- Using those as a pawn in whatever game/plan/process who cannot speak for themselves. - Behaving with such boorish derision against anyone who could possibly be offended by such a thing and continuing to brush off them, their feelings, their concerns by painting them all with the brush of discrimination. Some things should just be off limits. This is one of them.
I get that you are offended by mc mark's thread and his posts therein. I have a hard time believing anybody would dispute your anger. I still don't see anything that he has done that in any way relates to the presence, or lack thereof, of courage. The reasons you provide above are more in relation to being presumptive and generally insensitive. I guess you are just using "coward" as a general purpose derogatory epithet? And while we're at it, if using dead people to make a political point is inappropriate, if I look back through all your posts will I ever see reference to "founding fathers" or the King of England, or Elvis, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Jesus of Nazareth in any of your old posts? How about the memorial showing the guys holding up the flag on Iwo Jima? Especially when used for all sorts of Republican flag waving Jingoistic bull**** around the 4th of July or whenever anybody wants to start a war? The NRA plasters that crap all over all of their literature. Does that piss you off as well?
it's okay Otto People standing up for equal rights for gays have always had to deal with the kind of reaction Lynus is having.
I have no idea. I can't imagine I'd use the dead in such an inflammatory way. If you'd like to start another thread debating the NRA or the Second Amendment, have at it. Oh please. Your insensitivity doesn't make you a martyr. What part of: and: is difficult to understand? Again: an able-bodied person should be allowed to serve their country. Period. Without discrimination. There is no reason to think that any gay person could not fight, die, and be honorable in doing either. I've also said here many times that gays should have the right to marry. Would you like me to post it several more times or would you just like to ignore it again and be done with it?
Lynus302 believes advocating for equal human rights is inflammatory. Check. Actually, I'm debating the use of photos of US soldiers in context, for which this is a perfectly acceptable use of this thread, thanks to you. You are the one claiming that the context of DADT is irrelevant, and that it is only about the use of the photos in a political context. The thread started as something else. You turned it into a thread about using the photos of soldiers in political contexts. Don't get b****y when I try to explore that theme. Or maybe I should just start screaming at you to stick to the issue at hand of DADT, and say if you want to discuss whether we should use photos of soldiers to make a point, you should start your own thread. That seems to be the is the appropriate lingua franca for expressing passive aggressive angry outrage in a BBS acceptable manner.
The use of caskets to debate a controversial political issue when we are closer than we've ever been to ending DADT doesn't serve to unite anyone to the cause. It is inflammatory and divisive. And I didn't turn the thread into a political issue. mc mark did.
Reading comprehension FTW. I said you turned it into a thread debating the appropriateness of using it in a political issue.
Yeah. Because that's what I said. Not 'using dead soldiers to make a political point is wildly inappropriate.' Not 'there are many other ways to go about making the case for ending DADT.' Nope. Not that. It's 'advocating for equal rights is inflammatory.' Please tell me your reading isn't this selective.
You said this: I said this: Unless I'm missing something and this isn't a political issue, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?
The first person to turn the discussion from whether DADT was appropriate to whether using the photo was appropriate was not mc mark. If you don't want to have a discussion about using photos of coffins in various contexts, stick to mc mark's intended subject of DADT. That is what you are missing. Once you start trying to talk about whether the photo is appropriate, discussing the details and variations of your thesis is entirely within the scope of the subject matter slated for discussion, no matter how arbitrarily you choose to tell me to go start a new thread. And the fact that you try to fob me off like that, tells me that I'm on the right track.
Ah. So I should ignore the usage of the picture, huh? FWIW, I didn't post in here until page 3, nor was I the first to state that the picture was inappropriate. If he didn't want anyone to comment on the picture, then perhaps he shouldn't have used it. Your apparent bewilderment that someone would comment on it or have an opinion on the matter at all is silly. And no one fobbed anyone. If you want to discuss different pictures for different subject matter, then yes: go start a thread about it. But since you're so insistent, fine: I don't follow the NRA, so I have no idea what, specifically, you're referring to, so anything I write here is purely conjecture. But if an American organization uses imagery from a just war to promote an amendment to the Bill of Rights, then I can't really say that I find that offensive: WWII --> Japan bombs Pearl Harbor/attacks the homeland --> the NRA and 2nd amendment supporters say that exercising their right to bear arms is also protecting the homeland as well as the Constitution. So yeah, sure. It makes sense to me and no, I don't find it offensive. To continue in this hypothetical scenario, if the NRA took mc mark's picture and said "These soldiers are dead because you nancys wouldn't gun up," then that's another matter and one I would almost certainly take offense to. But it's all in the presentation and context. If you find something offensive and/or pertinent, and you want my opinion on it, then show me the item in question and don't cry about it when I opt to not do your homework for you. And your ascription of "jingoistic bull****" to just the republicans makes you lose credibility as both parties use jingoistic BS; this comment shows an obvious bias.
I don't have a problem with gays serving in the military. IMO, using the picture is in bad taste, and it allows a similar response. It's the same thing when basso or someone else pulls this crap. It's an invitation not to discuss the topic at hand.
You mean like the little Draw Muhammad fiasco we had? I thought we "had to offend in order to...progress" or whatever crap DD spewed.
what's the difference, the closeted soldiers are already living in those tight groups. why would they need to alter anything about the way they operate and do their job? again, the only thing that changes between now and the situation you are presenting is that the other soldiers have to deal with their own issues...
Again, I'm not the one who is telling people to go start another thread if they want to discuss something. I always want you to discuss whatever you want. But what I am saying, is if you want to not discuss certain subjects, or exclude certain topics from the conversation and have people start other threads to talk about them, it helps to not bring up and discuss related topics. If you don't want to talk about using the usage of pictures of dead soldiers in this and other venues, then don't complain about the usage of the picture. Is that really so difficult to wrap your mind around?
There's no such thing as "gay" (unless you mean happy). It doesn't exist. Human being evolved (or were created, if you like that) to reproduce in a certain way. If a person gets in the habit of pleasuring themselves with their hand, or with an animal, or with an inanimate object, then they will get excited thinking about that thing. That doesn't mean they aren't disposed for pleasure from a woman, that's just a mental reaction. What is this "gay" "gay" nonsense I have to listen to all the time.
Instead of trusting Otto-numbers as facts I googled and with the following two links http://www.urban.org/publications/900751.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf Showing that 97.6% of the deaths in Iraq are men and 1.4% of active males in the military are homosexual compared to 9.3% for females I think it is safe to say that out of a random sample size of 20 there is over a 75% probability none were homosexual. >75% = very good?
