Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I try to stay out of these conversations because I have very little knowledge- past or present- about anything political (I shouldn't have just posted that, ITM). All I know is the I am SUPER passive. I would probably cry before picking up a pole and seeing people protest makes me anxious no matter whether if I agree with the situation or not.
As someone above has pointed out....not all "protesting" has to be picketing something and holding up signs. You could protest something just by setting up a table and handing out sheets of paper with information to interested parties. Though it's not your fault for thinking "Protesting = holding up signs and being angry" as that's typically how it's portrayed. I mean....Gandhi protested things just by refusing to eat.
While admittedly protesting played an important role in various movements in the history of the United States, the activity does not appear to accomplish anything in 2012. I personally think that protesting is simply over-saturated in the U.S. in modern times, and has been used for so many trivial purposes (case in point, Chick-fil-A) that the act has lost nearly all effectiveness. Obviously something was accomplished with protesting in various middle Eastern countries about a year ago, so, to me, the ineffectiveness of protest is primarily a modern problem in the U.S.
This is simply my opinion, and I certainly welcome examples of effective modern protest in the U.S. Please do not say the Occupy movement.
Oh, I definitely agree that it's lost most (if not all) of it's power in 2012 because of over saturation and trivial purposes. Much like lawsuits....it seems that nowadays these things happen all the time in every walk of life at some point or another.
I just always get confused when people make such a definitive statement like Bonny did (though she did clarify her point and explain that she would re-word it to explain what she meant). I agree that protesting in 2012 is not the same as in the past....it's just when people say "Protesting isn't right for any situation" my "Really?" buzzer goes off and I need to know more about the opinion lol.
Good point, ITM. I am fine with the other types. But the conversation originated from the fact that people are picketing, correct? That is where I was coming from. I guess protesting was too strong of a term. I was not referencing other forms of protesting.
Welcome back Bonz, but I do not find it strange that your presence being requested in the Orgy thread and then you showing up, like it was the quacking Bonzai Bat Signal.
This is simply my opinion, and I certainly welcome examples of effective modern protest in the U.S. Please do not say the Occupy movement.
In 1983, George Brett and the Kansas City Royals successfully protested the disqualification of the pine tar bat, they got to replay the game from that point, and the Royals won. What's that? Oh, different kind of protest.
I don't get why anyone cares, to be honest. Is it a deplorable, close-minded way of thinking? Absolutely. But does anyone really think everything they eat comes from warm-hearted non-judgemental citizens of the world that love everyone equally?
No, your food comes from all over the place and I'm sure it touches a few racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. hands along the way. If people want to stop eating it because the guy voiced his ignorant opinion, I support that, but I think politicians are trying to use this to propel into a more encompassing discussion and all the small folk are just getting wrapped up in the latest drama.
Chick-fil-a (which I've never eaten, btw) isn't going anywhere. If you are pissed by what their idiot CEO said, ignore them and don't eat there. If you like Chick-Fil-A and don't think your stomach can handle the moral stand, then eat it. I just hate anything that turns my Facebook timeline into a never-ending contest of idiocy.
Post by kikosanchez on Aug 2, 2012 15:16:24 GMT -5
Why is being in support of traditional marriage a close-minded way of thinking? It is just supporting what always has been and what god says. Sorry if what god says is deplorable to you.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Aug 2, 2012 15:17:05 GMT -5
Yea I pretty much agree Flanzo. I've known the company is anti-gay for a while (that info came out way before the CEO ever said anything.....the company is on a list of corporations that donate money to anti-gay groups) so I was really surprised at people's shock over this. I disagree with the CEO and would likely avoid the restaurant if we had any near me but I don't think the protesting will get him to change his mind. It will likely just teach him to keep opinions more private.
Why is being in support of traditional marriage a close-minded way of thinking? It is just supporting what always has been and what god says. Sorry if what god says is deplorable to you.
well i guess you wanted a debate, so here is goes:
it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with trying to deny rights to people.
if you believe certain groups of people should have rights others don't get, then you are a bigot. plain and simple.
Why is being in support of traditional marriage a close-minded way of thinking? It is just supporting what always has been and what god says. Sorry if what god says is deplorable to you.
well i guess you wanted a debate, so here is goes:
it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with trying to deny rights to people.
if you believe certain groups of people should have rights others don't get, then you are a bigot. plain and simple.
the end.
Yes but you are presuming marriage is a right. Where is this legal right claimed? It certainly isn't in the constitution.
well i guess you wanted a debate, so here is goes:
it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with trying to deny rights to people.
But he wants to deny rights to people because of what he believes god wants. Seems relevant to the discussion.
Edit: I should point out that I'm for same-sex marriage. I don't think people should be denied the ability to marry because the person they want to marry has the same sexual organs. Just playing a bit of devils advocate
Why is being in support of traditional marriage a close-minded way of thinking? It is just supporting what always has been and what god says. Sorry if what god says is deplorable to you.
....seriously?
Okay, I'll just squeeze this one in before the Mod warhammer comes and knocks the teeth out of this thread.
What is so f*cking "traditional" about the current state of marriage? Is it the fact that more people divorce than stay together? Or is it the fact that gay people of faith feel pressured into marrying the opposite sex even if they don't love the person they're marrying? The "sanctity" of marriage is an oxymoron defined. You have people marrying for publicity, for money, for status, and more reasons that I'm sure people can throw out there. What about the state of marriage makes it fair to keep two people who genuinely love & care for one another from marry each other?
These are the same f*cking idiots that thought interracial marriage should be a crime. The same people who protect child rapists while trying to be taken seriously as a moral authority. Just because the invisible man you worship "said" something doesn't give YOU the right to force it on others. This is not to get into the fact that the Bible was written and re-written a hundred times over and we have no real way of knowing if today's Bible is legitimate or just the nonsensical ramblings of a lunatic, or the fact that there are dozens of religions on this planet and none of them share the same God.
I'm sorry, but I see your claim and I call bullsh*t over and over. I grew up in a Christian household, I went to church every Sunday, I have been baptized, received my first confirmation, and have been confirmed. If you think your fictional book of fables gives you the right to tell people who love each other that they can't be married, I'd rather WWIII come today so I don't have to spend the next 50+ years cohabitating this planet with the likes of you. Any person who would try to constrain the freedoms of another person based on a book written when people were still f*cking sheep is an *SSHOLE. So, if you want to think that way, go for it, but don't think it gives you any authority to tell someone else how to live their life.
actually he said "sorry if you think what god said is deplorable", and i said that i don't think it has anything to do with god. i have family members who are christians, who go to church every sunday and they don't want to deny rights to anyone.
(damn ITM, you just gonna follow me around and get me in every thread huh? can we call a truce?)
Post by kikosanchez on Aug 2, 2012 15:31:29 GMT -5
A false dichotomy you have presented. The operation of a vehicle is not a right and yet some are allowed this and others are not. SINCE it is not a right, some are allowed and others are not. Since it is not a right, it is not guaranteed in all instances, but it may in some.
A false dichotomy you have presented. The operation of a vehicle is not a right and yet some are allowed this and others are not. SINCE it is not a right, some are allowed and others are not. Since it is not a right, it is not guaranteed in all instances, but it may in some.
What the f*ck is this? Stop talking like Yoda you pretentious jerkoff.
actually he said "sorry if you think what god said is deplorable", and i said that i don't think it has anything to do with god. i have family members who are christians, who go to church every sunday and they don't want to deny rights to anyone.
If you really think God/religion/religious beliefs have nothing to do with people wanting to deny gay people the ability to get married then I don't know what to tell you. I didn't say "Every christian who goes to church feels this way".
(damn ITM, you just gonna follow me around and get me in every thread huh? can we call a truce?)
Um what? I posted in this thread before you came in so who is following who around? And I've been responding to everyone who I feel I'd like clarification from or who sparks something in my mind that leads to more discussion.
And what's with a "truce"? I'm not feuding with anyone. I don't hold grudges on here and any time I post it's not to "get at" someone but to get at what they just posted. Someone posts something and I respond. I'm really not sure what you mean.
A false dichotomy you have presented. The operation of a vehicle is not a right and yet some are allowed this and others are not. SINCE it is not a right, some are allowed and others are not. Since it is not a right, it is not guaranteed in all instances, but it may in some.
Kiko...think about the basis for determining who can and cannot drive. Seem pretty reasonable? Now think about the basis for restricting gay people from marrying. Do you see the disconnect?
Why is being in support of traditional marriage a close-minded way of thinking? It is just supporting what always has been and what god says. Sorry if what god says is deplorable to you.
....seriously?
Okay, I'll just squeeze this one in before the Mod warhammer comes and knocks the teeth out of this thread.
What is so f*cking "traditional" about the current state of marriage? Is it the fact that more people divorce than stay together? Or is it the fact that gay people of faith feel pressured into marrying the opposite sex even if they don't love the person they're marrying? The "sanctity" of marriage is an oxymoron defined. You have people marrying for publicity, for money, for status, and more reasons that I'm sure people can throw out there. What about the state of marriage makes it fair to keep two people who genuinely love & care for one another from marry each other?
These are the same f*cking idiots that thought interracial marriage should be a crime. The same people who protect child rapists while trying to be taken seriously as a moral authority. Just because the invisible man you worship "said" something doesn't give YOU the right to force it on others. This is not to get into the fact that the Bible was written and re-written a hundred times over and we have no real way of knowing if today's Bible is legitimate or just the nonsensical ramblings of a lunatic, or the fact that there are dozens of religions on this planet and none of them share the same God.
I'm sorry, but I see your claim and I call bullsh*t over and over. I grew up in a Christian household, I went to church every Sunday, I have been baptized, received my first confirmation, and have been confirmed. If you think your fictional book of fables gives you the right to tell people who love each other that they can't be married, I'd rather WWIII come today so I don't have to spend the next 50+ years cohabitating this planet with the likes of you. Any person who would try to constrain the freedoms of another person based on a book written when people were still f*cking sheep is an *SSHOLE. So, if you want to think that way, go for it, but don't think it gives you any authority to tell someone else how to live their life.
Ok, mods. Bombs away.
It is traditional in that it is between man and woman as god and Jesus intended. Many of the things you said wrong with marriage are also deplorable, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by allowing more things that are clearly against god's words.
A false dichotomy you have presented. The operation of a vehicle is not a right and yet some are allowed this and others are not. SINCE it is not a right, some are allowed and others are not. Since it is not a right, it is not guaranteed in all instances, but it may in some.
What the f*ck is this? Stop talking like Yoda you pretentious jerkoff.
It is called logic and pointing out a logical fallacy. Sorry for the Yoda talk.
It is traditional in that it is between man and woman as god and Jesus intended. Many of the things you said wrong with marriage are also deplorable, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by allowing more things that are clearly against god's words.
Okay, please remove your religious views from this, you live in America where there is separation of church and state. This premise was created specifically for mindless bible-thumpers such as yourself. Your religion has ZERO say in what happens in this country.
So, straight people have done such a cracker jack job with marriage that we shouldn't let gay people get a crack at it? Is that what you're telling me? Again, try to wrap your cinderblock-thick skull around the fact that your religion has no place in governing the freedoms of others. None. Nada. Zilch.
So, based on the law, and not your secret decoder ring club of crazies, what stance could you possibly have on preventing gay people from marrying each other?
Okay, I'll just squeeze this one in before the Mod warhammer comes and knocks the teeth out of this thread.
What is so f*cking "traditional" about the current state of marriage? Is it the fact that more people divorce than stay together? Or is it the fact that gay people of faith feel pressured into marrying the opposite sex even if they don't love the person they're marrying? The "sanctity" of marriage is an oxymoron defined. You have people marrying for publicity, for money, for status, and more reasons that I'm sure people can throw out there. What about the state of marriage makes it fair to keep two people who genuinely love & care for one another from marry each other?
These are the same f*cking idiots that thought interracial marriage should be a crime. The same people who protect child rapists while trying to be taken seriously as a moral authority. Just because the invisible man you worship "said" something doesn't give YOU the right to force it on others. This is not to get into the fact that the Bible was written and re-written a hundred times over and we have no real way of knowing if today's Bible is legitimate or just the nonsensical ramblings of a lunatic, or the fact that there are dozens of religions on this planet and none of them share the same God.
I'm sorry, but I see your claim and I call bullsh*t over and over. I grew up in a Christian household, I went to church every Sunday, I have been baptized, received my first confirmation, and have been confirmed. If you think your fictional book of fables gives you the right to tell people who love each other that they can't be married, I'd rather WWIII come today so I don't have to spend the next 50+ years cohabitating this planet with the likes of you. Any person who would try to constrain the freedoms of another person based on a book written when people were still f*cking sheep is an *SSHOLE. So, if you want to think that way, go for it, but don't think it gives you any authority to tell someone else how to live their life.
Ok, mods. Bombs away.
It is traditional in that it is between man and woman as god and Jesus intended. Many of the things you said wrong with marriage are also deplorable, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by allowing more things that are clearly against god's words.
You forgot Moses, Buddha, Xenu, Gandalf, and Dumbledore
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
A false dichotomy you have presented. The operation of a vehicle is not a right and yet some are allowed this and others are not. SINCE it is not a right, some are allowed and others are not. Since it is not a right, it is not guaranteed in all instances, but it may in some.
Kiko...think about the basis for determining who can and cannot drive. Seem pretty reasonable? Now think about the basis for restricting gay people from marrying. Do you see the disconnect?
There is a difference because one could harm people if we distinguish incorrectly. The other is unnatural and wrong. I'm not sure which would be a bigger mistake, allowing harm or allowing immorality.
actually he said "sorry if you think what god said is deplorable", and i said that i don't think it has anything to do with god. i have family members who are christians, who go to church every sunday and they don't want to deny rights to anyone.
If you really think God/religion/religious beliefs have nothing to do with people wanting to deny gay people the ability to get married then I don't know what to tell you. I didn't say "Every christian who goes to church feels this way".
(damn ITM, you just gonna follow me around and get me in every thread huh? can we call a truce?)
Um what? I posted in this thread before you came in so who is following who around? And I've been responding to everyone who I feel I'd like clarification from or who sparks something in my mind that leads to more discussion.
And what's with a "truce"? I'm not feuding with anyone. I don't hold grudges on here and any time I post it's not to "get at" someone but to get at what they just posted. Someone posts something and I respond. I'm really not sure what you mean.
i'm not going to respond to you, b/c it obvious that you and i don't read things the same way AT ALL when they are posted.
What the f*ck is this? Stop talking like Yoda you pretentious jerkoff.
It is called logic and pointing out a logical fallacy. Sorry for the Yoda talk.
Actually, it is called relating the freedom two consenting adults should have to getting a driver's license. My apologies if your "logic" seems intrinsically flawed since you're comparing inalienable rights of human beings to a learned skill.
You're basically equating being gay to crashing into a parked car on your road test. Thank god for your flawless logic or else this could've gotten confusing.
If you really think God/religion/religious beliefs have nothing to do with people wanting to deny gay people the ability to get married then I don't know what to tell you. I didn't say "Every christian who goes to church feels this way".
Um what? I posted in this thread before you came in so who is following who around? And I've been responding to everyone who I feel I'd like clarification from or who sparks something in my mind that leads to more discussion.
And what's with a "truce"? I'm not feuding with anyone. I don't hold grudges on here and any time I post it's not to "get at" someone but to get at what they just posted. Someone posts something and I respond. I'm really not sure what you mean.
i'm not going to respond to you, b/c it obvious that you and i don't read things the same way AT ALL when they are posted.
we can agree to disagree.
?
You're being very confusing. You claim I follow you around and we need a truce. The last post of yours I responded to before this was complimenting you for posting the funny Breaking Bad comic and I honestly can't remember responding to you before that. I'm really not sure why we would need a truce. I respond to you the same way I respond to everyone and I apologize if you don't see it that way. Please put me on "ignore" if my posts bother you.