For the Progressive community only? [Archive]

View Full Version : For the Progressive community only?

thewholetruth

03-25-2008, 07:28 AM

Your "Introduction" states: WaccoBB.net is a bulletin board for the progressive community of Sonoma County.

Does that mean that as a Conservative I'm not welcome to post here, Larry?

shellebelle

03-25-2008, 07:37 AM

Everyone is welcome.

Personally progressive for me is defined as my ability to grow in knowledge and self not a definition of liberal or conservative.

Your "Introduction" states: WaccoBB.net is a bulletin board for the progressive community of Sonoma County.

Does that mean that as a Conservative I'm not welcome to post here, Larry?

Barry

03-25-2008, 09:56 AM

Your "Introduction" states: WaccoBB.net is a bulletin board for the progressive community of Sonoma County.

Does that mean that as a Conservative I'm not welcome to post here, Larry?

Hi Don, and welcome to WaccoBB.net! :WaccoRays:

I presume your reference to "Larry" as directed to me. Yes, you are welcome to post here so long as you are respectful. I welcome different points of view, while my intention is to primarily serve the progressive community.

Progressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) and Conservative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative) are only labels which can be quite misleading. For instance, it's often the "progressives" who are working to "conserve" the environment. And there many in the "progressive" camp that seem to be filled with hate for those who they consider to be mis-directed (George Bush, for instance).

I note that your WaccoBB.net profile lists "Jesus" among your "interests and passions" (and you've got some pretty good Christian rock on your myspace profile (https://www.myspace.com/doncobb)). This is another case where the two camps get strangely juxtaposed. Whereas Jesus :Jesus: himself would be warmly accepted into the progressive ranks, the Pope, the Catholic church and the whole family values crowd would not be. Indeed, "who would Jesus bomb"?

So while "respect" is key to the code of conduct in this community, the real game here is about love (opening ones :heart: to the humanity and spirit that connects us all), truth, personal growth and healing, and celebrating the divine!

So if you want to play that game according to our rules (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=886), you are most welcome here and I ask that our "conscious community" also treat you with respect.

That said, I still want to maintain our focus on the progressive community. So if your posts seem to be intended to inflame our ranks, rather than offering a thoughtful alternative point of view, or they start to make our listings look like a mainstream church bulletin board, I may need to step in.

:rainbow::welcome::lotsopeople:

Lenny

03-25-2008, 10:21 AM

Hi Don, and welcome to WaccoBB.net! :WaccoRays:....
Whereas Jesus :Jesus: himself would be warmly accepted into the progressive ranks, the Pope, the Catholic church and the whole family values crowd would not be. Indeed, "who would Jesus bomb"?
So while "respect" is key to the code of conduct in this community, the real game here is about love (opening ones :heart: to the humanity and spirit that connects us all), truth, personal growth and healing, and celebrating the divine!
So if you want to play that game according to our rules (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=886), you are most welcome here and I ask that our "conscious community" also treat you with respect.
That said, I still want to maintain our focus on the progressive community. So if your posts seem to geared to inflame our ranks, rather than offering a thoughtful alternative point of view, or they start to make our listings look like a mainstream church bulletin board, I may need to step in.

:rainbow::welcome::lotsopeople:

This notion of "inflame"........quite a controversy there. Respect and courteous in our writing, cool. But some things ARE inflamatory, as well as some folks.
And rule #5, "slurs against populations"....well we THINK we know what that means, but "all Republicans" and "anyone that votes for **** is a ******". Does not your "Catholic Church" and "family values crowd" violate not only your own rule, but possibly Don's notion of what he would like to express here? Or can you have it both ways?

As for Jesus comment......point is, we can't help it...but we can control it.....and be respectful and courteous....and sometimes bite our own....
Oh, and welcome, Don

AnnaLisaW

03-26-2008, 08:59 AM

Your "Introduction" states: WaccoBB.net is a bulletin board for the progressive community of Sonoma County.

Does that mean that as a Conservative I'm not welcome to post here, Larry?

I think it would be delightful to have more informed, polite Conservatives in this group! If our ideas cannot bear a challenge, they are insubstantial. When two caring people disagree, they are both brought closer to the truth.
Blessings and welcome, AnnaLisa

thewholetruth

03-29-2008, 07:15 AM

I know what you mean, Lenny. I suspect that it means that if I piss off a liberal here, I'm gone, but they can be as rude as they want to me and my views. I've already seen posts that are "slurs against populations" (many against Christians; conservatives). Political Correctness guards CERTAIN "populations" but not others. That is why I have no use for Political Correctness. I'm from the Old School, where everyone was entitled to their opinion, even if it hurt someone's feelings. The New School says it's okay to hurt a CHRISTIAN'S feelings, but not other "populations". LOL It's interesting to me how closed-minded and intolerant Liberalism can be while touting themselves as "open-minded" and "tolerant". Again, perhaps liberalism is open-minded and tolerant of everything EXCEPT Christianity. That, from where I sit, seems to be the case. There's a word for that, too, but I should probably stop right here...if I haven't already gone too far and hurt someone from another "population's" feelings. LOL

I hope that openly discussing things like this isn't against the rules here. I love exchanging ideas with people who might see things differently than I.

And thanks for your welcome, Lenny. I've really appreciated some of your posts already. :-)

This notion of "inflame"........quite a controversy there. Respect and courteous in our writing, cool. But some things ARE inflamatory, as well as some folks.
And rule #5, "slurs against populations"....well we THINK we know what that means, but "all Republicans" and "anyone that votes for **** is a ******". Does not your "Catholic Church" and "family values crowd" violate not only your own rule, but possibly Don's notion of what he would like to express here? Or can you have it both ways?

As for Jesus comment......point is, we can't help it...but we can control it.....and be respectful and courteous....and sometimes bite our own....
Oh, and welcome, Don

thewholetruth

03-29-2008, 07:22 AM

Thanks, AnnaLisa! I agree. Some folks, however, have a problem with people disagreeing with them when it causes them to have a feeling. I'm of the mindset that I will not compromise the truth as I see it, and if someone sees it differently I'm okay with that! It's called "freedom of speech" and I don't think hurt feelings justify taking away our precious "freedom of speech" in America, although it's already happened. It's the label "hate speech", which used to be known as "opposing opinion". But I'm an Old School guy, not afraid to hear everyone's POV. And thank you for your welcome! I've enjoyed it here so far!

I think it would be delightful to have more informed, polite Conservatives in this group! If our ideas cannot bear a challenge, they are insubstantial. When two caring people disagree, they are both brought closer to the truth.
Blessings and welcome, AnnaLisa

alanora

03-29-2008, 07:38 AM

It is interesting to me to find that if you alter location, meanings ofliberalism and conservativism also change. My liked to think of herself as right wing daughter, moved to texas and to her surprise was suddenly a liberal! mindy

thewholetruth

03-29-2008, 09:08 AM

Interesting, Alanora. I wonder why that is? The nationwide news media uses the terms liberally (pun intended), and somehow no one argues what they mean. Truth is, I embrace some liberal and progressive POV, too. I suppose most people can't really be put into a box, unless they (as some do) decide to put themselves in that box and their behavior reflects that decision.

It is interesting to me to find that if you alter location, meanings ofliberalism and conservativism also change. My liked to think of herself as right wing daughter, moved to texas and to her surprise was suddenly a liberal! mindy

theindependenteye

03-29-2008, 11:43 PM

>Political Correctness guards CERTAIN "populations" but not others. That is why I have no use for Political Correctness.

Dear Don--

That's a point well taken, I think. But "PC" is a very broad brush. I first heard the term when it was used by the Left to self-critique its own diddling (largely from academics) with language & symbol. In the able hands of Rush Limbaugh & associates, it became a catch-all means of discrediting all non-reactionary ideas, adopting the position of victim under the Overwhelming Liberal Tide.

I too get pissed at lots of those absurdities that are seen as products of the OLT -- my favorite, some years back, was the banning of Mark Twain's HUCKLEBERRY FINN (as racist) from the library of the Mark Twain Middle School in Virginia. But do you honestly feel that conservatives, as a separate race, perhaps, are any less guilty of plain out-and-out knuckleheadedness, or somehow more tolerant of those who swim against the tide? I didn't realize that the perpetrators of loyalty oaths, the firing of pinko professors, or the millions of KKK supporters in the 1920's (heavily supported by Protestant churches against Jews and Catholics) -- and obviously I could go on -- were flaming Liberals.

> I'm from the Old School, where everyone was entitled to their opinion, even if it hurt someone's feelings. The New School says it's okay to hurt a CHRISTIAN'S feelings, but not other "populations".

I thought I was from the Old School too, being 66 and growing up in Iowa, otherwise known as the Heartland. Among my salt-of-the-earth schoolmates, teachers, relatives and neighbors, everyone was indeed entitled to his own opinion as long as he kept shut up about it. If you said something a half inch away from the prevailing opinion, except maybe for sports or movies, you were regarded either as a commie, an egghead, or just a nut. Certainly we didn't want to offend Christians (except Catholics, who weren't actually Christian because they worshipped the Pope), so we scrupulously confined our jokes & scorn to kikes, niggers, dagos, bitches, and especially to fairies. We loved Joe McCarthy, though having been fed a sanitized version of American history, we didn't realize he wasn't entirely original but was simply recycling the Red Scare of the 20's and the various zenophobias of the 19th Century. Our minister was pretty mainstream, though his wife was regarded as a bit too pretty; but he gave several sermons against South African apartheid; he didn't last long after that. Otherwise, sure, we were pretty nice people, except when drunk.

I got out of there, but I've spent many years in small-town America, both as a resident and as a touring performer. During that time I've sat down to dinner with countless people whose politics & religion were worlds apart from mine, as well as people in the most improbable places who were soul mates. I've enjoyed most all these encounters. But in most locales, in my experience, it's extremely rare for people to dissent in any sort of public way with the prevailing wisdom of the group or community they need to relate to. That's true here too. So I'd really love to know where this fabled Old School existence that you describe took place. It must have been lovely, like that Norman Rockwell painting of town-meeting freedom of speech. I'd really like to believe it. Or was it just a dream?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

03-30-2008, 06:50 AM

Hi Conrad,

No, it wasn't just a dream! LOL My Old School happened during the 60s and 70s, where anyone could say anything from any street corner. The natural consequence of unpopular speech was ostracization because we didn't like your views (white supremists/Nazis/racists/etc.). No one felt threatened because someone didn't like us, like it is today. And free speech was free speech, not "Protecting Homosexuals from hurt feelings speech" like it is today. Let's be honest. "Hate speech" was invented by the gay community because they don't like it when people don't appreciate homosexuality. It's a joke, IMO. I'd like to believe we haven't thrown away our freedom of speech in this country, but it appears we have. Or is it just a bad dream?

Thanks for your thoughts, Conrad. ;-)

Don

>Political Correctness guards CERTAIN "populations" but not others. That is why I have no use for Political Correctness.

Dear Don--

That's a point well taken, I think. But "PC" is a very broad brush. I first heard the term when it was used by the Left to self-critique its own diddling (largely from academics) with language & symbol. In the able hands of Rush Limbaugh & associates, it became a catch-all means of discrediting all non-reactionary ideas, adopting the position of victim under the Overwhelming Liberal Tide.

I too get pissed at lots of those absurdities that are seen as products of the OLT -- my favorite, some years back, was the banning of Mark Twain's HUCKLEBERRY FINN (as racist) from the library of the Mark Twain Middle School in Virginia. But do you honestly feel that conservatives, as a separate race, perhaps, are any less guilty of plain out-and-out knuckleheadedness, or somehow more tolerant of those who swim against the tide? I didn't realize that the perpetrators of loyalty oaths, the firing of pinko professors, or the millions of KKK supporters in the 1920's (heavily supported by Protestant churches against Jews and Catholics) -- and obviously I could go on -- were flaming Liberals.

> I'm from the Old School, where everyone was entitled to their opinion, even if it hurt someone's feelings. The New School says it's okay to hurt a CHRISTIAN'S feelings, but not other "populations".

I thought I was from the Old School too, being 66 and growing up in Iowa, otherwise known as the Heartland. Among my salt-of-the-earth schoolmates, teachers, relatives and neighbors, everyone was indeed entitled to his own opinion as long as he kept shut up about it. If you said something a half inch away from the prevailing opinion, except maybe for sports or movies, you were regarded either as a commie, an egghead, or just a nut. Certainly we didn't want to offend Christians (except Catholics, who weren't actually Christian because they worshipped the Pope), so we scrupulously confined our jokes & scorn to kikes, niggers, dagos, bitches, and especially to fairies. We loved Joe McCarthy, though having been fed a sanitized version of American history, we didn't realize he wasn't entirely original but was simply recycling the Red Scare of the 20's and the various zenophobias of the 19th Century. Our minister was pretty mainstream, though his wife was regarded as a bit too pretty; but he gave several sermons against South African apartheid; he didn't last long after that. Otherwise, sure, we were pretty nice people, except when drunk.

I got out of there, but I've spent many years in small-town America, both as a resident and as a touring performer. During that time I've sat down to dinner with countless people whose politics & religion were worlds apart from mine, as well as people in the most improbable places who were soul mates. I've enjoyed most all these encounters. But in most locales, in my experience, it's extremely rare for people to dissent in any sort of public way with the prevailing wisdom of the group or community they need to relate to. That's true here too. So I'd really love to know where this fabled Old School existence that you describe took place. It must have been lovely, like that Norman Rockwell painting of town-meeting freedom of speech. I'd really like to believe it. Or was it just a dream?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

theindependenteye

04-02-2008, 12:13 AM

Dear Don--

Show opening on Friday, so gotta be brief. Thanks for responding.

>>No, it wasn't just a dream! LOL My Old School happened during the 60s and 70s, where anyone could say anything from any street corner. The natural consequence of unpopular speech was ostracization because we didn't like your views (white supremists/Nazis/racists/etc.). No one felt threatened because someone didn't like us, like it is today.

Another natural consequence of unpopular speech at that time was an extensive FBI file, dismissal from your job, being beaten to a pulp by Mayor Daley's police force, being shot dead (Schwerner, Cheney, etc.) or beaten dead (Emmett Till, etc. - google him and take a look at the after-effects of free speech in Mississippi, 1955, though that's slightly before the golden age you describe), assassination (King, Kennedy, etc.). Quite true, though, that if you wanted to fulminate against gays or blacks or women's libbers, you could find a receptive audience much more easily than now.

>>And free speech was free speech, not "Protecting Homosexuals from hurt feelings speech" like it is today. Let's be honest. "Hate speech" was invented by the gay community because they don't like it when people don't appreciate homosexuality.

My impression is that they didn't much like being beaten up or losing their jobs or having to congregate in Mafia-run "gay bars" or enduring regular shakedowns from cops or selective enforcement of sodomy laws. I guess those all qualify as producing hurt feelings. I agree to some extent with those who claim that changing speech doesn't necessarily change behavior patterns, and I'm probably even a bit more extreme in supporting free speech than the ACLU. But I think it's absurd to say that it's about "hurt feelings" -- it's about objecting to the promotion of attitudes that have real behavioral consequences. My impression is that my gay friends, including my daughter, really don't care if you don't appreciate homosexuality or think they're normal or godly. They just want to live in peace and have the same rights as the rest of us.

>>I'd like to believe we haven't thrown away our freedom of speech in this country, but it appears we have.

Well, I'm unclear what you want to say that you're not allowed to. No one's going to arrest you if you tell a fag joke, and even in the Castro I don't think you're likely to be lynched or drenched with gasoline & set afire. Yes, you might be ostracized, but that's no different than it ever was. There are cases of teachers or profs being fired or called on the carpet for offensive "non-PC" remarks, but that's a tiny fraction compared with those who've suffered very serious consequences for being "disloyal," "radical," or "perverted." And it's a pendulum-swing: nowadays, labeling oneself as "politically incorrect" seems almost de riguer for political commentators and comedians -- if one can tell the difference between'em.

So that's my two cents. I agree with you totally that freedom of speech is in serious jeopardy, but we differ, I think, on who's responsible. What fascinates me is how many people -- across the political & demographic spectrum -- seem to be competing for the title of Victim.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

04-02-2008, 05:18 AM

Conrad, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Taking into account, of course, that I grew up in Sebastopol, where no one was beaten, no FBI file, no one killed or assassinated because they spoke out about anything. From my naive Sebastopolian perspective (Sebastopol didn't use to be the Liberal stronghold that it is today - it used to be a quiet little family oriented apple town), I saw the invention of the term "hate speech" by the gay community, and Ray Charles could see it was the end of freedom of speech in this country. Frankly, despite all the things you mentioned, I resent that precious freedom being stolen from us all just because gays don't want to be criticized publicly.

IMO, it was too big a price to pay so that homosexuals don't get their feelings hurt, because yes, THAT is what SPEECH does. Speech doesn't beat people up or kill or assassinate them. ASSAULT and MURDER are what cause people to die or be beaten. The PC community were just too quick to give up our freedom of speech and I guarantee you that unless that freedom is given back to us, it will soon be deemed "hate speech" to criticize our government.

Your post seems to imply that I have a problem with gay folks, and I assure you I do not, as I have friends and family members that I love who are gay, too. This isn't about gay bashing, Conrad. This is about protecting one of the most important elements of freedom in America, and it's gone now. In Canada, they've taken the "hate speech" b.s. to another level and have banned preaching the Gospel in public. What's next, do ya think? There's more coming, and it will be our freedom that is being taken away because we ALLOWED our freedom of speech to be taken away.

I think people could have found another solution, other than giving up our freedom of speech. And I'm pretty confident that calling homosexual criticism "hate speech" hasn't changed a single heart or mind on that issue, nor has it caused anyone to refrain from assaulting or assassinating anyone.

I think the homosexual agenda was far too self-serving and short-sighted to realize what taking away our freedom of speech would cause in the big picture. Taking away our freedom of speech was huge.

Don

Dear Don--

Show opening on Friday, so gotta be brief. Thanks for responding.

>>No, it wasn't just a dream! LOL My Old School happened during the 60s and 70s, where anyone could say anything from any street corner. The natural consequence of unpopular speech was ostracization because we didn't like your views (white supremists/Nazis/racists/etc.). No one felt threatened because someone didn't like us, like it is today.

Another natural consequence of unpopular speech at that time was an extensive FBI file, dismissal from your job, being beaten to a pulp by Mayor Daley's police force, being shot dead (Schwerner, Cheney, etc.) or beaten dead (Emmett Till, etc. - google him and take a look at the after-effects of free speech in Mississippi, 1955, though that's slightly before the golden age you describe), assassination (King, Kennedy, etc.). Quite true, though, that if you wanted to fulminate against gays or blacks or women's libbers, you could find a receptive audience much more easily than now.

>>And free speech was free speech, not "Protecting Homosexuals from hurt feelings speech" like it is today. Let's be honest. "Hate speech" was invented by the gay community because they don't like it when people don't appreciate homosexuality.

My impression is that they didn't much like being beaten up or losing their jobs or having to congregate in Mafia-run "gay bars" or enduring regular shakedowns from cops or selective enforcement of sodomy laws. I guess those all qualify as producing hurt feelings. I agree to some extent with those who claim that changing speech doesn't necessarily change behavior patterns, and I'm probably even a bit more extreme in supporting free speech than the ACLU. But I think it's absurd to say that it's about "hurt feelings" -- it's about objecting to the promotion of attitudes that have real behavioral consequences. My impression is that my gay friends, including my daughter, really don't care if you don't appreciate homosexuality or think they're normal or godly. They just want to live in peace and have the same rights as the rest of us.

>>I'd like to believe we haven't thrown away our freedom of speech in this country, but it appears we have.

Well, I'm unclear what you want to say that you're not allowed to. No one's going to arrest you if you tell a fag joke, and even in the Castro I don't think you're likely to be lynched or drenched with gasoline & set afire. Yes, you might be ostracized, but that's no different than it ever was. There are cases of teachers or profs being fired or called on the carpet for offensive "non-PC" remarks, but that's a tiny fraction compared with those who've suffered very serious consequences for being "disloyal," "radical," or "perverted." And it's a pendulum-swing: nowadays, labeling oneself as "politically incorrect" seems almost de riguer for political commentators and comedians -- if one can tell the difference between'em.

So that's my two cents. I agree with you totally that freedom of speech is in serious jeopardy, but we differ, I think, on who's responsible. What fascinates me is how many people -- across the political & demographic spectrum -- seem to be competing for the title of Victim.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Barry

04-02-2008, 07:39 AM

I leave here convinced now that compromise with the Liberal community probably isn't even possible, as it requires open discussion and grace to find a place of compromise.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to attempt dialogue here, Barry. I suppose you warned me that it might not work out for me to discuss my POV here, and it appears that, clearly, my views and I are not welcome here.

Peace...

Don
I'm sorry to see you go, Don. You are indeed most welcome here, as you have presented your opinions with respect and thoughtfulness I think it's clear that an open discussion has been had, even if your views haven't prevailed. As to the "grace to find a place of compromise", can you share with us how your opinion has shifted through this cross-cultural exchange?

MsTerry

04-02-2008, 09:09 AM

Don

don't be a silly nincompoop.
Life is not about others liking your posts, but how we can learn from each other.
You were like a fresh breath of air, sometimes it makes us cough or choke but it always keeps us alive
I can't straighten them all out on my own, I need your help!

thewholetruth

04-02-2008, 09:29 AM

That's very gracious of you, Barry. Thank you, sir.

One way that my mind has changed through this experience has been a God thing, really. A very sweet lady here posted to me about her use of medical marijuana. While my experience has been that I've not met a single person with a marijuana card who actually had a medical NEED for said card, what a coincidence (don't believe in coincidences, btw - just Devine appointments/Devine intervention) that I ran into one of my best friends a couple days ago. He had back surgery some years ago and he's been on Anti-inflammatories (as am I for a broken neck) for years. He shared with me that his doctor switched him to Vicodin and Morphine tabs because he was afraid the ibuprofen was destroying his liver. Well, he got strung out on those meds, had to be detoxed and now is on Medical Marijuana, which he smokes at night, which relieves his back pain very well. So thanks to that nice woman's testimony about her pot use, and my friend's testimony, I came here an opponent of Med. Marijuana, and leave here a supporter.

Perhaps one day I'll check back in here, if that's okay with you, Barry. But if my presence and comments is such an agitation to so many here, I don't think it benefits anyone to continue doing what we've been doing here. I figured when Lenny unloads on me (as he'd been pretty civil until today), it must be time for me to go. :wink:

Thanks, Barry, and blessings to you and your boardmates!

Don

I'm sorry to see you go, Don. You are indeed most welcome here, as you have presented your opinions with respect and thoughtfulness I think it's clear that an open discussion has been had, even if your views haven't prevailed. As to the "grace to find a place of compromise", can you share with us how your opinion has shifted through this cross-cultural exchange?

thewholetruth

04-02-2008, 09:33 AM

Thanks MsTerry! You know, if Barry hasn't already deleted me, I'd like to just stay on and I'll just be a little more selective about whom I engage here.

Let's put it in God's hands...and Barry's.

You are quite refreshing yourself here, MsTerry!

Don

Don

don't be a silly nincompoop.
Life is not about others liking your posts, but how we can learn from each other.
You were like a fresh breath of air, sometimes it makes us cough or choke but it always keeps us alive
I can't straighten them all out on my own, I need your help!

theindependenteye

04-02-2008, 11:13 PM

Dear Don--

Continuing the dialogue.

>I saw the invention of the term "hate speech" by the gay community, and Ray Charles could see it was the end of freedom of speech in this country. Frankly, despite all the things you mentioned, I resent that precious freedom being stolen from us all just because gays don't want to be criticized publicly.

What is it, exactly, that you want to say that you aren't permitted legally to say?

What you've said so far seems to suggest that you've been victimized, but where's the corpus delecti? I get the impression that the only thing you've faced is criticism, perhaps ostracism, but isn't that in the category of what you describe as "hurt feelings"? I'm really asking the question, not rhetorically: How is your freedom being restricted?

>>IMO, it was too big a price to pay so that homosexuals don't get their feelings hurt, because yes, THAT is what SPEECH does. Speech doesn't beat people up or kill or assassinate them. ASSAULT and MURDER are what cause people to die or be beaten.

Agreed. But if you were on the receiving end of the assault and murder, you might ask to be cut a little slack if you objected to the speech that was part of the atmosphere that resulted in that. When we lived in Lancaster, PA -- a hyper-conservative community -- a young man was severely beaten by a couple of guys when he came out of the town's one gay bar. He wasn't gay, but the guys' main defense was that they thought he was.

Notwithstanding, I don't know of any legislation that forbids you to say that gays are foul, despicable beings damned to hell. Is there? If you were a teacher and said it in a classroom, you might indeed be disciplined, just as teachers have been who advocated liberal political views, and on the ground that you took advantage of your position to engage in ideological coercion. In my personal view, I think your students could survive it. But my point is that this kind of stuff isn't the specific province of any one political wing.

There are varying degrees of restriction on freedom of speech. The first is the "hurt feelings" category, and the penalty is not being invited to our house parties. But I'm not invited to many parties myself, so that doesn't really count.

Then there's broader community complicity in ostracism: crosses burned on your lawn, turds left on your front porch, phone threats, being fired from your job. That's not a legal restriction, but it sure has an effect on your quality of life. A close friend of ours was fired from his university job in the 1970's for a newspaper interview in which he mentioned that he was gay; donors to Duke University pressured the university president to fire him, and he did. After two years of hell, he won a free-speech lawsuit against the university. How does this fit into your gay-agenda spectrum?

And connected with that is the workplace free-speech question. My mother worked most of her life in car dealerships and trucking companies where it was a daily feature of life to hear demeaning sex comments, dirty jokes, come-ons, comments about your bra size, etc. etc. I guess Reagan would say, well, you can vote with your feet. But that's not so easy if you're paying the bills month to month and have a kid to support. You might say it's a restriction on these guys' freedom of speech to set a policy preventing them from making the workplace utterly disgusting to this very conservative lady, yes? After all, it just "hurt her feelings."

Then there's the question of specific political or social advocacy. Are there present-day radical-PC equivalents to the Comstock laws or state statutes that actually put people into prison for offering birth control information or making speeches about it?

Then there's the question of *forced* speech. New Hampshire license plates stated "Live Free or Die." If I were a driver in New Hampshire, I carried that message, no matter what. "In God We Trust." Well, you might say that atheists advocating we eliminate that from our currency are not only dissing God (who, we all know, has delicate feelings), but restricting your freedom of speech. But to me as a kinda Dionysiac Quaker, I find that pretty coercive, handing it across the counter daily, even though I don't get bent outa shape by it (my disgust is mostly at the hypocrisy and self-congratulatory emptiness of it -- truly a taking-the-name-of-God-in-vain). And of course loyalty oaths are still in place and are still enforced.

As I understand it, your basic point is that PC liberals are destroying free speech in America. We differ in that my belief is that *nobody* wants free speech for the other guy if it has any remote chance of being effective. And that conservatives over the past century have been infinitely more effective in shutting down the dialogue.

>>Your post seems to imply that I have a problem with gay folks, and I assure you I do not, as I have friends and family members that I love who are gay, too.

Well, I'm glad, truly, but you seem to have some sort of special dismay at proactive gay liberation, and I don't think your view of their effect on the freedom-of-speech issue is remotely as large as you claim. The critique of language bias came much more strongly from feminist critics and the civil rights movement. Gay liberation exploded on the scene with Stonewall in 1969 and rode on the back of other "liberation" movements. What are your sources for stating that gays were in the vanguard?

>>In Canada, they've taken the "hate speech" b.s. to another level and have banned preaching the Gospel in public.

Would you be more specific about this? What's the actual law? I know I can be arrested in San Francisco for walking in a public park carrying a sign, whether it's advocating a political stance or advertising a play or a deoderant, but that has nothing to do with pro-liberal or PC views, it just has to do with public order. What does Canada prohibit, and where?

>>And I'm pretty confident that calling homosexual criticism "hate speech" hasn't changed a single heart or mind on that issue, nor has it caused anyone to refrain from assaulting or assassinating anyone.

I agree. Though I have to say that I haven't heard very much "homosexual criticism" that I wouldn't describe as hate speech. And again, you seem to be equating any criticism of this "criticism" as a limitation on criticism.

>>Taking away our freedom of speech was huge.

So we get back to my first question: what are you forbidden to say that you want to say?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

04-03-2008, 06:06 AM

Conrad, I can't tell you how excited I am to see that you're interested in intelligent dialogue. Why am I so excited about that? Because just perusing your post briefly, I can see the possibility that my mind might be changed about something here. It's the "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" philosophy. (insert "person" for the word "man", as that's what it means). I'll get back to you as soon as I can devote time to intelligent response. Bless you, brother. This is an example of what I had hoped to find here. Not agreement, but intelligent dialogue.

Don

Dear Don--

Continuing the dialogue.

>I saw the invention of the term "hate speech" by the gay community, and Ray Charles could see it was the end of freedom of speech in this country. Frankly, despite all the things you mentioned, I resent that precious freedom being stolen from us all just because gays don't want to be criticized publicly.

What is it, exactly, that you want to say that you aren't permitted legally to say?

What you've said so far seems to suggest that you've been victimized, but where's the corpus delecti? I get the impression that the only thing you've faced is criticism, perhaps ostracism, but isn't that in the category of what you describe as "hurt feelings"? I'm really asking the question, not rhetorically: How is your freedom being restricted?

>>IMO, it was too big a price to pay so that homosexuals don't get their feelings hurt, because yes, THAT is what SPEECH does. Speech doesn't beat people up or kill or assassinate them. ASSAULT and MURDER are what cause people to die or be beaten.

Agreed. But if you were on the receiving end of the assault and murder, you might ask to be cut a little slack if you objected to the speech that was part of the atmosphere that resulted in that. When we lived in Lancaster, PA -- a hyper-conservative community -- a young man was severely beaten by a couple of guys when he came out of the town's one gay bar. He wasn't gay, but the guys' main defense was that they thought he was.

Notwithstanding, I don't know of any legislation that forbids you to say that gays are foul, despicable beings damned to hell. Is there? If you were a teacher and said it in a classroom, you might indeed be disciplined, just as teachers have been who advocated liberal political views, and on the ground that you took advantage of your position to engage in ideological coercion. In my personal view, I think your students could survive it. But my point is that this kind of stuff isn't the specific province of any one political wing.

There are varying degrees of restriction on freedom of speech. The first is the "hurt feelings" category, and the penalty is not being invited to our house parties. But I'm not invited to many parties myself, so that doesn't really count.

Then there's broader community complicity in ostracism: crosses burned on your lawn, turds left on your front porch, phone threats, being fired from your job. That's not a legal restriction, but it sure has an effect on your quality of life. A close friend of ours was fired from his university job in the 1970's for a newspaper interview in which he mentioned that he was gay; donors to Duke University pressured the university president to fire him, and he did. After two years of hell, he won a free-speech lawsuit against the university. How does this fit into your gay-agenda spectrum?

And connected with that is the workplace free-speech question. My mother worked most of her life in car dealerships and trucking companies where it was a daily feature of life to hear demeaning sex comments, dirty jokes, come-ons, comments about your bra size, etc. etc. I guess Reagan would say, well, you can vote with your feet. But that's not so easy if you're paying the bills month to month and have a kid to support. You might say it's a restriction on these guys' freedom of speech to set a policy preventing them from making the workplace utterly disgusting to this very conservative lady, yes? After all, it just "hurt her feelings."

Then there's the question of specific political or social advocacy. Are there present-day radical-PC equivalents to the Comstock laws or state statutes that actually put people into prison for offering birth control information or making speeches about it?

Then there's the question of *forced* speech. New Hampshire license plates stated "Live Free or Die." If I were a driver in New Hampshire, I carried that message, no matter what. "In God We Trust." Well, you might say that atheists advocating we eliminate that from our currency are not only dissing God (who, we all know, has delicate feelings), but restricting your freedom of speech. But to me as a kinda Dionysiac Quaker, I find that pretty coercive, handing it across the counter daily, even though I don't get bent outa shape by it (my disgust is mostly at the hypocrisy and self-congratulatory emptiness of it -- truly a taking-the-name-of-God-in-vain). And of course loyalty oaths are still in place and are still enforced.

As I understand it, your basic point is that PC liberals are destroying free speech in America. We differ in that my belief is that *nobody* wants free speech for the other guy if it has any remote chance of being effective. And that conservatives over the past century have been infinitely more effective in shutting down the dialogue.

>>Your post seems to imply that I have a problem with gay folks, and I assure you I do not, as I have friends and family members that I love who are gay, too.

Well, I'm glad, truly, but you seem to have some sort of special dismay at proactive gay liberation, and I don't think your view of their effect on the freedom-of-speech issue is remotely as large as you claim. The critique of language bias came much more strongly from feminist critics and the civil rights movement. Gay liberation exploded on the scene with Stonewall in 1969 and rode on the back of other "liberation" movements. What are your sources for stating that gays were in the vanguard?

>>In Canada, they've taken the "hate speech" b.s. to another level and have banned preaching the Gospel in public.

Would you be more specific about this? What's the actual law? I know I can be arrested in San Francisco for walking in a public park carrying a sign, whether it's advocating a political stance or advertising a play or a deoderant, but that has nothing to do with pro-liberal or PC views, it just has to do with public order. What does Canada prohibit, and where?

>>And I'm pretty confident that calling homosexual criticism "hate speech" hasn't changed a single heart or mind on that issue, nor has it caused anyone to refrain from assaulting or assassinating anyone.

I agree. Though I have to say that I haven't heard very much "homosexual criticism" that I wouldn't describe as hate speech. And again, you seem to be equating any criticism of this "criticism" as a limitation on criticism.

>>Taking away our freedom of speech was huge.

So we get back to my first question: what are you forbidden to say that you want to say?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

thewholetruth

04-03-2008, 07:49 AM

Dear Don--

Continuing the dialogue.

...

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Peace and joy to you, too, sir.

Don

Lenny

04-03-2008, 08:33 AM

Perhaps one day I'll check back in here, if that's okay with you, Barry. But if my presence and comments is such an agitation to so many here, I don't think it benefits anyone to continue doing what we've been doing here. I figured when Lenny unloads on me (as he'd been pretty civil until today), it must be time for me to go. :wink:
Thanks, Barry, and blessings to you and your boardmates!
Don

Don, I've not "unloaded" on you UNTIL NOW! If you quit this forum then you are a punk! And no better than Ed.
I gather that I was harsh (prior to this) and apologize for any feelings that may have been tenderized by any exchange. Sometimes I am not here to hurt feeling, but like you, I find free speech to be a cleansing agent, and as you know the truth, it ain't easy. Kind of like that line from Narnia, "He is still a Lion", and that means the truth is wild. Don't quit. You are needed here. Stick around, as it may get interesting and you don't want to miss the fun. :2cents:

Lenny

04-03-2008, 09:05 AM

Dear Don--
What is it, exactly, that you want to say that you aren't permitted legally to say? I'm really asking the question, not rhetorically: How is your freedom being restricted?

>>IMO, it was too big a price to pay so that homosexuals don't get their feelings hurt, because yes, THAT is what SPEECH does. Speech doesn't beat people up or kill or assassinate them. ASSAULT and MURDER are what cause people to die or be beaten.

Agreed. But if you were on the receiving end of the assault and murder, you might ask to be cut a little slack if you objected to the speech that was part of the atmosphere that resulted in that. When we lived in Lancaster, PA -- a hyper-conservative community -- a young man was severely beaten by a couple of guys when he came out of the town's one gay bar. He wasn't gay, but the guys' main defense was that they thought he was.

Notwithstanding, I don't know of any legislation that forbids you to say that gays are foul, despicable beings damned to hell. Is there? If you were a teacher and said it in a classroom, you might indeed be disciplined, just as teachers have been who advocated liberal political views, and on the ground that you took advantage of your position to engage in ideological coercion. In my personal view, I think your students could survive it. But my point is that this kind of stuff isn't the specific province of any one political wing.

There are varying degrees of restriction on freedom of speech. The first is the "hurt feelings" category, and the penalty is not being invited to our house parties. But I'm not invited to many parties myself, so that doesn't really count.

Then there's broader community complicity in ostracism: crosses burned on your lawn, turds left on your front porch, phone threats, being fired from your job. That's not a legal restriction, but it sure has an effect on your quality of life. A close friend of ours was fired from his university job in the 1970's for a newspaper interview in which he mentioned that he was gay; donors to Duke University pressured the university president to fire him, and he did. After two years of hell, he won a free-speech lawsuit against the university. How does this fit into your gay-agenda spectrum?

And connected with that is the workplace free-speech question. My mother worked most of her life in car dealerships and trucking companies where it was a daily feature of life to hear demeaning sex comments, dirty jokes, come-ons, comments about your bra size, etc. etc. I guess Reagan would say, well, you can vote with your feet. But that's not so easy if you're paying the bills month to month and have a kid to support. You might say it's a restriction on these guys' freedom of speech to set a policy preventing them from making the workplace utterly disgusting to this very conservative lady, yes? After all, it just "hurt her feelings."

Then there's the question of specific political or social advocacy. Are there present-day radical-PC equivalents to the Comstock laws or state statutes that actually put people into prison for offering birth control information or making speeches about it?

Then there's the question of *forced* speech. New Hampshire license plates stated "Live Free or Die." If I were a driver in New Hampshire, I carried that message, no matter what. "In God We Trust." Well, you might say that atheists advocating we eliminate that from our currency are not only dissing God (who, we all know, has delicate feelings), but restricting your freedom of speech. But to me as a kinda Dionysiac Quaker, I find that pretty coercive, handing it across the counter daily, even though I don't get bent outa shape by it (my disgust is mostly at the hypocrisy and self-congratulatory emptiness of it -- truly a taking-the-name-of-God-in-vain). And of course loyalty oaths are still in place and are still enforced.

As I understand it, your basic point is that PC liberals are destroying free speech in America. We differ in that my belief is that *nobody* wants free speech for the other guy if it has any remote chance of being effective. And that conservatives over the past century have been infinitely more effective in shutting down the dialogue.

>>Your post seems to imply that I have a problem with gay folks, and I assure you I do not, as I have friends and family members that I love who are gay, too.

Well, I'm glad, truly, but you seem to have some sort of special dismay at proactive gay liberation, and I don't think your view of their effect on the freedom-of-speech issue is remotely as large as you claim. The critique of language bias came much more strongly from feminist critics and the civil rights movement. Gay liberation exploded on the scene with Stonewall in 1969 and rode on the back of other "liberation" movements. What are your sources for stating that gays were in the vanguard?

>>In Canada, they've taken the "hate speech" b.s. to another level and have banned preaching the Gospel in public.

Would you be more specific about this? What's the actual law? I know I can be arrested in San Francisco for walking in a public park carrying a sign, whether it's advocating a political stance or advertising a play or a deoderant, but that has nothing to do with pro-liberal or PC views, it just has to do with public order. What does Canada prohibit, and where?

>>And I'm pretty confident that calling homosexual criticism "hate speech" hasn't changed a single heart or mind on that issue, nor has it caused anyone to refrain from assaulting or assassinating anyone.

I agree. Though I have to say that I haven't heard very much "homosexual criticism" that I wouldn't describe as hate speech. And again, you seem to be equating any criticism of this "criticism" as a limitation on criticism.
So we get back to my first question: what are you forbidden to say that you want to say?
Peace & joy--
Conrad

You wish to pursue the legal problems Don has with "hate speech" and you ask to cite. Well, we know there are "none", and that is only the tip of the iceberg. The red herring, 'I don't know of any legislation that forbids you to say that gays are foul, despicable beings damned to hell'
does not mean that there are those that have attempted to do the opposite. Don's point is that the current existing laws around here mandate one speak well of "the life", or remain silent. Great for dialogue! Much the same problem in teaching about our Civil War. The primary reason, according to what is taught to our young people, was slavery. It is simply not true, but if one tries to speak away from that point, that teacher may be subject to scrutiny. "We are watching you" really does not give rise to freedoms of any kind.

You cite some poor boy beaten to death due to perception. We cannot begin or end at this point, as there are assaults/murders BY gays as well. And if I declare it is 10 times more in the gay community, per population, and walk away leaving you to disprove it, then there still is no dialogue.

But when the gay community is the only entity that may define hate speech in their light, that excludes most of America. Similar to "racism" in that a specific community may DEFINE a word that places them in a position of authority, thus superiority, and that definition excludes themselves, then as George Orwell identified "new speak", there will be problems. For example, there is a case before the courts of a European country that will disallow a preacher from reading certain sections of the Bible! or, as mentioned, in Canada there is a movement that will do the same. And to comment on those biblical sections is, or will be, considered "hate speech". All this in light of THE FACT that most folks in all countries in the world have "gay" issues, and, in fact, do not like "the lifestyle" of the homosexual community.
By definition, in our country, more "enlightened" countries (WHOSE definition?) gays are tolerated via economic laws, as well as socially.
I stand in awe! There are some things that deserve hate, and yet we live in a place that "hates hate". No wonder I get confused, as I've got my head stuck up some place that contradicts itself. Oh well, back to the pursuit of trivia. :2cents:

theindependenteye

04-03-2008, 02:04 PM

thewholetruth

04-03-2008, 06:29 PM

Well hey, Lenny, The Don ain't no punk, brother! LOL You weren't overly harsh at all, but so many have already labeled me ("inflammatory comments" wHaAt?!? LOL She never did post to me to say "Don I find your comment "blahblahblah" to be inflammatory" so I can't even defend myself LOL) and have made it clear they really aren't interested in intelligent dialogue or exchanging viewpoints and sharing the basis for theirs. When YOU, who had been so civil, brought a hammer down I just thought there wasn't enough interest in dialoguing, and I understand if that's the case. Every board has it's flavor, and I've been on some which were solely Prolife boards who weren't interested in engaging in debate, and I've been on some Prochoice boards who were equally disinterested in the Prolife opinion. Then again, I've been on some boards where Liberals and Conservatives, Pagans and Christians and Wiccans and Atheists all 'talked', if you will. I wasn't sure whether this board was collectively interested in broadening their perspective. It only took a couple of y'all to bring me to the conclusion that it might be interesting to stay. :wink:

Thanks for your encouragement, Lenny. I look forward to experiencing your perspective and sharing mine here.

Don

Don, I've not "unloaded" on you UNTIL NOW! If you quit this forum then you are a punk! And no better than Ed.
I gather that I was harsh (prior to this) and apologize for any feelings that may have been tenderized by any exchange. Sometimes I am not here to hurt feeling, but like you, I find free speech to be a cleansing agent, and as you know the truth, it ain't easy. Kind of like that line from Narnia, "He is still a Lion", and that means the truth is wild. Don't quit. You are needed here. Stick around, as it may get interesting and you don't want to miss the fun. :2cents:

niboroo

04-04-2008, 03:46 AM

Well, Don, you really do hang in there! Congratulations for posting and listening and thinking. Being a Lesbian Grandmother myself, with one 'straight' daughter, one 'Bi' daughter and two 'unknowns' granddaughters, I find your persistence in sticking to this one 'issue' intriguing. By that I mean, coming back and back again to 'gays'. Why?
This is, if I may say, as someone who has been through almost every wringer around, either as the target (and am still, would you believe?) or as a supporter (civil rights in the 60's, for blacks) (Democracy in the 50's, during McCarthy's long drunken dribble about "Reds"), a rather pointedly narrow way to talk about speaking freely.
As feminists who supported a woman's right to her own body and what went into or came out of it (My! What a concept!) used to say, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one". As Queers might say, if you're not queer, what should you care? The real freedoms are the ones we make within our own spiritual human lives. Why need you intrude - just be who you are.
Of course, every one of us has many levels, many fault lines, many virtues, and possibly (?) many pasts, or at least many old memories in our
genetic makeup - somehow. Our habits of thought can, and if we are to
be truly free, must, be questioned.
Wasn't it Chief Justice Holmes who said that the limits of freedom of speech (no, not of thought) can be illustrated by someone crying "fire"
when there isn't one, in a crowded theatre?
As someone who studies Judaism and some Kabbalah, I am more and
more impressed that "the word" is so incredibly powerful that we need to
bring our whole consciousness, and more and more of it as it grows, to
bear on our use of words. Treat them as sacred, from the Source, whatever you do or don't believe about that. Our mouths are midway between our forebrains and our hearts. Blessedly, the two working in
tandem will indeed 'raise all boats'. Respect begins at home, as Aretha
basically was saying.
We can all learn from diversity, as nature teaches us in her own way; we
need it in fact. "Gays" have always been around, and maybe it will surprise
many to know that we / they have been held in great respect in so-called
primitive cultures as the people who travel between the worlds. Shamans,
etc. Someone supply us with the Native American word (don't know what
tribe[s]) for mixed gender people - sorry, at this hour can't remember it.
Before the advent of 'media' as it stands today (the bigger it is, the more
money it seems to have to make being divisive), yes, there was prejudice,
many kinds. Now it is Big Business. Let's not feed it any more trash.
By the way, there is no 'gay agenda' - a mighty fiction cooked up by
Falwell, et al. There is however a human agenda that would ideally apply
to all. It appears as The Golden Rule. Or as one of the famous Rabbis of
old said, when asked to explain the meaning of the Old Testament while
standing on one foot, replied (paraphrased) 'What is hateful to you, do not
do to others' "The rest is commentary".
Go in peace and stick around. Maybe the ride won't be so bumpy after all.
niboroo
,

thewholetruth

04-04-2008, 07:13 AM

"I find your persistence in sticking to this one 'issue' intriguing."

Interesting how often pagans throw THAT comment out when a Christian has an opinion about anything related to homosexuality. *polite smile*

"By that I mean, coming back and back again to 'gays'. Why?"

Ummm, no one is "coming back again and again to gays". We're talking about having lost our Freedom of Speech and, well, because the term "hate speech" is almost exclusively misapplied in America in regards to trying to get someone to stop criticizing homosexuality.

"As feminists who supported a woman's right to her own body and what went into or came out of it..."

Really? Has it really been about "what went into it"? I don't recall ever hearing that before. What, exactly, are you referring to?

As far as I can see the issue has always been about what comes OUT of a woman's body, but not about just ANYTHING coming out of a woman's body. No, the issue with feminists has always been about UNBORN CHILDREN being killed and removed from a woman's body. I'm curious as to what you were referring when you said the issue is about "what went into" a woman's body. I can't recall any such issue.

""If you don't like abortions, don't have one"."

Well, you've brought up a sensitive issue here now. ATTENTION READER: IF YOU'RE SENSITIVE TO THE PROLIFE VIEW ON ABORTIONS YOU MIGHT WISH TO SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.

That's like saying "If you don't like murders, don't commit one" or "If you don't like molestations, don't commit one". There are victims of abortions, just as there are victims of murders and molestations. To point to the procedure and ignore the human life being ended seems like an inaccurate way of looking at it. Do you look at assaults that way, too? If you dont' like assaults, don't commit one? If you don't like kidnapping children, don't kidnap one? I find it quite telling that you put it that way, ignoring the child/human life/unborn baby being killed by the abortion and pretending it's only about the procedure. The truth is that if y'all really thought killing babies before birth was acceptable, you would talk about it OPENLY and wouldn't use semantics or pretend to ignore the baby in the womb. You all point to the woman's body and the procedure - you'll go that far - but you don't want to talk about the children that have been conceived that are in that womb. In fact, y'all want to pretend they aren't human children. The problem with that flawed argument is that every human life has a beginning and an end. There is no human life in a woman's woman until fertilization has taken place, which is called "reproduction". After fertilization, a new human being has been reproduced (conceived) and resides in Mom's womb, their body growing and developing like every human being does until they die a premature natural death, an unnatural death (aborted), or they're born. The end of every human life is when they die, and their body is no longer alive. But I know, I know - "it's not a baby". That's so weak, IMO. Really, it's a pathetic argument designed to rationalize killing a baby you don't want. I've always admired the women who had the courage to contend that "I should be able to kill my baby before birth if I want to", because at least there isn't any Denial in that argument.

As Queers might say, if "you're not queer, what should you care?"

I don't care if someone wants to live in homosexual relationships. I DO care when my Freedom of Speech is taken away because "queers" don't want their feelings hurt.

"The real freedoms are the ones we make within our own spiritual human lives."

Interesting perspective. I doubt that black slaves believed that. I doubt that children forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia believe that either, or men and women locked up in prison. It's very easy to be casual about that which we take for granted. Real freedoms are the one's we've fought to secure from those who would enslave us, IMO. Real freedom isn't born in our imaginations or beliefs. Sure, there is SOME freedom "within our own spiritual lives", but the statement is wildly offensive, all things considered, and is totally inaccurate IMO.

"Why need you intrude - just be who you are."

Why need I intrude where? I'm the one who has been intruded upon, my Freedom of Speech taken away so you won't get your feelings hurt by something someone might SAY.

"By the way, there is no 'gay agenda' - a mighty fiction cooked up by
Falwell, et al."

I disagree. There is a CONCERTED EFFORT being made to introduce grade school children to homosexuality. Hollywood has been an advocate in promoting the homosexual lifestyle. There are GAY LOBBYISTS in every state, hounding their Senators/Assemblypersons in the same way the LOGGING COMPANIES and the environmentalists and the Native Americans and everyone else with an agenda lobby their Senators/Assemblypersons. What a blatant bold-faced lie, to say there is no Gay Agenda. Of course there is. Gays call it "fighting for our rights" while I call it the Gay Agenda. Gays have the same rights everyone else has. They are free to marry. They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is that Gay Agenda wants to change the definition of the word "marriage" to include same sex unions, and the word marriage already has a definition. That is like changing the definition of the word "two" to mean "three". I know many Gays who agree with me that they (collectively) would be yards ahead if they didn't want to force us all to change the definition of the word, and simply sought to establish civil unions. See, the problem isn't that they're gay. The problem is that words mean something. "Marriage" already has a meaning, and you and I - all of us - already know what it means.

"There is however a human agenda that would ideally apply
to all. It appears as The Golden Rule."

Love your neighbor as your self. Amen.

"Or as one of the famous Rabbis of old said, when asked to explain the meaning of the Old Testament while standing on one foot, replied (paraphrased) 'What is hateful to you, do not do to others' "The rest is commentary"."

I believe that is the Wiccan creed. Perhaps you could research a bit and tell me which "famous Rabbi of old" said that. :wink:

"Go in peace and stick around. Maybe the ride won't be so bumpy after all."

Thank you, but I'm afraid if y'all keep bringing up issues like abortions, it's probably going to get extremely bumpy. LOL I know some folks have a hard time not emotionalizing discussions of that nature. It's funny: They get all emotional about discussing abortions, but insist there is nothing emotional about the act of having an abortion. We all know that's not true, but that's the approach folks take when they try to ignore the baby being killed in the womb, and simply refer to it as a procedure.

Gosh, why do I feel like I just took the bait? :wink:

I certainly hope no one's feelings were hurt by my sharing my thoughts and opinions here. My comments are about me, remember, not about you (referring to anyone reading).

Don

Well, Don, you really do hang in there! Congratulations for posting and listening and thinking. Being a Lesbian Grandmother myself, with one 'straight' daughter, one 'Bi' daughter and two 'unknowns' granddaughters, I find your persistence in sticking to this one 'issue' intriguing. By that I mean, coming back and back again to 'gays'. Why?
This is, if I may say, as someone who has been through almost every wringer around, either as the target (and am still, would you believe?) or as a supporter (civil rights in the 60's, for blacks) (Democracy in the 50's, during McCarthy's long drunken dribble about "Reds"), a rather pointedly narrow way to talk about speaking freely.
As feminists who supported a woman's right to her own body and what went into or came out of it (My! What a concept!) used to say, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one". As Queers might say, if you're not queer, what should you care? The real freedoms are the ones we make within our own spiritual human lives. Why need you intrude - just be who you are.
Of course, every one of us has many levels, many fault lines, many virtues, and possibly (?) many pasts, or at least many old memories in our
genetic makeup - somehow. Our habits of thought can, and if we are to
be truly free, must, be questioned.
Wasn't it Chief Justice Holmes who said that the limits of freedom of speech (no, not of thought) can be illustrated by someone crying "fire"
when there isn't one, in a crowded theatre?
As someone who studies Judaism and some Kabbalah, I am more and
more impressed that "the word" is so incredibly powerful that we need to
bring our whole consciousness, and more and more of it as it grows, to
bear on our use of words. Treat them as sacred, from the Source, whatever you do or don't believe about that. Our mouths are midway between our forebrains and our hearts. Blessedly, the two working in
tandem will indeed 'raise all boats'. Respect begins at home, as Aretha
basically was saying.
We can all learn from diversity, as nature teaches us in her own way; we
need it in fact. "Gays" have always been around, and maybe it will surprise
many to know that we / they have been held in great respect in so-called
primitive cultures as the people who travel between the worlds. Shamans,
etc. Someone supply us with the Native American word (don't know what
tribe[s]) for mixed gender people - sorry, at this hour can't remember it.
Before the advent of 'media' as it stands today (the bigger it is, the more
money it seems to have to make being divisive), yes, there was prejudice,
many kinds. Now it is Big Business. Let's not feed it any more trash.
By the way, there is no 'gay agenda' - a mighty fiction cooked up by
Falwell, et al. There is however a human agenda that would ideally apply
to all. It appears as The Golden Rule. Or as one of the famous Rabbis of
old said, when asked to explain the meaning of the Old Testament while
standing on one foot, replied (paraphrased) 'What is hateful to you, do not
do to others' "The rest is commentary".
Go in peace and stick around. Maybe the ride won't be so bumpy after all.
niboroo
,

Valley Oak

04-04-2008, 02:03 PM

People like Don and Bruce Ward (whose Wacco handle is 'handy') make a great cabal for the sake of laughter here on this bulletin board. We should thank them for the comic relief they provide us.

Edward

Well, Don, you really do hang in there! Congratulations for posting and listening and thinking. Being a Lesbian Grandmother myself, with one 'straight' daughter, one 'Bi' daughter and two 'unknowns' granddaughters, I find your persistence in sticking to this one 'issue' intriguing. By that I mean, coming back and back again to 'gays'. Why?
This is, if I may say, as someone who has been through almost every wringer around, either as the target (and am still, would you believe?) or as a supporter (civil rights in the 60's, for blacks) (Democracy in the 50's, during McCarthy's long drunken dribble about "Reds"), a rather pointedly narrow way to talk about speaking freely.
As feminists who supported a woman's right to her own body and what went into or came out of it (My! What a concept!) used to say, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one". As Queers might say, if you're not queer, what should you care? The real freedoms are the ones we make within our own spiritual human lives. Why need you intrude - just be who you are.
Of course, every one of us has many levels, many fault lines, many virtues, and possibly (?) many pasts, or at least many old memories in our
genetic makeup - somehow. Our habits of thought can, and if we are to
be truly free, must, be questioned.
Wasn't it Chief Justice Holmes who said that the limits of freedom of speech (no, not of thought) can be illustrated by someone crying "fire"
when there isn't one, in a crowded theatre?
As someone who studies Judaism and some Kabbalah, I am more and
more impressed that "the word" is so incredibly powerful that we need to
bring our whole consciousness, and more and more of it as it grows, to
bear on our use of words. Treat them as sacred, from the Source, whatever you do or don't believe about that. Our mouths are midway between our forebrains and our hearts. Blessedly, the two working in
tandem will indeed 'raise all boats'. Respect begins at home, as Aretha
basically was saying.
We can all learn from diversity, as nature teaches us in her own way; we
need it in fact. "Gays" have always been around, and maybe it will surprise
many to know that we / they have been held in great respect in so-called
primitive cultures as the people who travel between the worlds. Shamans,
etc. Someone supply us with the Native American word (don't know what
tribe[s]) for mixed gender people - sorry, at this hour can't remember it.
Before the advent of 'media' as it stands today (the bigger it is, the more
money it seems to have to make being divisive), yes, there was prejudice,
many kinds. Now it is Big Business. Let's not feed it any more trash.
By the way, there is no 'gay agenda' - a mighty fiction cooked up by
Falwell, et al. There is however a human agenda that would ideally apply
to all. It appears as The Golden Rule. Or as one of the famous Rabbis of
old said, when asked to explain the meaning of the Old Testament while
standing on one foot, replied (paraphrased) 'What is hateful to you, do not
do to others' "The rest is commentary".
Go in peace and stick around. Maybe the ride won't be so bumpy after all.
niboroo
,

Lenny

04-04-2008, 02:11 PM

Dear Lenny— You write:
>>'I don't know of any legislation that forbids you to say that gays are foul, despicable beings damned to hell' does not mean that there are those that have [not?] attempted to do the opposite.

Your Thoughtful Response:
"I'm sure there are. Lotsa people of all stripes want to outlaw anything they disapprove of. For example, committing a homosexual act was, as I recall, a felony in many states, still may be in some. But I was asking a real question: what actual laws currently impact his right to say this? In response, he cited two Canadian court decisions. Is that it?"

No, that is not "it". However in school districts across California, and other states, there is administrative language that mandates teachers speak about sexual activities, and that includes homosex, and then speak of it in positive terms. Such issues are not in the purview of school or government, yet they are mandated! Now if a teacher steps outside of the agenda given to them, there are bad consequences for that person's employment. For example, teach what population has the highest number, per capita, of STD's, responsibility as the vector for STDs due to promiscuity & more negative behavioral problems, like suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence, and the list goes on and gets uglier, and the issue becomes "sensitive". The amicus brief in our Supreme Court for over throwing the Texas sodomy law from the medical community outlines a true horror story. Teach those facts anywhere in California and see how "free" speech is. No, there is no law as of yet, so you are absolutely right where HE can say as he sees fit. It is just that a growing influential public sector either is moot regarding the FULL issues and homosexuality, shouted down when one speaks up as many ACT UP folks were doing for a while, challenged by silly, minor issues, such as this one, or, and worst yet, simply ignored.

>>Much the same problem in teaching about our Civil War. The primary reason, according to what is taught to our young people, was slavery.

Your Thoughtful Response: It's commonly agreed that the national controversy over slavery created an atmosphere that led to secession when Lincoln was elected, so slavery is central to it as a cause. It's also commonly agreed -- whether it's taught in the schools I don't know -- that Lincoln's motive was keeping the Union together, and while he opposed slavery he wouldn't have gone to war over it. And there were huge economic factors. That should all be taught. When I was in school, we were taught that the Spanish-American War was fought to free the Spanish colonies and that we liberated the Phillipines and set up a democracy and everybody was happy. There are countless things that aren't taught in schools because of hyper-conservative pressures on school boards. I agree that it's a huge problem with our schools, trying to respond to pressures from ALL sides."

I don't know "it is commonly agreed that" means. Is that the "new speak" I have read about?, as you posit what is "commonly agreed" and then launch into a general matter about Succession. Out of five issues, slavery was plastered on in the end as an after thought. Also, Lincoln wanted the Negro to return to Africa like most all folks in the North. His Emancipation Proclamation done without Congress (much like our current POTUS) was simply a military ploy to get Southern Negroes to disrupt matters behind "enemy" lines.

>>You cite some poor boy beaten to death due to perception. We cannot begin or end at this point, as there are assaults/murders BY gays as well.

Your Thoughtful Respose: "Of course there are. But I can't recollect seeing any news article about a gang of gays going out at night to find straights to beat up."

Do you think if it were so, you would read about it around here? I think not. We didn't read about the first gay high school in NY that did just that, about a year or two ago. We didn't read about the homosexual fellows, some where in the South, that were torturing to death young men. Around here we won't read about other atrocities that go in that community. Simply ignore the issue, don't put it in the news, and it won't exist, eh? No law says one can't.
Show me where? Huh? Show me where? (silly position)

>>Similar to "racism" in that a specific community may DEFINE a word that places them in a position of authority, thus superiority, and that definition excludes themselves, then as George Orwell identified "new speak", there will be problems.

You Thoughtful Response: "Yes, I have problems with that as well. Proves to me that people who are systematically oppressed and humiliated don't necessarily emerge full of charity and reason.

Prove to you WHAT?
I don't expect what you imply, but what is demanded is that leaders come forward with reasonable expectations from the community at large. What has been produced?

You Go On: "As you suggest, it's likely that the vast majority of the world's population disapproves of homosexuality, or hates it, or condemns it, or punishes it. In light of that, do you find it strange that gays would do whatever they could to pressure legal and social change? That it's not just an issue of their "hurt feelings" vs. your inalienable rights? Personally, I'd prefer that my daughter live a happy, productive, loving life rather than hide her orientation for fear of legal & economic consequences.

Well, we agree that we would like folks to live with no thought of their legal and economic consequences, but that does not stop consequences from occurring, and which means responsibility needs to be shown. I see very little in the gay community. Like all of us, gay folks look for love, and like so many, especially the young, love and sex are confused. In the meantime deadly bugs from hepatitis to syphilis, and worse are transmitted like mad!
Furthermore, you sound old enough to recall clearly the 1970s, when homosexuality was removed from psychological association's list of disorders and two years later removed from the DSM for psychiatrists, that did not make "gay" issues go away. It simply allowed the social infrastructure and agenda to be altered, which included the courts, law makers, and policy creators to move into what is now "current". The sad, truly sad, fact is that those "personality disorder" elements still manifest in so many, but are not treated, as it is considered part of "the life" of being "gay"! Most of the gay men I've spoke with have had their first "sexual" encounter as a too young person and with another male, often older. And the hell grows further with some making the false claim that it is "genetically" determined. That truly IS the road to hell and will eventually cause gay persecution. And when that time comes I will be standing right there fighting with you and going down in flames for that as well. What we are, truly genetically, is horny. All the rest is social. And the world does not like homosex, so your "As you suggest, it's likely that the vast majority of the world's population disapproves of homosexuality" is, I believe, called gilding the lily. It is not a suggestion, but a fact, not only common through out the world, but subtle in so many vicious ways. At best the gay community can change some of the economic issues that prevent the free flow of life, but the rest? Time will tell.

MsTerry

04-04-2008, 02:44 PM

Gays have the same rights everyone else has. They are free to marry. They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is that Gay Agenda wants to change the definition of the word "marriage" to include same sex unions, and the word marriage already has a definition. That is like changing the definition of the word "two" to mean "three". I know many Gays who agree with me that they (collectively) would be yards ahead if they didn't want to force us all to change the definition of the word, and simply sought to establish civil unions. See, the problem isn't that they're gay. The problem is that words mean something. "Marriage" already has a meaning, and you and I - all of us - already know what it means.
Don, I must say you verbalized something that has been in the back of my mind.
Maybe we should call gays, straight and vice versa to make life more complacent.

theindependenteye

04-05-2008, 10:20 PM

Dear Lenny--

You write:
"...in school districts across California, and other states, there is administrative language that mandates teachers speak about sexual activities, and that includes homosex, and then speak of it in positive terms. ... Now if a teacher steps outside of the agenda given to them, there are bad consequences for that person's employment."

Yes, if a teacher steps outside mandated guidelines in any way, the consequences are significant. That would include not teaching abstinence-only sex education when required by a board to do so, not to mention anything that veers from the curriculum in any way. We have traditionally kept teachers "in line" and not "expressing personal opinions," heretofore bans on whatever the right wing dislikes, from evolution to socialism.

>>I don't know "it is commonly agreed that" means. Is that the "new speak" I have read about? ... Out of five issues, slavery was plastered on in the end as an after thought. Also, Lincoln wanted the Negro to return to Africa like most all folks in the North. His Emancipation Proclamation ...was simply a military ploy to get Southern Negroes to disrupt matters behind "enemy" lines.

"Commonly agreed" in everything I've read was the fact of a huge emancipation movement prior to Lincoln's election, and that a major impetus toward secession was the South's fear that his election portended the victory of emancipation. Is that not true? Certainly, Lincoln didn't launch the war to emancipate slaves. The proclamation was also a tactic to forestall Great Britain from intervening on the side of the South.

>>We didn't read about the first gay high school in NY that did just that [beat up straights], about a year or two ago.

If we didn't read about it, where did you read about it? My point was that this has been extremely common over my own 66 years of existence among gangs of kids beating up gays, and the opposite is an anomaly.

>>We didn't read about the homosexual fellows, some where in the South, that were torturing to death young men.

But you did, apparently. Of course there are psychos and sociopaths among the gay population. And when I read about this stuff, if the person's black or gay, the media usually mention it. You must read more liberal publications than I do.

>>Furthermore, you sound old enough to recall clearly the 1970s, when homosexuality was removed from psychological association's list of disorders and two years later removed from the DSM for psychiatrists, that did not make "gay" issues go away. It simply allowed the social infrastructure and agenda to be altered, which included the courts, law makers, and policy creators to move into what is now "current".

Yes, and I'm old enough to remember the days before the gay liberation movement, and I welcome these changes.

>>The sad, truly sad, fact is that those "personality disorder" elements still manifest in so many, but are not treated, as it is considered part of "the life" of being "gay"! ... What we are, truly genetically, is horny.

And I've known many heterosexuals with personality-disorder elements who are not treated. In any case, I'd rather not see friends I regard as healthy, functional and beautiful people branded as sick, fired from their jobs, beaten up, and various other indignities they don't deserve.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Lenny

04-06-2008, 04:29 PM

Dear Lenny--
>>Furthermore, you sound old enough to recall clearly the 1970s, when homosexuality was removed from psychological association's list of disorders and two years later removed from the DSM for psychiatrists, that did not make "gay" issues go away. It simply allowed the social infrastructure and agenda to be altered, which included the courts, law makers, and policy creators to move into what is now "current".

Yes, and I'm old enough to remember the days before the gay liberation movement, and I welcome these changes.

>>The sad, truly sad, fact is that those "personality disorder" elements still manifest in so many, but are not treated, as it is considered part of "the life" of being "gay"! ... What we are, truly genetically, is horny.

And I've known many heterosexuals with personality-disorder elements who are not treated. In any case, I'd rather not see friends I regard as healthy, functional and beautiful people branded as sick, fired from their jobs, beaten up, and various other indignities they don't deserve.
Well, we finally agree on something. I too do not wish to see folks losing their jobs, beaten, nor suffer other indignities for something they do not deserve.
Thanks for the exchange.

thewholetruth

04-07-2008, 07:10 AM

Well, it's quite the special day then, because I agree with the two of you on this.

Don

Well, we finally agree on something. I too do not wish to see folks losing their jobs, beaten, nor suffer other indignities for something they do not deserve.
Thanks for the exchange.

Reportanddeport

04-07-2008, 06:13 PM

IMO, the only thing a Conservative can accomplish here is to OCCASIONALLY make a post stating his or her beliefs or some news. With the constant threats of expulsion and constantly being labeled as a "hater", you have to weigh your humanitarian desire to inform others with your desire to keep that privilege. The rules are made up as you make posts and enemies, and that's how you get a general sense of what will be allowed. To me, misusing the "H" word and the "R' word are just as offensive as the "N" word. But of course other people here feel differently.

Your "Introduction" states: WaccoBB.net is a bulletin board for the progressive community of Sonoma County.

Does that mean that as a Conservative I'm not welcome to post here, Larry?

thewholetruth

04-07-2008, 06:37 PM

Thanks for your input. What exactly are "the "H" word and the "R" word"? Hate and Republican?:tiphat:

Don

IMO, the only thing a Conservative can accomplish here is to OCCASIONALLY make a post stating his or her beliefs or some news. With the constant threats of expulsion and constantly being labeled as a "hater", you have to weigh your humanitarian desire to inform others with your desire to keep that privilege. The rules are made up as you make posts and enemies, and that's how you get a general sense of what will be allowed. To me, misusing the "H" word and the "R' word are just as offensive as the "N" word. But of course other people here feel differently.

Valley Oak

04-07-2008, 10:35 PM

Actually, there is a secret committee here in Wacco land that judges others. Each new member has an unofficial six-month probation period, after which time the new member's posts are scrutinized. In order to not get kicked off of the the Wacco list, you must demonstrate that you agree with and support ALL of the following, without exception:

Gay, anal sex (using K-Y jelly)
Same sex marriage, with full honors and no differences whatsoever in the legal language.
Completely free, legalized use of marijuana, subsidized by the government and financed with higher taxes.
Free abortion for everyone without propaganda, waiting periods, without exceptions, without informing the parents, also subsidized by government.
Universal health care.
Wild, gay party extravaganzas every month in the middle of downtown Santa Rosa (showing proof of full participation).
Withdrawing all troops from Iraq immediately.
Elimination of the death penalty.
Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Re-admittance of Pluto as a planet.
The creation of a new state called, 'Jefferson,' consisting of Northern California and Southern Oregon.
Expulsion of Paris Hilton from the human race.
Affirmative action.
A minimum 50% tax rate for all incomes.
Declare the 1st of May a paid, worker's holiday.
Broadcast permanent reruns of 'Six Feet Under' and 'Star Trek, the Next Generation.'
Integrating minorities into all white neighborhoods across the country to make up at least 1/3 of the residential population in them.
Make Freddie Mercury's birthday a national holiday.
Replace the electoral college with the popular vote.
Replace 'first-past-the-post' with proportional representation.
Tax the rich until there are no more rich to tax.And that's just for starters because the list of requirements for permanent membership in Wacco is over one thousand. This way, you can't make lucky guesses, even with the list I have provided you with, which you can consider a generous freebie.

Good luck on your trial experience in the Wacco Kingdom.

Edward

IMO, the only thing a Conservative can accomplish here is to OCCASIONALLY make a post stating his or her beliefs or some news. With the constant threats of expulsion and constantly being labeled as a "hater", you have to weigh your humanitarian desire to inform others with your desire to keep that privilege. The rules are made up as you make posts and enemies, and that's how you get a general sense of what will be allowed. To me, misusing the "H" word and the "R' word are just as offensive as the "N" word. But of course other people here feel differently.

Reportanddeport

04-08-2008, 06:30 AM

Hate and Racist. Both are overused words, shot at weak people who are more willing to collapse for a lie than to fight for the truth.

Thanks for your input. What exactly are "the "H" word and the "R" word"? Hate and Republican?:tiphat:

Don

thewholetruth

04-08-2008, 06:47 AM

Thanks for your clarification. I suspect you meant to say "shot BY weak people who are more willing to collapse for a lie than to fight for the truth". Yes?

Don

Hate and Racist. Both are overused words, shot at weak people who are more willing to collapse for a lie than to fight for the truth.

Braggi

04-08-2008, 09:17 AM

Gods, Edward! You are so so so wrong!!! See below:

... you must demonstrate that you agree with and support ALL of the following, without exception:
Gay, anal sex (using K-Y jelly)

That is so stupid! Probe is way better than K-Y.

... you must demonstrate that you agree with and support ALL of the following, without exception:
Expulsion of Paris Hilton from the human race.

I love Paris Hilton. I want to adopt her and have her come and live with me and my wife. I want to protect her from the harsh realities of the world. She can be a nanny for my daughter.

...

Good luck on your trial experience in the Wacco Kingdom.

Edward

Shouldn't that be: Wacco Queendom?

Try to get it right, Edward. There is only One Truth and One Way!

Hugs and kisses,

-Jeff

Valley Oak

04-08-2008, 10:48 PM

'Probe,' huh? Can I find it at my local pharmacy? It's a better lube that will heighten the 'sliding in' experience? Cool! Thanks.

I should give Paris a second chance. It would be nice to have her form part of your intentional community. Although I've heard that 5 adults is the best number for such an avant-garde venture. And besides, she is HOT!

What an oversight! Of course! Queendom is the ONLY way to describe this list. Why didn't I think of that, of all people? And yes, again, I need to get my dogmatisms down right once and for all. Heck, it should be really easy to remember since there is only ONE WAY and I don't have to confuse and frustrate myself with a zoo of perverted and unholy interpretations of life.

Lots of wet kisses to you too, sweetie!

'SMACK, SMACK, SMACK!'

Edward

Gods, Edward! You are so so so wrong!!! See below:

That is so stupid! Probe is way better than K-Y.

I love Paris Hilton. I want to adopt her and have her come and live with me and my wife. I want to protect her from the harsh realities of the world. She can be a nanny for my daughter.

Shouldn't that be: Wacco Queendom?

Try to get it right, Edward. There is only One Truth and One Way!

Hugs and kisses,

-Jeff