|
|
Post by Chromeo on Jan 20, 2013 8:53:03 GMT -5
marking posts does work!
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Jan 21, 2013 4:25:23 GMT -5
You said on
1/20/2013 12:49:53 AM
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
<i>Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."</i>
www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html
<i>The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12)... Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.
The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years...Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).
The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships "is a very serious public health problem."</i>
"And yet, the earth does move."
We can talk about these stats openly, or we can keep living in the bubble where thoughtcrimes aren't allowed and facts barred because a few intolerants are "offended" by the truth.
If a mod disagrees, I'd much rather have that debate on the board instead of here. A lot more fair, and less one-sided.
A Mod/Admin replied on
1/20/2013 1:47:08 AM
Ah yes, one of the most known anti-gay trolls on the politics board makes another blatantly inflammatory anti-gay post. Nothing to see here. Moving on.
You said on
1/21/2013 4:18:18 AM
"God doesn't exist."
This offends some people. Would you mod it?
And that's just an opinion. In my case I have evidence backing me...
"The earth is round."
This offends some flat-earthers. Would you mod it?
"Red is red. Red is not blue."
If someone was offended, what would you do with this one?
The answer's pretty clear to me. But I suppose it's more difficult for some of us, so I'm just sitting here thinking over what kind of twisted reasoning goes on back there that justifies a punishment for making a statement similar to the ones above.
How many politicians and other notable figures have to point these stats out before it's acceptable to say on this site? How many more studies do I have to show you?
I have a better idea. Let's allow a debate and stop modding political views simply based on which ones you don't like.
Someone asked a question. I gave an answer in line with what the article stated. I noted that there is nothing offensive about my doing this (to the average person), no more than if I said red is red.
Notice that it's ok for the same words to be quoted in the original post. Hm. Notice that it's always ok when people quote me. Hm. When it comes to these kinds of things, it's the thought that counts. I'm TaiIs82 the "troll." I think wrong. I get modded because of the name next to the message, doesn't matter to them that I'm right.
I suppose my options are:
-Acknowledge higher rates of abuse and imply that it's a bad thing. This is the path I took, and I can't help that some people think I should be censored for it.
-Acknowledge higher rates of abuse and imply it's a good thing. I did not take this path for obvious reasons.
-Deny reality. THIS would be what trolling looks like, false info as fact.
So I've done all I can, really. I take my position and back it, while all my opponents can do is resort exclusively to name-calling. I can't change someone's mind when they refuse to listen. Am I to lay down and accept this? I don't have to, and I won't. I can keep trying until someone listens. I believe that there are people with brains on the moderation staff, who are capable of putting them to good use.
Cheerfully yours,
TaiIs82
|
|
|
|
Post by Chromeo on Jan 21, 2013 5:28:38 GMT -5
Your post might have been semi-legitimate if you'd been less ambiguous and worded it better, as is you deserved the 10kl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 5:45:23 GMT -5
Surprising absolutely no one, ManxMan couples are more violent than ManxLady couples.
I wonder, what was doubled that accounts for the violence? :p
|
|
|
|
Post by Chromeo on Jan 21, 2013 5:47:55 GMT -5
As we all know, gay men are renowned for their violent tendencies...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 5:50:56 GMT -5
Can it, or I'll knock you all down!
*flexes typing fingers*
(that was a joke earlier if it wasn't obvious)
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Jan 23, 2013 2:42:50 GMT -5
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Mar 3, 2013 4:15:34 GMT -5
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Mar 4, 2013 20:32:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kode54 on Mar 4, 2013 21:15:27 GMT -5
Sounds good for China. If they keep doing it, maybe they'll drop below one billion people. And maybe selectively breeding only males will increase the immigration of wives from neighboring countries. |
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Mar 23, 2013 17:41:52 GMT -5
michellemalkin.com/2013/03/21/gov-cuomo-gun-law/
Gov. Cuomo: Our gun law permitted something that doesn’t exist, so we’re asking you to pretend it does anyway
In January Gov. Andrew Cuomo managed to pass one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, but now he’s making it somewhat less restrictive. While law, which goes into effect on April 15, would have banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, the governor announced on Wednesday that he’s working with legislators to make purchasing 10-round magazines legal in New York. “There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo explained. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”
That one paragraph demonstrates why Cuomo should now be the last person to continue recommending “practical options,” but of course he didn’t see it that way. So what’s the fix? “New York gun owners, please pretend your ten bullet magazine only holds seven bullets”:
Cuomo downplayed the revision, saying it merely addresses a few “ambiguities” and “grammatical errors.” The law passed in January includes an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and in competitions, but buying the magazines is banned. The new language will allow 10-round magazines to continue to be sold in New York, but it will be illegal to load more than seven rounds into those magazines.
Somewhere a lightbulb just went off over Michael Bloomberg’s head to make his proposal “less restrictive”: You can have your 24 ounce cup — you just can’t put more than 16 ounces of soda in it.
And a hypothetical shooter would follow this restriction...why? Here we have a good example of 1) government interfering in things they clearly do not understand, and 2) government passing something - anything - to placate the noisy voice of a temporary fad and make it look like they're doing something.
Reminds me of this classic insight into the liberal mind:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbB4kFtVZU&t=1m33s
Safer guns! Safer bullets!Warned offensive
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Mar 24, 2013 0:23:17 GMT -5
Summarized for visual learners  |
|
|
|
Post by Chromeo on Mar 24, 2013 7:25:42 GMT -5
I don't usually side with moderators but for you I'll make an exception
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Mar 26, 2013 5:48:14 GMT -5
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,373
|
Post by Tails82 on Apr 18, 2013 13:52:40 GMT -5
I see we're playing this game again
>claim pro-life groups (sidewalk counseling, crisis pregnancy centers etc.) don't care about people
>lib solution is to kill the kids they supposedly "care" about, claim everyone who lives and then goes on welfare are deadbeats who don't deserve to be alive and should've been aborted
I didn't know we had such compassionate fortune tellers around here! Add that to the list of things liberals think government can/should do: end world hunger within one generation (dead people don't have to eat after all - and the elitists believe they can tell us which lives are "inferior" or "worthless")
warned offensive
Offensive to oppose murder and call out people who want others dead so they don't have to pay welfare, all right then
|
|
Spinning round and round like the deadly hands of a radium clock. 
