[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The END of censorous queers/was:Moderation experiment * over

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 [email protected] wrote:

> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> To: aga <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>     Freedom Knights <[email protected]>,
>     [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> 
>  
> > Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is
> > most understood by modern people.
> > 
> > A "bigot" is a racist, period.
> 
> I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think 
> the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is 
> inappropriate.
> 

Let us distinguish between the denotation an connotation of the word.
The later, being the more modern definition is more appropriate.
Webster's definition of bigotry is at least 75 years old.

> > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.
> > > 
> > 
> > You are a fool then.  Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing
> > to do with bigotry.  A bigot is a racist, period.  That is TODAY'S
> > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than
> > Webster.  Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool.
> > The only god you will ever find is within yourself.
> 
> I do not begin to believe this is correct.  I happen to believe that 
> sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense 
> of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form 
> of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of 
> interest.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in 
> any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, 
> a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a 
> number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did 
> not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were 
> subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception 
> not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools.
> 
>  
> > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.
> 
> Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not 
> in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe 
> each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations.

Exactly.  I know very few good female engineers, but I know a few good
config gals.  Females are just not meant for math and science.

> That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented 
> from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold.
> They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later 
> I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman.
> 
> > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
> > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.
> > > 
> > 
> > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the
> > argument.  You lose points for that.  Sexism is GOOD and right and
> > justified.  I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car,
> > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities.
> 
> Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right 
> to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are 
> probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous 
> and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc...
>  
> > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
> > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
> > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
> > 
> > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points.  I have two Doctorates and
> > 22 years of experience.   I speak with authority and only to those who
> > have the intelligence to understand.   I was a perfect 4.00 in
> > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in
> > the world.  Now let's face it:  Faggots are BAD news.  They are most
> > always censors!  And that is the truth you can never get around.
> 
> I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have 
> formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous 
> behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight 
> people.
> 

Indeed.  And it is because of this "threat" that they always feel that
they are so much into a clique and they are so apt to censor the
slightest alleged "homophobic" discourse.

>  
> 
>   Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
>        Paul Bradley, [email protected]
>   [email protected], [email protected]    
>        Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
>       Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
>      "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
>