Your friends got beat up. From post #1 you've tried to shift the responsibility of that attack onto the Cigarbid community and the nation. These are not the perps you're looking for.

HockeyDad wrote:

I heard the gay bashers were smoking cigars and wearing smiley visors..... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

That's exactly the type of sacking up I'd expect from a frenchman.

(see, now I'll willingly and proudly accept a percentage of responsibility next time a frenchy is beaten on the street)

victor809 wrote:

This is where you're closest. There is "should" and there's reality. In theory, everyone is allowed to say anything they want. The reality is that one influential person's statements can cause another person to be violent, or if you prefer, cause an already violent person to choose a target. Similarly, a large number of statements from non-influential people can do the same. This is not without example.

Does this mean you have to stop giving your opinion? No. If you personally do wish that you saw no outward sign of gay people (or cowboys fans) in this world (that's what a number of people on this forum have said) and you're willing to accept a small percentage of responsibility for violence specifically targeting gay people (or cowboys fans), then I see no problem. The sad reality is that there are idiots in this world.

victor809 wrote:

Wait a minute...were you doing that Obi-Wan Kenobi Jedi mindtrick hand wave thing when you said that?8-[

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Using this logic, one could surmise that speaking fondly of gay people could actually turn somebody into a gay.

tailgater wrote:

Using this logic, one could surmise that speaking fondly of gay people could actually turn somebody into a gay.

tailgater wrote:

Are you citing Victor as an example?

HockeyDad wrote:

... 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."

.

victor809 wrote:

... 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:

Well, he does play rugby just for the scrums.

tailgater wrote:

... 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:

Yeah, but that's much less funny and probably wouldn't stimulate further discussion.

tailgater wrote: