Respond to Reputation Comments

[Tgo01]

Let us consider two statements.

"I hate you because you're gay."
"Denying a gay person the same rights that you enjoy is immature."

How is the latter an attack when the former is not? How does one say or imply that everyone isn't allowed their opinion, but the other does not?

I hate you because you're gay AND I want to deny you the same rights I enjoy.

[Warriorbird]

I hate you because you're gay AND I want to deny you the same rights I enjoy.

Okay Roy Cohn.

[Drisco]

I don't care what heterosexually challenged individuals do, but I'm definitely not afraid of them.

With the amount of gaping assholes you've seen, I would never think you were afraid of homosexuals.

[Methais]

With the amount of gaping assholes you've seen, I would never think you were afraid of homosexuals.

Your avatar is a goatse reference isn't it?

[Wrathbringer]

Your avatar is a goatse reference isn't it?

Mine is.

[Latrinsorm]

In your version, neither is any better than the other. That being said, your statements are rather loosely taken from the actual situation.

"I don't believe in gay marriage" does NOT mean "I hate you because you're gay." it means that, for whatever personal reason, he doesn't agree with it. There IS a distinction there, much as people seem intent on muddying that line. In that case, bullying someone for their opinion on gay marriage because you (generally speaking here) think gay marriage is good, is an attack. We're not talking about the legitimacy of the complaint, but the way it was handled.

I've reread Tenlaar's comment several times, and I don't see how it's either bullying or an attack. I can see very clearly how a Confederate flag is an explicit attack: it is indisputably saying that black people should not have the same rights as white people. Tenlaar can disagree with what you say without necessarily attacking your right to say it, surely?

[tyrant-201]

I've reread Tenlaar's comment several times, and I don't see how it's either bullying or an attack. I can see very clearly how a Confederate flag is an explicit attack: it is indisputably saying that black people should not have the same rights as white people. Tenlaar can disagree with what you say without necessarily attacking your right to say it, surely?

Is it indisputable? Is that the singular meaning that the Confederate flag has? I mean, if you're going to think about things in clear black and white terms (no pun intended) go for it. You should have some data to back that up though.

[Fallen]

Is it indisputable? Is that the singular meaning that the Confederate flag has? I mean, if you're going to think about things in clear black and white terms (no pun intended) go for it. You should have some data to back that up though.

I just keep these around because I think they're pretty.

[tyrant-201]

I just keep these around because I think they're pretty.

Must mean the cross is a symbol of hatred and racial prejudice too.

[Latrinsorm]

Is it indisputable? Is that the singular meaning that the Confederate flag has? I mean, if you're going to think about things in clear black and white terms (no pun intended) go for it. You should have some data to back that up though.

In order: yes, no. A symbol can necessarily represent multiple meanings.

Must mean the cross is a symbol of hatred and racial prejudice too.

In the same way that burning the US flag does not represent what flying the US flag does, burning a cross does not represent what a cross does.