"Sexuality" itself is not going to become more fluid, since it's innate and social changes aren't going to influence it. But people will feel less inhibition about expressing their innate sexuality.
OMG!!! Zachary Quinto is ...
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
"Sexuality" itself is not going to become more fluid, since it's innate and social changes aren't going to influence it. But people will feel less inhibition about expressing their innate sexuality.
Yes, this is what I meant.
I fuck women! I fuck women!!
Well, not much lately....
Sorry, where people are sticking their genitalia is relevant how, again?
Well, not much lately....
Sorry, where people are sticking their genitalia is relevant how, again?
Well, you should. I have heard he's been known to eat breakfast, and even to go shopping for entertainment products like CDs and DVDs. Can you imagine? Next thing you know, being an actor, he might even play some kind of popular character in film or TV and influence young minds?
First they want to eat, then they want to be entertained, then they want to be the entertainer...it's a slippery slope we're perched on. Next thing they'll be buying lumber or playing golf.
Ah yes, people who drum against stuff like this....
...don't really care about the fact that a little girl was needlessly browbeaten into tears for something she might not have even said. They're just pissed that they can't use the N-word in polite society.
Thank goodness. I hate chafing.
Well, that's quite a derailment with respect to the present topic, but if you feel necessary to go down this line, it is considered good manners to at least provide a link. I don't know about the role of school bus drivers in the US, if they are considered school officials (and thus they are trusted with disciplinary powers) or not. If they are not, that's out of line. But if they are (say, they are allowed to intervene if kids are arguing or being disruptive), then it's a different matter. You seem pretty sure that it happened exactly like the "article" reports, probably because it reinforces your idea about poor little Christians persecuted in the US. Because, you know, kids never deny what they said previously when faced with disciplinary sanction. Personally, I like to hear both sides before judging, and before ascribing the whole incident to the culture of "PC" instead of, say, to a pissed-off bus driver.Ah yes, people who drum against stuff like this....
...don't really care about the fact that a little girl was needlessly browbeaten into tears for something she might not have even said. They're just pissed that they can't use the N-word in polite society.
Sounds like a Fox News story to me. 
Well, I don't have a link to the school bus driver story, but here's one about political correctness run amok surrounding the Ft. Hood killings....
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/...al-malik-hasan-motive-fort-hood?_s=PM:OPINION
But I guess anybody who wants to question that is really just pissed that they can't slur Muslims, right?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/...al-malik-hasan-motive-fort-hood?_s=PM:OPINION
But I guess anybody who wants to question that is really just pissed that they can't slur Muslims, right?
Well, since people are still being beaten up for being gay, kids are still bullied at school for being gay, driven to the point of suicide...
For QUITE a few people it seems to be important.
Close your eyes if you want, but, being gay in this society is still pretty rough. Especially in certain parts of this country.
^ And this is meant to prove what? (@ Admiral Shran, not Prof Zoom)
Pretty much, yes. There were two kinds of reaction to the Ft. Hood shooting. One side took a reasonable approach, and focused on the shooter being a soldier with a history of aggressive and disturbed behaviour. The other side focused on the Arab-sounding name, and started to froth at the mouth about being a "Muslim terror attack". This time the bigots got lucky (well, kinda: it was still the action of a single loony, estranged by his fellow soldiers and fuelled by a notorious terrorist, not the coordinated effort of the "Muslims"). Heh, it happens sometimes. A broken clock might tell you something about being right two times a day.Well, I don't have a link to the school bus driver story, but here's one about political correctness run amok surrounding the Ft. Hood killings....
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/...al-malik-hasan-motive-fort-hood?_s=PM:OPINION
But I guess anybody who wants to question that is really just pissed that they can't slur Muslims, right?
That because sometimes brown people are guilty, it's ok to be prejudiced about them.
Last edited:
Pretty much, yes. There were two kinds of reaction to the Ft. Hood shooting. One side took a reasonable approach, and focused on the shooter being a soldier with a history of aggressive and disturbed behaviour. The other side focused on the Arab-sounding name, and started to froth at the mouth about being a "Muslim terror attack". This time the bigots got lucky (well, kinda: it was still the action of a single loony, estranged by his fellow soldiers and fuelled by a notorious terrorist, not the coordinated effort of the "Muslims"). Heh, it happens sometimes. A broken clock might tell you something about being right two times a day.Well, I don't have a link to the school bus driver story, but here's one about political correctness run amok surrounding the Ft. Hood killings....
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/...al-malik-hasan-motive-fort-hood?_s=PM:OPINION
But I guess anybody who wants to question that is really just pissed that they can't slur Muslims, right?
That because sometimes brown people are guilty, it's ok to be prejudiced about them.
Let's continue continue our off road excursion with the bus driver: a video piece here provides a bit of context:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d9okgFPc2w[/yt]
Quieting the bus down to prevent fights is one thing, but bringing the kids back onto the bus after drop off for an alone chat is out of line. If she thought the kids were that bad then she should have told appropriate folks at the school to take up the issue if it warranted further action.
It's meant to prove that not everyone who dislikes political correctness just wants to slur minorities - that sometimes they do, in fact, have legitimate arguments.
It's also meant to show that when you spotlight things like the facts that....
1.) the Pentagon knew of Hasan’s emails to radical imams
2.) knew of his increasingly bizarre policy recommendations
3.) knew that many coworkers and colleagues referred to him as a “ticking time bomb"
4.) knew that he was seriously conflicted about being a Muslim in the US military
5.) and yet ignored all these warning signs simply because they didn't want to be seen as "profiling" someone
....someone will ignore all of that and just accuse you of hating all Muslims.
Can you substantiate this claim?
Despite receiving complaints about him, and other evidence, Hasan's superior officers took no action because they valued the rare diversity of having a Muslim psychiatrist.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/22/ft_hood_suspect_was_army_dilemma/
The text immediately beneath the headline says:
Do you have anything more substantive?
which suggests that more than one interpretation of the facts is reasonable. The complete text of the article beyond the first paragraph is not at that link, and requires purchasing a subscription to view.
Do you have anything more substantive?
