What did LifeSteezeMedia do to the internet?

Granite_StateAnd you can cling to the ideology that everyone should be accepting of everyone. Unfortunately that's not how people function.

Also, I wouldn't say supporting someone's right to opinion is an archaic value, I've never once touched on MY stance on the subject ( well I did a tiny bit earlier)

dont even bother responding to byron. In like 4 posts he will be ranting about how terrible white people are and how hard his life as a slave was. To make things worse he was a gay slave who was smarter than his slaver. This brought him many lashes

Granite_StateI think my shoe size is higher than your IQ.

You must have a huge shoe, then! And you know what they say about big feet, right? Means you're a huge dick.

I think that's how the saying goes, anyway.

El_Barto.dont even bother responding to byron. In like 4 posts he will be ranting about how terrible white people are and how hard his life as a slave was. To make things worse he was a gay slave who was smarter than his slaver. This brought him many lashes

you make my arguments without me even having to! Thanks bart!

Lord_ByronOh no!

I don't want to accept homophobes in any capacity into society. Fortunatley soceity did this with racism, and it will do it with homophobia too. Look at Sterling, dude is taking it up the ass for freely speaking his mind. I want more of that. I want the gay haters to be lambasted and shamed.

I don't support equality, I support logic. And not a fucking book from 30 authors that's 3000 years old.

See that's where we differ. Sterling made those comments from his own home. The fact that a man's opinion in his own home results in his banning from the league is absurd.

And the Bible is mostly fiction, I certainly don't follow it considering I don't believe in a god.

*CUMMINGS*Just because we aren't naturally accepting of people of all creeds doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to act and think that way.

I agree. But not everyone has that strive nor has a desire to accept people of other creeds for a multitude of reasons. Look at Muslims and Christians. Deep seeded hatred for each other dating back over a thousand years will make it almost impossible for some members of each group to ever accept one another.

Granite_StateI agree. But not everyone has that strive nor has a desire to accept people of other creeds for a multitude of reasons. Look at Muslims and Christians. Deep seeded hatred for each other dating back over a thousand years will make it almost impossible for some members of each group to ever accept one another.

Dismissing the possibility of acceptance due to past history is an easy thing to do, just like giving up preaching tolerance. There will alway be intolerant people, and you can always find a 'reason' to dislike somebody. True hatred, though, is to me an inherently illogical concept assuming the two people the hatred exists between are of sound mind and ascribe to what I would argue is the basic singular moral of humanity: seeking to harm others is never the overarching goal.

Granite_StateSee that's where we differ. Sterling made those comments from his own home. The fact that a man's opinion in his own home results in his banning from the league is absurd.

And the Bible is mostly fiction, I certainly don't follow it considering I don't believe in a god.



I agree. But not everyone has that strive nor has a desire to accept people of other creeds for a multitude of reasons. Look at Muslims and Christians. Deep seeded hatred for each other dating back over a thousand years will make it almost impossible for some members of each group to ever accept one another.

ok youre not as dumb as some other defenders of it. I think i just fundamentally hate people who support injustice and want a world rid of it. I believe the ends justify the means, and that if our society as a whole was better without gay haters, which most of the people in the USA are going to believe as our generation ages, we should get rid of them. Or at least make it the social norm to be totally wrong to hate on being gay in any way. Let them say it, let them reap the results.

But I understand your side. From one perspective i do feel bad for Sterling that he is getting fucked so hard over a private, legal conversation. At the same time i think its worth it to oust him based on that recording.

There's 2 sides to every social issue, I just happen to support the side that uses logic best. Gays have won on that one.

Lord_Byronok youre not as dumb as some other defenders of it. I think i just fundamentally hate people who support injustice and want a world rid of it. I believe the ends justify the means, and that if our society as a whole was better without gay haters, which most of the people in the USA are going to believe as our generation ages, we should get rid of them. Or at least make it the social norm to be totally wrong to hate on being gay in any way. Let them say it, let them reap the results.

But I understand your side. From one perspective i do feel bad for Sterling that he is getting fucked so hard over a private, legal conversation. At the same time i think its worth it to oust him based on that recording.

There's 2 sides to every social issue, I just happen to support the side that uses logic best. Gays have won on that one.

I can dig it. And with that I wash my hands of this thread. Be merry, fellows.

*CUMMINGS*I would argue is the basic singular moral of humanity: seeking to harm others is never the overarching goal.

Why not? If we're animals, once you hit overpopulation you need to get rid of the competition.

Humans brains are built to live in groups. In tribes, to small vilages, just like most other primates. Nature didn't build our brains to live in cities, packed on top of each other. Our natural reaction to that crowding is a greater use of judgment, emotion and hate. We are more speculative and less trusting. And why is that a bad thing if that's the world we've agreed to live in?

I guess even then you're looking to reach a point of equilibrium for the greater good of the species, but that would involve some severe harming of others.

Lord_ByronWhy not? If we're animals, once you hit overpopulation you need to get rid of the competition.

Humans brains are built to live in groups. In tribes, to small vilages, just like most other primates. Nature didn't build our brains to live in cities, packed on top of each other. Our natural reaction to that crowding is a greater use of judgment, emotion and hate. We are more speculative and less trusting. And why is that a bad thing if that's the world we've agreed to live in?

I guess even then you're looking to reach a point of equilibrium for the greater good of the species, but that would involve some severe harming of others.

Self-interest as the primary goal with harm to others as a result isn't at all uncommon. I don't think it's right, but I think that people need to realize that humans naturally do act in self-interest, and respect that other people have different interests that they need to act in. Sure, actions that cause undue harm to others should be neutralized and avoided in a morally just society, but I don't think hate is justified where harm is not the primary intent.

even if it leads to less hateful world?

Lord_Byroneven if it leads to less hateful world?

Yes. Hate leads to suffering. It's part of the path to the Dark Side. Honestly though, hate so rarely has a positive outcome that it's one thing I have trouble respecting.

zzzskizzzSays people can have opinions, gets mad at people's opinions about someone's opinion. Fucking dumbass you're contradicting yourself.

zzzskizzzI posted about slavary in china like six minutes ago what's your point? They do hate gay people that's what they said/implied, I want an entire group of people out of my country because I like them so much............

SPELL SLAVERY WITH AN A ONE MORE TIME