I doubt it. They don't seem to concerned about posts that make fun of gay people. There's a lot more offensive stuff that hasn't been removed than anything said in this topic.

SammyETN wrote:

Somewhere right now a gay rugby player just got beaten up because of Tailgater's post.

HockeyDad wrote:

And a fairy gets its cleats.

8trackdisco wrote:

I guess I need to turn up the volume on my iPad....

dkeage wrote:

Sammy,

Hang around as long as you like, but this isn't a place for the thin skinned.

8trackdisco wrote:

Not being thin skinned, just making an observation.

SammyETN wrote:

Just so I'm straight (pardon the pun) I wasn't suggesting you are. Simply if you are, this can be a rough place.

What do you think of all this?

8trackdisco wrote:

Just so I'm straight (pardon the pun) I wasn't suggesting you are. Simply if you are, this can be a rough place.

What do you think of all this?

8trackdisco wrote:

But that's close to what I meant when I said the statement itself is too broad. We're talking around a very similar point here. And to say that the statement "Isn't always marginalizing" is accurate. Unfortunately, your meaning when saying something is almost irrelevant (as we have seen many times in the past here). To some extent, a speaker is responsible for the misinterpretation of their words as well. I know, I know, you're going to cry foul here, etc etc. But there is real life examples of this. When you lie through omission, that's a clear example of making a statement which allows you to both say what you mean, but allow the listener to hear something completely different. In those cases, do you really think the speaker bears no responsibility for the miscommunication?

As for whether all the disparaging things on this forum are in fun, I'm going to call bs on that.

victor809 wrote:

And a fairy gets its cleats.

8trackdisco wrote:

I think Victor is a closet *&%# sucker and this is his coming out party.

Ron

Whistlebritches wrote:

If someone takes a statement the wrong way, too bad.

We've become a nation that cares more about "how" someone might interpret your comment then what the intent actually was.

And to get back on topic, I still don't think that type of dialog makes people do bad things. That blames an innocent person for the comments, and it lessens the responsibility of those who commit the act.

tailgater wrote:

If a mom casually hands her daughter to a stranger to watch for 30 minutes while she runs in to the bar, and the stranger turns out to be a pedophile, who is to blame? Is the pedophile's responsibility for raping the kid any lessened by the fact that the mother is responsible for handing her over? Is the pedophile less responsible for his actions than if he'd had to steal the kid off the playground?

victor809 wrote:

Do you really think "responsibility" is a zero sum game? (the correct answer is it isn't) If a mom casually hands her daughter to a stranger to watch for 30 minutes while she runs in to the bar, and the stranger turns out to be a pedophile, who is to blame? Is the pedophile's responsibility for raping the kid any lessened by the fact that the mother is responsible for handing her over? Is the pedophile less responsible for his actions than if he'd had to steal the kid off the playground? (the correct answer is no).

As for whether a person giving a serious opinion which can be interpreted as a marginalization of any group is "innocent", that's a very questionable statement and I'd like to refer you to my earlier comment about lying through omission.

victor809 wrote:

A rather disturbing analogy.

stogiemonger wrote: