• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Vanguard controversy

foravalon said:
well, they're not really that controversial, one poster took an awkward exception to the smallest aspect of one of the books, and a much larger percentage of the posters took exception that person's condemnation of said tiny aspect. It's really much ado about nothing for what originally amounts to a one line remark from a single trek fan from an ideological niche contrary to our norm. But hey, ridiculous as some of us may see it, IDIC right?

What is the idealogical niche contrary to the norm that you are speaking of, exactly?
 
David Mack said:
^^

( picks up empty can )

( reads label; "worms" )

( wonders to self, Geez, who opened that? )

Dave, I was asking because considering homosexuality abnormal is a normal ideological position. I was thinking the previous poster may have been speaking of someone else's position. That's all.
 
^ TheLonelySquire raises a good point. There are many homophobic groups and organizations out there: the Third Reich, the Moral Majority, the Ku Klux Klan, the Taliban, Aryan Nations, Arab League governments, misceallaneous skinheads and neo-Nazis, the Vatican, the Republican party, rap 'artists', Al-Qaeda, etc. Since not all of these may share a similar agenda beyond their genocidal hatred of gays, we should probably narrow the field down to which sect of hatemongerers we're talking about to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Trent Roman said:
^ TheLonelySquire raises a good point. There are many homophobic groups and organizations out there: the Third Reich, the Moral Majority, the Ku Klux Klan, the Taliban, Aryan Nations, Arab League governments, misceallaneous skinheads and neo-Nazis, the Vatican, the Republican party, rap 'artists', Al-Qaeda, etc. Since not all of these may share a similar agenda beyond their genocidal hatred of gays, we should probably narrow the field down to which sect of hatemongerers we're talking about to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

You confuse hate groups with people who do not hate, yet speak the truth. The only one spewing venom here is you, son. Please stop.
 
TheLonelySquire said:
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
Just in case you're mildly curious about such things...

The biblical quote in your signature appears to be taken from the NKJV. It might interest you to know that the two Greek words rendered as "homosexuals" and "sodomites" in that translation are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" -- and that prior to the 20th century, those words were never translated in that manner.

The word "malakoi" literally means "soft", and often is used to mean "effeminate". The word "arsenokoitai" literally means "one who sleeps with male prostitutes". Taken together, the phrase means "underage boy prostitutes and those who sleep with them." You should also have a footnote beside the word "homosexual" which indicates that a more literal translation is "catamite", which is quite specifically a boy prostitute.

Therefore, I just wanted you to be aware that you and I are on the same page here. Like the apostle Paul, I think that sleeping with underage boys is pretty messed up. But to quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
TheLonelySquire said:
You confuse hate groups with people who do not hate, yet speak the truth.

No, I'm quite sure these groups both hate and lie. It would be extremely naive, and evincing a delusion deeper than the Marianas Trench, for anybody to find truth in their twisted and perverse propaganda.

The only one spewing venom here is you, son.

Unless you can back that up with some genetic evidence, I would advise you to drop the paternalistic attitude. Such transparent attempts to shore up your feeble ideology with the false imprimatur of authority only reinforces the utter lack of substance behind your argument.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
And remember, folks, you can click on a user's name to the left of his or her post and below their profile you'll find a few useful links, one of which is "Ignore this user." It's a tool I use to keep from getting into unfortunate contretemps with people I know always irritate the heck out of me. Doesn't always keep me from spouting off, but it helps.

Vanguard: damn good Star Trek for grups. And that's no foolie.
 
captcalhoun said:
can't this guy be banned for spewing such homophobic hatred?

i'm not gay, but find him deeply offensive.

If you are speaking of me please reference the homophobic hatred that is being spewed?

I simply stated that I returned the Vanguard books after reading parts I deemed as being distasteful. The battle ensued when supposedly tolerant posters disagreed with my positions on the issues.

I assume you're speaking of the homosexual parts I disagreed with and not the adulterous parts, since that's what has others up in arms here. But correct me if I am mistaken.

Two things. First, I am not in any way afraid of homosexuals (trust me). I also have advocated equal financial protections for them under the law. I just disagree with their lifestyle.

Finally, if you don't like the subject matter of a thread, ignore it, just as I returned the books. Or ignore me. I have no problem with it bud.

Have a good one.
 
captcalhoun said:
can't this guy be banned for spewing such homophobic hatred?

i'm not gay, but find him deeply offensive.

Oh, but I do like how you had to place the disclaimer, "I'm not gay but....!"

Not that there's anything wrong with that!
 
i don't think there's anything wrong with being gay. i'm just saying you're offensive to me when you're talking crap like you are and i'm not one of the people you're slating

to put it another way, if you said what you've been saying about black folks, i'd still find it offensive when i'm as white as a pinta milk.

i find everything you've said offensive, from the signature to your lamentable lack of intelligence that you can't read a book which features characters engaging in acts you don't aprove of.

said as a covetous, fornicating, idolatrous one-time thief.
 
*AHEM*

What did I just say a few posts ago? One more blatant derailment and I'll give warnings out to the whole lot of you. :vulcan:
 
Emh said:
What did I just say a few posts ago? One more blatant derailment and I'll give warnings out to the whole lot of you. :vulcan:
How is it blatant derailment from "Vanguard controversy" when they're discussing the controversial elements of Vanguard? :wtf:
 
Since Borders is having an educator's discount this weekend, I'm going to pick up a copy of the first Vanguard book (along with Resistance and a shitload of the James Bond rereleases) and see what all the fuss is over. When I get around to reading it, I'll post my thoughts on the whole situation. I'll try to read it with an open mind, but the taint from this thread may prevent that. ;)
 
Maestro said:
Since Borders is having an educator's discount this weekend, I'm going to pick up a copy of the first Vanguard book (along with Resistance and a shitload of the James Bond rereleases) and see what all the fuss is over. When I get around to reading it, I'll post my thoughts on the whole situation. I'll try to read it with an open mind, but the taint from this thread may prevent that. ;)

I'd say that if you aren't offended by such things then you'll really enjoy the book. Go for it.
 
I am curious to see why you were offended, and if your offense is justified, or if you are misunderstanding. I also want to see if the books are enjoyable.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top