Picture - Poltically sickening, maybe not for capitalist war

[Saint-Just]

http://www.subvertise.org/img_med/374.jpg

Notice particularly the qoute from George W. Bush.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 5:11 pm on Feb. 8, 2003)

[Anonymous]

If I had a chance to right something on one of those bombs you can bet it would be far more profane.

[Saint-Just]

Are you prejudice against sexuality like the sodlier who wrote on the bomb Dark Capitalist?

[Tkinter1]

"Are you prejudice against sexuality like the sodlier who wrote on the bomb Dark Capitalist?"
Obviously the man writing that comment on that bomb wasn't reffering to their sexuality.... and you know that.....

[Blackshirt]

Fag has more than one meaning. This is america.

Gay doesnt just mean homosexual anymore, fag doesnt either. its just more of a general insult.

[Blibblob]

im too young to buy a fag. can you get me one?

[Hampton]

C'mon you know that if you someone "gay" or a "fag" that those words are be using to insult that person, giving the connotation that it's bad to be gay, which it's not.

[Xvall]

I have yet to meet a person who uses words like 'gay' or 'fag' in the negative sense that is actually tolerant towards homosexuals. Excellent post by the way, Mao.

[Saint-Just]

'Obviously the man writing that comment on that bomb wasn't reffering to their sexuality'
[etc.] all the comments like that....

Ok, what does 'Fag' mean, I assume it is not derogatory or sexual at all? maybe a term of endearment?

[SonofRage]

Even though the term "Fag" has become more of a general insult in the U.S., it implies that the person you are calling is a homosexual and that there is something inherently wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Oh please, get off your PC high horse for one fucking minute. Most people in Western society that have some form of common decency consider homosexuality to be at least abnormal. As such being called a 'fag', a 'homo', or a 'queer' is demeaning and insulting.

Now because these words are derogatory references to things which most people consider wrong, it would make sense that they would naturally work themselves into what is considered a common insult. Now if that happens to hurt someone's feelings (God forbid!), I really don't give a fuck.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 5:17 am on Feb. 9, 2003)

[thursday night]

Being gay isn't abnormal.

[Hampton]

Seems pretty normal to me.

[synthesis]

Most people in Western society that have some form of common decency...

Ah, the same common decency that allows them to rape 10-year-old girls in Vietnam, and drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fund nun-murderers in Nicaragua, and...

Provide some fucking evidence that gayness is unnatural, you moron.

[Mazdak]

Quote: from thursday night on 12:28 am on Feb. 9, 2003
Being gay isn't abnormal.



I disagree. It isnt normal, however discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong nonetheless.

[Rastafari]

Gay people have been discriminated against for far too long, basing judgement on Sexual Orientation is petty, and American to the core. The army promotes this hatred, though, as does the media. Any one who can blatantly follow orders and shoot at innocent civilians should be allowed in the US army, no questions asked. People want to hate those that are different, and the country encourages it

[canikickit]

Of course those words are derogatory. They should not be used.

Unless you're a pissed off member who wants to get banned. Because that way you can prove that you are being oppressed. Think about it, it makes perfect sense.

"so, you were banned from this site, you say?"

"Yes."

"let's look at your last few posts...ah sexually discriminating language? You say you were banned for nothing and it demonstrates 'commie censorship'? What obvious bullshit, this proves nothing, you asked to be banned."

"okay, I realise my mistake, I will never darken your doors again"

Happiness reigns supreme.


But that's all completely hypothetical. Obviously.

[englandsgay]

elitists everywhere........................................ ...............
no you dont crap gold.

love should be about more then sex

[Anonymous]

This has nothing to do with love. You obviously can love someone without being sexually attracted to them. This is however about wether homosexuality should be considered normal in modern society.

[englandsgay]

and my question is why do people feel its their oblligation to make me believe what their version of "normal" is. god you know its possible to tolerate these ppl without embracing them you know.

We will not tolerate intolerance.
what a load of bull

[synthesis]

This is however about wether homosexuality should be considered normal in modern society.

And that's my point!

How can you possibly argue against acceptance of homosexuality... while attempting to justify a war on Indochina in which over 6,000,000 innocent people were killed, little girls were raped, and civilians were tortured to death?

How can you possibly argue against acceptance of homosexuality... while supporting an apartheid state in the Middle East which destroys the farms of totally innocent Palestinians, shoots months-old babies while refusing to call it murder, and runs its own mini-Gestapo?

How can you possibly argue against acceptance of homosexuality... while practically masturbating to U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq which have killed over one million Iraqi infants and continue to kill hundreds more every day, and support a war which will kill even more?

How can you possibly argue against acceptance of homosexuality... while blindly supporting a country which infringes upon the rights of Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Cambodians, Mexicans, Haitians, Cubans, Dominicans, Nicaraguans, Russians, French, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Panamans, Grenadans, Iranians, Libyans, Lebanese, Iraqis, Sudanese, Somalians, Bosnians, Yugoslavians, Afghanis, Indonesians, East Timorese, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Hondurans, Guyanans, Colombians, Ecuadorans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Chileans, Argentinians, Paraguayans, Uruguayans, Brazilians, Chinese, Congolians, Zaireans, Angolese, Italians, Palestinians, Turks, Greeks, Cypriots, and Pakistanis time and time again?

You support a country, Dark Capitalist, that has killed over 12,000,000 innocent people worldwide, and you call homosexuality abnormal?

Fucking hypocrite.

[englandsgay]

ok that post doesnt make any sense. what does american foriegn policy or whatever you were referring to have anything to do with homosexuality?

is it normal to love ones country? what country is out there that also isn't screwed up? everyones got their skeletons. in iran and your a woman who gets raped they stone you to death for extrameritial sex. i mean cm on.
russia killed its own ppl, so did china, malasia, all of europe was imperialist. theres plenty of mud to throw around.

[synthesis]

what does american foriegn policy or whatever you were referring to have anything to do with homosexuality?

The two are not intricately involved. I never said that.

What I was questioning, in fact, was Dark Capitalist's ideology - that homosexuality should be considered abnormal, while America's apocalyptic foreign policy should somehow be considered fully acceptable.

That's bullshit to me.

[Rastafari]

love should be about more then sex
I think that if you look, you will find that our homosexuals have a much lower divorce rate, rate of adultery, and rate of rape as well. They understand this more than anyone.

America kills its own. Having navy soldiers swim in the bimini atolls shortly after and while they compleated nuclear tests to see what would fucking happen is really great, isn't it. The effects of LSD, originally synthesized to cause the user to mimic the effects of Schizophrenia for observation, were tested on soldiers in the 50's. Syphillis was given quite often on black soldiers for tests. The indians and every other minority that deserves to be here have been bullied and intimidated into crawling into ghettos and tiny niches that the government has carved out for them.

[RedRevolutionary87]

the comment in general stirs strong feelings of rage inside me, the fact that that bmb isnt headed to any1 that had any control over what happend to the wtc , but instead to the already horribly mistreated people of aghanistan, so frankly writing hijack this on a bomb that will destroy a hospital is sickening. i wonder what they wrote on the bomb that killed the 4 canadian soilders while training, frankly the US speed induced armed forces sicken me with their crap, they are all abnormal sick people, and are trained to be sick by their officers, i have come to the point where i would die a happy man if north american society were to be whipped out by a masive neutron bomb, we need a fresh start.

[Saint-Just]

Wonderful sentiments RedRevolutionary87. The U.S. is in the camp of western liberal democracies. However, it often demonstartes a departure from the moderate European stance.

'Now because these words are derogatory references to things which most people consider wrong, it would make sense that they would naturally work themselves into what is considered a common insult.'

So all prejudice derogatory terms are acceptable because they are just common insult? Terms such as these are not used for 'things which most people consider wrong'- are you saying most people consider homosexuality to be 'wrong'? They are outmoded terms in modern society and the fact that they are used in the most serious circumstances by the American military seems to me to show they have little tolerance or social perspective.

Calling someone a 'fag' is a derogatory term to homosexuals. When used as an insult, even if not at a homosexual, it shows that the person using it thinks that it is proper to unsult people by labelling them as homosexual. It is not acceptable since being homosexual is not something that should be basis for insult.

'I disagree. It isnt normal, however discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong nonetheless.'

It depends on what is defined as normal. It is not normal to some extent since the majority of people are not homosexual.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:08 pm on Feb. 9, 2003)

[Mazdak]

Well, in this situation I would define normal as natural, and it is natural for one to feel attracted to the opposite sex. It is meant to be this way because two males or two females cannot reproduce. Therefore, it cannot be natural. In nature, everything serves a purpose.

Homosexuals are therefore unnatural because sexual intercourse serves no purpose for them(pleasure should never be deemed a worthy purpose).

However, as i said, i do not think this should be the basis for discrimination.

[synthesis]

In nature, everything serves a purpose.

Umm, there's documented cases of animals having homosexual intercourse as well. Would you venture to label that 'unnatural' as well?

Homosexuals are therefore unnatural because sexual intercourse serves no purpose for them

Who said homosexual intercourse was a neccessity in a homosexual relationship? It may be a by-product, but it's by no means a requirement.

Also... is having sex with a condom unacceptable too, because it is simply sex for pleasure rather than for birth? It's really the same question.

[RedCeltic]

As someone who actually spent two years on an AirCraft carrier.. (Theodore Roosevelt CVN71) and have actually seen people write on bombs.... I can assure you that the comment in the photo is not even close to being the most vulgar thing written on a bomb.

"Fag"... come on people... they wrote "Take this Rag Head "Die Sand N___Ger" "What do you want on your Tombstone Dune Coon" etc... last time we attacked Iraq...

As well as "10,000 pounds of wupass... "

"Death From Above"

"A Gift From Uncle Sam"

It gives you real faith in humanity I tell you.. :(

[Tkinter1]

"Ok, what does 'Fag' mean, I assume it is not derogatory or sexual at all? maybe a term of endearment?"

You need to realise that some words have more than one meaning. Yes it can have a derogatory meaning when talking about a homosexual, but it can also mean fuel for a fire. Now obviously he wasn't calling them a fuel for the fire, but he was using it in a term that was supposed to offened them. He was most likley not implying anything deragotory about their sexuality.

There is no logical reason in nature, that a man should have sex with, or be attracted to another man. It is an error, but a natural happening. People can't control there sexuality, and we shouldn't judge them for it.


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:34 am on Feb. 10, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Yes TK1... . in the context it was used in writing it on a bomb I'm sure he ment it as "oh what lovely people you all are, I'd love to invite you all to try and hijack this bomb. "...

[Tkinter1]

?

When did I say thats what he meant? Why did you put quotes around that?

I said he meant it in a deragatory fashion, but was most likely not implying anything about their sexuality.

You guys are reading WAY to much in to what he wrote....

[RedCeltic]

I was joking with you TK1.. sorry... if you read my post before yours I wa actually making the point that I have seen much worse. .

[Tkinter1]

Oh. My bad.

[Mazdak]

"Umm, there's documented cases of animals having homosexual intercourse as well. Would you venture to label that 'unnatural' as well? "

Yes i would label that as unnatural as well.

[synthesis]

Yes i would label that as unnatural as well.

How so? Where's your proof? Why do you say that? You can't say something an animal does without human interference is 'unnatural' without giving some justification for it.

[Mazdak]

I gave a justification. I stated that it served no purpose. like an appendix. Pleasure doesnt count.

[synthesis]

Would you also outlaw heterosexual intercourse without intent to procreate (use of contraceptives, oral sex, anal sex) as well, under the same guidelines?

[RedCeltic]

Skyscrapers are also unatural.

So are airplanes.

And if Humans didn't mess with nature... Dogs, Cows, and Mules would not be.

Food for thought.. :biggrin:

[Tkinter1]

Dyer. Nature did not intend for people to be homosexual. We CAN'T help the fact that we do have homosexuals in society. They are not a threat to the society(unless their numbers grow to large). Skyscrappers cares buses, all of them are creations by man, and are thus natural to man. Alzheimers was not intened by nature. Epilepsy was not intented by nature. Schizophrenia was not intented by nature. Homosexuality was not intended by nature. Nature makes mistakes, believe it or not.


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:16 pm on Feb. 11, 2003)

[Hampton]

How could they ever become a threat to society? What will they outnumber the heterosexuals on the plantet and life will stop being created and then the human race will die off?

[Mazdak]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 4:00 am on Feb. 11, 2003
Would you also outlaw heterosexual intercourse without intent to procreate (use of contraceptives, oral sex, anal sex) as well, under the same guidelines?


WHo said anything is outlawed. I NEVER once stated homosexuality should be banned.

[Lefty]

They didn't make the choice to like boys instead of girls, as I understand it, something beyond their control made them, or let them if you will, and therefore they shouldn't be discriminated against. But seriously, I don't think improper use of a word is the bigger issue here. The fact that a guy is fucking showing enough disregard for human life of any kind disgusts me.

[Goldfinger]

In norway, "pakkis", an insulting name to Pakistanis, is being used on "native" norwegians like myself. Does that mean it's not racist? A few months ago, Proud American called me a "nigger." Does this mean that it isn't racist or discriminating, just because I'm not Black?