... um no? That would be using the absolute opposite of logic.

Let me fix it for you:

"Using this logic, one could surmise that speaking fondly of gay people could actually cause someone to not physically attack a gay."

That would be using logic. And it doesn't seem completely improbable.

victor809 wrote:

.... ahh... so you're just trolling. Well, troll on. :)

victor809 wrote:

Anyone notice that when Drafter and TW post one after another for a series, it looks like two dogs having a conversation?

victor809 wrote:

Drafter, Barney used chicanery, poppiecock, hornswoggled, & humdinger to impress Thelma Lu.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Anyone notice that when Drafter and TW post one after another for a series, it looks like two dogs having a conversation?

victor809 wrote:

LMAO (a couple of biotches)

Welcome back, Mr. Perfect!

bloody spaniard wrote:

.... ahh... so you're just trolling. Well, troll on. :)

victor809 wrote:

The "hide" function is for the weak.

HockeyDad wrote:

introducing humor when the conversation has run its course is considered by most to be a welcome distraction.

If you'd prefer to bring this back to a serious tone, I'd be happy to oblige.

tailgater wrote:

You say that conversations similar to what has taken place on CBid forums should be considered partly to blame for when a bully attacks a homosexual?

You say that by offering an honest and direct opinion, we are sharing in the responsibility?

That's rubbish.

It's just another example of how people don't understand personal responsibility.

tailgater wrote:

If we were advocating for violence with our words, you could place a loose correlation to such results. But standard opinions and statements can not and should not be extrapolated to mean anything more than they are intended.

If I were a food critic and wrote a bad review for Dominoes Pizza, it should not promote a rash of violence against Dominoes. Yet, you claim our words are providing a foundation in much the same fashion.

tailgater wrote:

I don't buy it.

Some people love the gay lifestyle. Some could care less. Some disagree with it, and some hate it enough to do damage.

None of these levels of acceptance need be a direct influence on the other.

tailgater wrote:

^ easy for you to say mr poopypants

teedubbya wrote:

TG, an illogical attack on logic, which was still close enough for some individuals with poor reasoning skills to believe doesn't particularly fit in as humor. But, if you intended it to be, my error.

Funny how you use the phrase "don't understand personal responsibility" when trying to actually shirk personal responsibility.

I'm specifically saying that we all should recognize the personal responsibility each individual has in forming what is seen as "acceptable" and "unacceptable" by people we may not even know.

If I started a forum with a bunch of atheists and started in with comments such as "it's fine if they want to be christian, but I don't want to see it" or "it's wrong for them to be christian, my logic and science says so", then I would have a level of responsibility when a less than intelligent individual reads the entire forum and forms the misguided idea in their head that a large percentage of people would be happier without any christians on this world. Again, this is not a bad or a good thing, but one should be willing to accept the responsibility when it happens.

The prevailing zeitgeist will always have an influence on what individuals along that spectrum think is appropriate to do. People are idiots. If sufficient people vocalize their "disagreement with it, but not sufficient enough to personally do damage" then people who want to do damage will think it will gain them favor with the other group.

victor809 wrote:

8.... since when do two straight guys just get beaten up? I don't think I've ever met a straight guy who has just been beaten up for no reason, with nothing said. This wasn't some stupid drunken argument that turned physical.

So, yeah, there's a chance that the attackers had no idea they were gay, and were attacking them because it's common to attack a 6' 260lb guy standing next to a 6'2 170 guy... but since there wasn't a damn thing said, and since the victims happen to know they are gay, they have to come to the conclusion that they were attacked because they are gay. If the attackers had simply said something like "how dare you wear those shoes!" or "I have to kill you because my cat said to!", then it becomes a funny story to tell over a few drinks, not something that they have to concern themselves with the rest of their lives. Part of the problem is perception.

victor809 wrote:

I know I'm 100+ posts behind, but I'm still missing a key component.

IF they were beat up because they were gay, and not a word was spoken, how did the attackers know the guys were gay? Were they tongue locked? Playing grab-ashe?

How do you know the guys that started it weren't gay?

Too many unknowns here... at least 35 posts in.

8trackdisco wrote:

If you want to make a difference strap on some firepower and go find the perps instead of just raising awareness and trying to shift blame.

HockeyDad wrote: