ass message and twisted view on life. We dont accept that as equal because it is wrong and goes against the core concept of equality.

Sure everybody has an opinion. Some opinions are just dumb as hell. And instead of saying sure buddy spread your ignorant message of hate to as many peole as possible. We say listen up clown go screw yourself and learn something.

You are intolerant of the intolerant is that what you are trying to say? IMO you can express your views at the voting booth and then abide by the laws of the land. SCOTUS has spoken on SSM and has made it the law of the land. Who put you in charge of judgement? Yes, I accept all folks with open arms; I always have. You do not.

We are making strides though. As they say: Rome was not built in a day.   

[Vlad]

(10-13-2017, 12:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I couldn't care less what SPLC labels them, nor do I care about how other religions view gay people. I don't even know where the Muslim comment came from.

A group that lobbies government officials to legalize discrimination against a class of people and calls them detrimental to society on the basis of their gender, orientation, race, or any similar factor is a hate group. Discrimination is hostility towards a group.

To clarify, the label I apply to them has to do with their actions and statements, not the labels used by any other group. I don't think any logical poster here would argue with labeling the Family Research Council a "hate group" if we took everything they wrote and lobbied for and replaced sexual orientation with skin color, age, or disability. Giving someone a pass because they justify discrimination with religion doesn't make it any less immoral.

So then Islam is a hate group as well....I can go along with that.

[Vlad]

(10-13-2017, 06:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It is sad the right accepts gay bashers, nazis, and white supremacists with open arms. 

That's all anyone needs to read from your post to conclude the rest of it is garbage.

[hollodero]

(10-13-2017, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the left applied the same level of scrutiny to islam that they did to the religious right in America then they would be engaged in non-stop outrage.  Instead, you have liberal leaning sources like HuffPo and the Guardian constantly seeking to mitigate or ignore these excesses.  It's more of a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance but it's still an alliance.  How could a pro women movement include Linda Sarsour as a main leader if this were not the case?  She told an anti FMGM activist that she wished that she wished an asswhopping upon her and wished she could take their vaginas away?  I don't recall much if any outrage over that or any of her other highly questionable statements or beliefs.

Well. I wouldn't argue too much about "leftist" outlets being quite partisan and maybe following questionable ideologies, but as long as there is FOX news and Breitbart I feel complaining about HuffPo is a bit of a one-sided view. You mentioned the "enemy of my enemy"-perspective, and while there might be truth to that (I honestly do not know), it's also exactly how I feel the conservative (or "right") spectrum treats the alt-right movement. One difference being, again, that Islam is not an influential political movement, and claims stating otherwise are blowing thngs out of proportion.
With Linda Sansour, I'm going on a limb here and claim this person just isn't that important to begin with. It's tough to demand condemnation of just every creature claiming to be on a certain side. This looks like a Kathy Griffin situation, a situation where I just can say of course it was wrong what this person did, but it's only this person and trying to paint her wrongdoing as the left's wrongdoing is unfair, just as it would be unfair to associate white supremacist's wrongdoing with the political right. While this analogy is flawed, I guess the logic behing it can maybe be accepted.

(10-13-2017, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Tacit approval is still approval.

As I said, I can't really disagree on that one. I wouldn't take it as far as you do, but the premise sure is valid. I cannot see it as a typical left behaviour though, for reasons too many to list here.

(10-13-2017, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you see it that way.  I certainly don't, for reasons I hope I've explained a bit better.  I could go into more detail if you like.  You probably don't.

Oh you're wrong, I absolute would like that. Your opinion, while often not matching mine, is always welcome and more often than not also interesting.

PS I wouldn't call that group a "hate group" either. Doesn't mean I don't deeply dislike them for what they say, which I do.