Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Well, no, Frotzer was a blatant troll trying to set you off. Nobody who really has opinions like that has access to the Internet.

Also, I edited it while you were posting to make it "one of the most" abrasive people here. There have been worse than you. Nintendoid, for one.

With Lahi, it seems like you two just follow each other around and try to set each other off. Seamusz...well, I'm really not quite sure. But you have to admit that with age comes experience, right?

...anyway, toastpaint.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I can really sympathise with Nintendoid. I've talked with him on AIM and he's a really nice guy off forum.

What you fail to realise is that the kind of views expressed here and how they're expressed are extremely frustrating to someone like me. You're not even trying to take that into account.

And those were Frotzers ACTUAL VIEWS, believe it or not, and he stated them numerous times before I even joined. He was probably very young. Hopefully getting into trouble for rampid hatred will teach him something.

_________________
CLOCK

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. I understand your position. I can see how those who support the issues you bring up can feel justified to do so. I disagree. I can do so intelligently, with out name calling and with out getting in a huff, and letting my emotions get the better of me. You have accused me of being ageist... and since I have never been accused of being this before, I really don't know how to react. I have said that homosexuality is a choice, but at the same time acknowledged that same sex attraction may well be an inborn trait. I have taken down my sig that is so offensive to you, I hope that it suits you better.

I have never read a post where you expressed any sort of acceptance of an opinion that you disagree with. Have you any examples of you being tolerant or respective to those with whome you disagree with?

_________________

If Yule had it's roots from Christianity, not the other way around, would you constantly refer to Christmas and the Christian religion? You seem to not only want to pound it into our brains, but ensure that the first think about at the word "Christmas" is pagans.


Ironic, I'm majorly socially conservative, but moderate or even liberal in everything else. But I'm not prejudiced. My thoughts sort of line up with Bernard Goldberg's (author, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37), quite a good read), in that if people of different races, ages, sexes, and orientations would simply act like an American should, in this "melting pot" of ours, there really would be no racism (I know that you're not American, Rose, this is just an example). If some black people didn't refer to themselves as "niggas" and immediately look for exemptions to the rules because of their race, every single person on the planet would respect them more (note: NOT SAYING EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON IS LIKE THIS). Same goes for all the white kids with the baggy pants and hidden cigarettes.


Not really... he was making a point through humor (liberals consider themselves open-minded, yet oddly, many don't listen to a single word that conservatives say), while you were making a point through... um... seriousness.


YOU CREATED A THREAD ABOUT HOW ALL BIGOTS WERE CONSERVATIVES WITH LITTLE OR NO PROOF.

If that's not bashing, I don't know what it is. At least DeathlyPallor offered some sort of reason.


I don't "hate" you, persay, but I do dislike you. It seems to me that first impressions matter indefinitely to you: if someone agrees with you the first time you meet them (What's Her Face, Sui, DeathlyPallor) they can almost do no wrong in your eyes. If not (me, StrongRad, seamusz), then they are automatically labeled as bigots and jerks. Sometimes you have to learn to give in a little, Rose.


...what? Please, elaborate.

_________________

Toast frickin' paint!

I think Allen's lawyers are right; "he presents absolutely no danger at this point, as incapacitated as he is. There's no legitimate state purpose served by executing him. It would be gratuitous punishment."

Then again, he was sentenced to death; I'm not an expert on the American legal system, but is it possible to change a sentence?

_________________

Yeah, they could commute it to life without parole or, even pardon him completely. Given the nature of the crimes he was last accused of (and sentenced to death for), I think life without parole (and all outside contact monitored) would be appropriate in this case.

I still support the death penalty in cases where the crime justifies it and the person is a threat while alive.

This case, to me, satisfies my first criteria, but I seriously doubt that he's much of a threat to anyone, unless he can contact more hitmen.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

That's simply not true at all. The "act like an American should" is scarily conformist. People should be allowed to act how they like and feel and discrimination against that is just as bad as discrimination against race and sexuality.

Plus, transsexuals are living proof of that. I'm one of the very few people that speak out. Transsexuals mostly keep to themselves because they have to remain anonymous. Yet they have not become more accepted by any means - the opposite has been true; because we're kept so quiet we've fallen far behind homosexuals and the like. While transsexuals are an extra level of "Icky", they are still more relatable too in terms of gender role, and many more men have secret cross dressing fetishes than gay leanings.



No, I said the majority were, as in more than 50%. Which is true. And most of the major things you hear about in the news that sounds discriminative or bigotted has ben done by people of conservative leaning. Just read articles on discrimination. While you may claim the media is biased, you still have to provide something which effectively counters that assertion. Nobody did.



I don't agree with WHF that often at all, I just think she presents her views a lot more intelligently than most people here. I don't know where she gets her apparent anti-european streak from but she still seems like a nice person at heart and someone who genuinely has respect for minorities instead of a scratchable surface. I can't really say that about certain people. I've tried my best to come off as nice in some of the social forums after coming off as less than so elsewhere, but it's lot easier to convince people you're bad than to convince them you're good, which is unfair.

Seamusz is labelled a bigot by me and a few others because he expresses views in a manner far more forceful than I do - while I may be angry, most of what I say is still opinion. He specifically says his opinions are fact in many areas, and has many opinions which are harmful to minority rights. That's why he gets labelled as a bigot. I don't believe I've labelled you as a bigot, but I have gotten frustrated with many of StrongRad's instances of defending bigots.
Regardless, Seamusz is a bigot because of his constant slew of ageist statements, either way.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this.



I don't believe that at all. The only time that someone can be a real threat is if they were somehow super-human, which doesn't happen often. Most of the time, you lock a murderer up for life, they stay there. If they're escaping you need to focus on improving security, not killing a potentially innocent or repented individual.

No crime inherently "Justifies" the death penalty, just that we decide we should murder people for certain things.

_________________
CLOCK

Um... if no one is a threat, then why are people killed by other people?

I think that qualifies as dangerous to me...

_________________

more forceful that you???

I have never posted any opinion of mine as fact. The only thing that I can think of this refering to is the abstinence issue... even if you don't consider my statement as fact, that is ONE example... You said "many areas" will you give me more examples?

"many opinions that are harmful to minority rights"... or in otherwords, against your opinions. in any case, this is not bigotry.

"constant slew of ageist statements"... give me a break. Can you name for that 2 or three statements that I have made about age? This is rediculous.

_________________

Can you people please take your O/T arguings to the PMs?

Toast paint.

_________________

... not when they're locked up for life, they're not.

_________________
CLOCK

This dude was locked up for life and was still responsible for murders after he was locked up.
So, yes, I believe that someone who is locked up can still a threat, not only to those inside the prison, but also to those outside..

This dude is an exception, at least in the regards of HIM killing someone...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Can't resist. Some wonderful quotes:





(Only ridiculous in context, see contraceptives)





(just in case you forgot you were anti-gay)

(To this day, you still haven't provided anything resembling backing to this opinion)



(The old Of Course Gays Can Marry argument, I don't think there's anything more patronising or arrogant)

Whether or not you're against homosexuals themselves, being anti-gay is still being against a huge part of their being. And since you never once backed your opinions, it can be taken as offense. These are all opinions that lead to worse treatment of homosexuals when they become common place. You used many offensive ways of terming things "doesn't justify" and threw around baseless accusations. While you often claim tolerance you then go against that by posting something which can't be taken in any plesant way.

(You do realise Slippery Slope is one of the most annoying logical fallacies, right? Check the link I gave you earlier. Without historical backing it's irrelevant)

I actually agreed with IJ's comments for once:



Anyway, sorry about all that, I just wanted to show the kind of things Seamus has said in the past because everyone seems to forget so quickly.

_________________
CLOCK

Um, why did you feel the need to bring up something someone has done in the past? It is not benificial to the subject at all.

TOASTPAINT!

_________________
<(* ) THRUSTER DUCK
( << )<~~~ WANTS
O O YOUR SOUL

Rose, grow up and move on. So seamuz has said some things, so have you and you might as well cut the "I can't get my way so I will make myself look like the victim" crap. Alright? Drop it. This is dead. TOASTPAINT

I am a supporter of all life and I think any form unnatural termination is wrong. If he was a still orchestrating thing from behind bars, change his surroundings. Don't kill him, just put him in solitary confinement. There he can sit in a cell for 23 hours with no one to talk to but himself.

_________________

I TOTALLY support what you said for this guy..

I don't agree with it in EVERY case, but, here, yeah. I don't think this guy is gonna kill anyone.

There are some who would argue that solitary confinement is also "cruel and unusual", but, I suppose killing someone for testifying isn't exactly an act that's gonna get you a nobel prize.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

you know, i dont support death penalties at all. i mean, noone has the right to take another persons life, even the life of someone who murdered other people. to take a persons life is like...like..... killing someone. you just shpouldnt, even if the guy who is to be killed killed before.

_________________

I said the same thing about Scott Peterson, but I do think it is ironic that the cell that Scott Peterson is in on Death Row has a view of the bay where he dumped Lacy's body.

Solitary may be cruel and unusual but if you took the life of someone just because the spilled the beans on you, I think it is justified.

_________________

I wasn't aware of Peterson.. That's funny in a twisted sort of way.

I don't think solitary is too cruel, anyway.. There might be cases in which it could be called so, but, if you're ordering hits on people who testified againnst you, then I think it is justified.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The problem is, BTG, that I'm willing to bet that if you really put someone in truely solitary confinement, with NO contact with ANYONE, 24 hours a day, that would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment by someone out there.

And it really is horrible... POWs in Vietnam would risk beatings to communicate with others in the camp rather than sit in solitary confinement day after day.

But we are not talk about true blue POW style solitary confinement we are talking about US Penal System Soilitary confinement. There is a difference. However I do agree with you that true solitary is cruel and unusual. I mean if you put anyone in a situation where they are not allowed to speak at all for an extended period of time., they will lose their marbles.

_________________

I hope that you didn't waste too much time on digging up all that stuff, Rosalie. It was pointless to bring up all these old statements. They are my views, my comments to you and non of them untrue if they are taken in context as my views on social and political matters. The only thing that you posted that is untrue is that I'm anti-gay. I am not out to get people who profess to be gay. I have family who I love dearly who are "gay". I just stand by my principles, those who know me understand that my views are principle based, not predjudice based.

Have you ever noticed that there is not one discussion that you get into that you are not either a victim, or that you being a "transsexual" doesn't come up as an issue? It is almost to the point of spam.

And the only other thing that bothers me about your post is that you should let IJ speak for himself and not for you. The context of his post was between me and him and had to do with how we debated. I debate to exchange ideas and use reason. Not to prove anyone wrong or force my beliefs on anyone. My feelings are that if you have to site someone elses ideas to validate your idea, then your argument has holes that you can't fill (in general).

That being said, it is pretty shallow to have IJ make your argument.

on to the actual subject matter of the topic... It is my opinion it is not very productive to talk about who deserves to have their sentence of death carried out and who doesn't. If CP is wrong, the laws should be changed to protect everyone, not just the popular causes... just my take.

_________________

Your views are not principle based. You have consistantly refused to say why you feel that way in any shape or form.
Whether or not you have family you claim to love who are gay does not change the fact that you have a prejudice. The "Gay Friends" argument is usually rubbish. How do you think they'd fel if I showed them that list of quotes?

_________________
CLOCK

Remember the debate between Rosalie and Didymus? This is turning into almost the exact same thing.

_________________

Would you two kill this crap. Everybody on here is tired of it. Grow up and move on.

36 of the 50 States use CP. There was a time in this country where all executions were suspended. From 1973 to 1976 all practices of Captial Punishment were suspended by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can change the rules for Capital Punishment if it is brought before them.

In my state, New York, Capital Punishment was declared unconstitutional on June 24, 2004. So the courts have the ablilty to change the Capital Punishment Statues

_________________

That is not true, I have never refused to explain my feelings. You are the one who broke off the correspondence in which I was explaining my views, you.

This person knows how I feel. But they are open minded and understand why I feel this way. I think that they would be more sad if I abandoned my principles than if I changed them just because someone I loved felt differently.

How dare you have the gall to tell others how they do and do not feel. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to infringe on others rights to express theirs, regardless of how much you disagree with them. You talk about tolerance and expectance. If someone with your amount of tolerance were to hold the opposite views you do you would hate them. You need to lighten up think of this forum as a place to share your views and make a difference, not shove your opinions and agendas down everyone’s throat.

_________________

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! What did I say? Knock it off.

_________________

Seamunz, just ignore her. Seriously, stop or someone will need to lock this thread. Rosalie, calm down. Take a deep breath and get on topic. Now, as for the actual meaning of the thread, no, it isn't really racist. Maybe it is, but I highly doubt that it is.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

My apologies, I will keep the rest in PM's



True, but CP is such an issue that it could continue to go back and forth in the courts for ever. The only way to stop it is by legislation. If we legislated against CP, the courts could never touch it. It would purely be a socail issue.

Personally I have no problem against CP, unless innocent people are put to death. If we cannot ensure that no one innocent is put to death, then CP needs to end... just my humble opinion.

_________________

The only chance that CP will be abolished is if we have a Constitutional Amendment. In order to have that, you will need a very Liberal Congress get that through. We would need 36 states to ratify it and considering the fact that 36 states us the Death Penalty that would be nearly impossible.

_________________