"A now-former Pennsylvania State University (chemical engineering) professor accused of performing sexual acts with his dog (a collie) in a public forest was arrested on Tuesday."
"I do it to blow off steam," Matsoukas said, according to police.
Blow off steam?! Doesn't anyone masturbate anymore?! Leave the collies alone!
Dog is man's best friend, not best piece of ass!
This guy gives chemical engineers a bad name! He gives humans a bad name!
What's with Penn State and the pervs?
sicko - (
New Window )
"Off Steam is the name of my dog"
Hey big fella
lol
(As some might know) I'm a chemical engineer and worked outside Philly area for quite a few yrs. My best friends got their degrees elsewhere (like myself), but I had some friends and co-workers who studied chemical engineering at PSU.
Haven't posted on facebook in years, but it might be good time to check in.
I almost feel bad for PSU alum, after Sandusky and now this. What horrendous stuff to be in the news for.
(As some might know) I'm a chemical engineer and worked outside Philly area for quite a few yrs. My best friends got their degrees elsewhere (like myself), but I had some friends and co-workers who studied chemical engineering at PSU.
Haven't posted on facebook in years, but it might be good time to check in.
If nothing else, at least ask if their pets are ok.
I mean plowing a fucking dog?
Must be an Iggle fan
-Norm Macdonald.
Quote:
who had this guy for a Prof. The article said he was there for 30 yrs.
(As some might know) I'm a chemical engineer and worked outside Philly area for quite a few yrs. My best friends got their degrees elsewhere (like myself), but I had some friends and co-workers who studied chemical engineering at PSU.
Haven't posted on facebook in years, but it might be good time to check in.
If nothing else, at least ask if their pets are ok.
ha ha! good idea!
- BBI
-Norm Macdonald.
I miss that man...
I actually cried.
We had a moment at one of his shows in 2020.
He’s on my Mount Rushmore with Carlin.
- BBI
Ah dammit. I missed your post Trainmaster. lol
I think that's a major, major stretch.
Quote:
within our lifetime - sadly
I think that's a major, major stretch.
PETA may have the clout to stop sex flesh and blood dogs, but who will stand up for Impossible dogs?
I actually cried.
We had a moment at one of his shows in 2020.
He’s on my Mount Rushmore with Carlin.
I had a similar experience. People mean well but I don't know what it is that every one feels the need to be the first to text bad news like that. I miss Norm too and I was a big fan going way back to the mid '90s years before he caught on more with the general public. His WU segments on SNL were goldmines.
Dirty Work is one of my favorite comedys and me and a buddy quote from it all the time.
I'm not as high on Carlin as you though. I liked him up until the end of his life when he seemed to turn into a bitter old curmudgeon who hated almost everything and everyone and wasn't even being funny about it anymore. Like listening to your grandpa rant about politics and the state of the world during Thanksgiving dinner.
Super sad for this nation
How long before people identify as canines as a means to...nevermind.
This story is more than deeply troubling. More so when you think about what this university pretty much got away with not too long ago.
Im not trying to be a hump, but that so many are finding humor in this is surprising.
-Norm Macdonald.
This guy, for sure, doesn’t own a dog house!
The lines one the map are already being drawn as well as pedophelia.
Disturbing but true
1st stage of justification
Link - ( New Window )
wtf?
Super sad for this nation
Both of you are fucking morons.
Quote:
.
Hey big fella
Damnnnn that bitch is fine as a mothafucka
that crossed my mind.
scary times..
No. The only thing to see here is two morons with very thinly veiled, bigoted bullshit that’s been around for ages.
Go fuck yourselves.
But animals? Some of y'all need to get outside your bubble.
What nationality am I
Funny!
Sad sad sad
Sad sad sad
LMFAO. Sure, that’s what you really mean. The bullshit you and your moron buddies her are trying to hide has been spouted for ages as a dog whistle.
Be a fucking man, have some backbone, don’t be a fucking coward and say what you really want to say pal!
So how do animals apply to this definition?
Or against pedophelia?
I would think that would be anti-bigoted!
Maybe check you dictionary.
Maybe your the bigot
But animals? Some of y'all need to get outside your bubble.
I am sure you will deny this SF, but I doubt you would have thought some of the stuff that goes on now would be deemed acceptable by a large contingent of our society.
I am going to stop debating this for fear of breaking the rules.
My main point was that Penn St is still given a pass for the Sandusky thing and now they have this. But people will keep sending their kids to this university run by dirtbags.
Apologies.
So how do animals apply to this definition?
Or against pedophelia?
I would think that would be anti-bigoted!
Maybe check you dictionary.
You continue to prove your ignorance. Please keep going. Bigot.
Not a Mormon but everyone was very pleasant
Sad sad sad.
Quote:
within our lifetime - sadly
I think that's a major, major stretch.
I don't think it's a political statement to state the fact that the UN has recently tried to normalize pedophilia (I'm sure you can find media that deny it, but I've actually read the original source document. I could provide quotes, but I don't want to go any further).
If they can try to normalize that, how much further is it..
I’m a low IQ poster supposedly
But, I’m an Electrical Engineering Manager & College Professor
We obviously posses critical thinking unlike my abusive inarticulate critic
Whose favorite word appears to be, bigot
:)
I don't think Lassie is coming home tonight
Quote:
just thought it was funny, though I feel bad for the collie.
I don't think Lassie is coming home tonight
I hope Lassie finds a nice new home with NORMAL dog loving people.
Question: Let's say that the dog is a male. Does that make this guy gay?
And what about the dog?
Asking for a friend. A friend named Sparky.
Minors and Animals are unquestionably abuse. Hopefully it stays that way.
I can’t even take people seriously anymore. What the fuck happened to some of you. Seriously.
- BBI
Quote:
Hard pass.
- BBI
bahahaha my first thought too.
yeah, but don't they have like 8-10 nipples?
O what the slippery slope caused by (insert grievance here) has wrought!
+1. Totally agree. WTF is wrong with this place!
I try to be a trusting person, do unto others, live the golden rule. I try to approach life with compassion, empathhy and caring, but WTF is wrong with this place?
Can't even have civil conversation about fucking a Collie, without it becoming inflammatory and personal!
So the guy wants to f--- his Collie! Whose business is that?
Maybe he also wants to kill it, drain it's blood and eat it. So what!
You people really disgust me.
I see what you did here, and I laughed!
Quote:
within our lifetime - sadly
How long before people identify as canines as a means to...nevermind.
This story is more than deeply troubling. More so when you think about what this university pretty much got away with not too long ago.
Im not trying to be a hump, but that so many are finding humor in this is surprising.
WTF, lighten up dude. Yeah it sucks but nutty people have been fucking animals since the beginning of time lol. It's ridiculous and absurd but it's not like some new development.
fuck Philly
Reminds me of Chappelle stand up, “Killen’em Softly”.
Bob! Bob!, I’m trying to tell you about fu——-g my wife in the -$$ and you’re asking me all these personal question! Please now…”
Because she's a classy Lassie.
But animals? Some of y'all need to get outside your bubble.
I remember during the debate about gay marriage, people would say, “what’s next? People having sex with animals?” I definitely remember people saying that.
This is nothing like that. This guy is a freak and does not belong in society. And yes, I don’t see “having sex with animals” as being acceptable ever. I’d suggest some people to watch less cable news and get out and enjoy a nice walk.
Quote:
within our lifetime - sadly
How long before people identify as canines as a means to...nevermind.
This story is more than deeply troubling. More so when you think about what this university pretty much got away with not too long ago.
Im not trying to be a hump, but that so many are finding humor in this is surprising.
Thank you! The pure disgustingness of this is astounding. Turns my fucking stomach
You win sir.
Sorry for the large picture.
Super sad for this nation
Sure, it's super sad to make up an insane scenario and then clutch your pearls about it.
Quote:
I absolutely agree
Super sad for this nation
Sure, it's super sad to make up an insane scenario and then clutch your pearls about it.
I don't think I've ever agreed with you on anything, but plus 1000 on this. It's a bummer when people you thought you respected turn about to be loons.
I love dogs (in a normal way) and I hope the collie finds a new happy home with normal dog loving people.
Lastly, I never said or agreed with any comments regarding what consenting adults do with each other in private. Key words: "consenting", "adults" and "private".
Peace
Quote:
I absolutely agree
Super sad for this nation
Sure, it's super sad to make up an insane scenario and then clutch your pearls about it.
Example number 9 gazillion on why it's better to not know what people think about anything except football (and even then ...).
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Sy also never said anything about what consenting adults do with each other in private.
Imagine running into that.
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Sy also never said anything about what consenting adults do with each other in private.
Then why is it he thinks this will be acceptable in our lifetimes?
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because the insinuation is obvious -- we've legitimized gay relationships and this indicates we are on the same track for having sex with animals. And through that insinuation, you are drawing an equivalency.
So odd this turns into what some of you guys turned this into. Did I really see the word bigot throw into here? And loss of respect? Damn....talk about wanting to squeeze the trigger happy out of sheer anger.
This world we live in is so bizarre now. There are (obviously) people that think treating an animal like this is OK. But to bring up other adult to adult relations and put a label on me and what I think about that? It really went there?
You would be very surprised if you took the 11 seconds it takes to ask me a simple question there if you're dying to know what I think about that. But I am pretty sure Eric does not allow that here - so what is even the point? My post was saying there are several people out of their minds that think this is OK to do to an animal (dog lover here btw I hope that is OK) and that idea is sickening to me.
I regret saying it and some of you owe an apology (you won't) for grouping my statement into something so much worse. Shameful quick triggers can get you in a lot of trouble. Hiding behind and calling people from behind a keyboard is so classless.
I'll gladly remove myself from this conversation. Unreal guys, unreal.
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because it's a dog whistle. I saw a ton of news stories last year and politicians were on the record being disgusted by children identifying as cats and using litterboxes in schools. Never happened, never would, but the implication is that it all stems from allowing gay people to exist means that they then will groom our children. But now since being gay no longer sparks outrage we go after trans people and non-binary people because it all threatens the very fragile psyches of easily manipulated people. Language has meaning and the words you choose are important.
Just be like Ted Lasso or Mr Rogers and we'll all be a lot better off.
Quote:
In comment 16134267 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Sy also never said anything about what consenting adults do with each other in private.
Then why is it he thinks this will be acceptable in our lifetimes?
Becuase people chime up being offended of everything by speculating what other people meant by there comment?
Becuase many things are socially acceptable that no one thought possible 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Because no matter what you say or do or believe someone else believes the exact opposite?
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because the insinuation is obvious -- we've legitimized gay relationships and this indicates we are on the same track for having sex with animals. And through that insinuation, you are drawing an equivalency.
You are so out of line dude. So out of line.
Everything you said was wrong but you want to believe that because that is the way our world works now. Fight fight fight.
There was ZERO thought about what you are so sure that was about - unbelievable arrogant statement by you.
I love talking politics for the most part because whether you disagree or not it makes for illuminating conversation into the thoughts and perspectives of others. Can't do that here understandably because it's easy to forget you're talking to another human instead of a faceless avatar.
Quote:
In comment 16134267 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because the insinuation is obvious -- we've legitimized gay relationships and this indicates we are on the same track for having sex with animals. And through that insinuation, you are drawing an equivalency.
You are so out of line dude. So out of line.
Everything you said was wrong but you want to believe that because that is the way our world works now. Fight fight fight.
There was ZERO thought about what you are so sure that was about - unbelievable arrogant statement by you.
+1
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because the insinuation is obvious -- we've legitimized gay relationships and this indicates we are on the same track for having sex with animals. And through that insinuation, you are drawing an equivalency.
Yet he said that is not what he meant at all. He did not insinuate anything remotely like that. It is all in your head.
The “that’s not what I meant” defense is also silly - take responsibility for the impact of the comment and how it was received, not how you meant it. My 9 year old says shit like that. “I didn’t try to, dad!”
I wish you knew what I did for a living and you would easily see how wrong you were. But you won't
Last thing I'll say is a lesson I learned when I made a similar mistake when I was 17:
"ask before you accuse"
it is not hard to do.
Jake. You are wrong. I can't really think of anything else to say.
This is a statement I agree with...fully. This is why I think you are not understanding what I am saying.
I think a bullet point under your statement should be the quick trigger and assumption / immediate grouping people do. To group me based on what I said with a view on social progress is short sighted, lacks intelligence, and to be frank, quite selfish.
could it be that you said some dumb shit?
take it from me, it happens.
better to own it and apologize than to deflect the blame onto the people who pointed out that you fucked up.
This is the problem woth the internet. People can say whatever they want without having to confront the person who you are referring to.
Shameful. Hopefully the mods can this thread.
Dr. D, not your fault. I don't find it funny at all, but I am no one to judge something that doesnt affect me.
could it be that you said some dumb shit?
take it from me, it happens.
better to own it and apologize than to deflect the blame onto the people who pointed out that you fucked up.
If I knew someone would react in a way that I was labeling anything being adults - for sure would have said it different.
The people looking for the internet fight saw what they wanted to see. There are also multiple here that did not see it that way. But yes - let's take the loudest name callers for the smartest. That always seems to work well.
Please show me where I said will be legal soon...
This. Is. The. Problem.
I said accepted because of how many people are doing this to animals now.
…
It's been a problem since Moses.
Has there been some uptick recently?
It's been a problem since Moses.
Has there been some uptick recently?
No, just an uptick in the viral-ness of the news when it happens.
It used to be that Jed could fuck a horse and, at worst, only his local community would hear about it, and he’d hitch a ride out of town and start over. Now the whole world knows about it overnight, and given ease of access to the news, the rubes perceive it as end-times.
Assumption thinking is dangerous. Those who live in this world are often terrible leaders.
Some good posters have taken some unnecessary shots imv. Some taken those shots are not surprising.
I could be wrong, but I think this is bullshit. The historical refrain from the anti-LGBTQ crowd was that "polygamy would be legal soon." I've never heard "beastiality = gay sex" until it was inferred in this thread. Now Sy has made clear that was not his meaning at all. What's left?
I don't get it. I haven't seen any bigotry in this thread. Maybe an overreaction...but it seems the claim is being made with really reaching assumptions that don't seem to mean at all what the assumptions being made are, from my reading.
The original comment made that got some people all twisted up seems to indicate a moral decay of society. Just because that belief may be heartfelt and probably true, it doesn't mean that the holder of that specific belief doesn't believe in equality...that's a major stretch, and that's as far as I'm going with this.
".............. where the men are men, the women are men and the sheep are nervous"
In the case of PSU, I guess the collies would be nervous
Quote:
the connection between “bestiality will be legal soon” and the struggle of the LGTBQ community for equality, then you either don’t know your history, are a bigot yourself, or are just naive.
I could be wrong, but I think this is bullshit. The historical refrain from the anti-LGBTQ crowd was that "polygamy would be legal soon." I've never heard "beastiality = gay sex" until it was inferred in this thread. Now Sy has made clear that was not his meaning at all. What's left?
The animal references have become more frequent and popular recently as a way to take individual identity (typically regarding pronouns and gender fluidity) to the extreme and absurd end of the argument. This often plays out like, "If we let this person who was born with male genitalia identify as a female persona, what's next? Identifying as a cat or a dog?" and that is very much the way that this sort of thing is used to fuel an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. We did see exactly this example play out a few months ago when there was a completely fabricated story making the rounds on several politically-charged media outlets that there was a school allowing students to identify as cats and use litter boxes instead of modern plumbing. That story was fake. The sentiment it encouraged was very real.
And that, I presume, is why so many posters reacted to Sy's post the way that they did. Because humans fucking dogs isn't acceptable and never has been and never will be acceptable. There's no basis in reality that this sort of behavior is becoming more acceptable. But the implication that "it's becoming more acceptable" is usually a dog whistle about other things that are becoming more acceptable, such as fluid gender identity. I'm not saying that was Sy's intent, but it was a misleadingly phrased post if that wasn't what he meant by it.
Bigger issues in priority order:
- Nickelback is on tour
- Prince Harry might lose his podcast
- Connor McGregor beat up the Heat mascot
- Even Flavor Flav is having trouble getting Swiftie tickets
- What will happen to Wheel of Fortune?
Quote:
at the bigotry, or the fact that it’s allowed.
I don't get it. I haven't seen any bigotry in this thread. Maybe an overreaction...but it seems the claim is being made with really reaching assumptions that don't seem to mean at all what the assumptions being made are, from my reading.
The original comment made that got some people all twisted up seems to indicate a moral decay of society. Just because that belief may be heartfelt and probably true, it doesn't mean that the holder of that specific belief doesn't believe in equality...that's a major stretch, and that's as far as I'm going with this.
I am sincerely jealous of your naivety on this.
Quote:
In comment 16134182 RicFlair said:
Quote:
at the bigotry, or the fact that it’s allowed.
I don't get it. I haven't seen any bigotry in this thread. Maybe an overreaction...but it seems the claim is being made with really reaching assumptions that don't seem to mean at all what the assumptions being made are, from my reading.
The original comment made that got some people all twisted up seems to indicate a moral decay of society. Just because that belief may be heartfelt and probably true, it doesn't mean that the holder of that specific belief doesn't believe in equality...that's a major stretch, and that's as far as I'm going with this.
I am sincerely jealous of your naivety on this.
I don't think it's that. I'm not judging someone for something they didn't say.
And whenever someone says "dog whistle," what they really mean is "I'm putting you in this box based on my preconceived notions." I judge people on their words and actions. We all have biases, but calling someone a bigot is such a terrible thing, it should require a high standard of evidence, not based on biased inferences.
Quote:
In comment 16134373 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 16134182 RicFlair said:
Quote:
at the bigotry, or the fact that it’s allowed.
I don't get it. I haven't seen any bigotry in this thread. Maybe an overreaction...but it seems the claim is being made with really reaching assumptions that don't seem to mean at all what the assumptions being made are, from my reading.
The original comment made that got some people all twisted up seems to indicate a moral decay of society. Just because that belief may be heartfelt and probably true, it doesn't mean that the holder of that specific belief doesn't believe in equality...that's a major stretch, and that's as far as I'm going with this.
I am sincerely jealous of your naivety on this.
I don't think it's that. I'm not judging someone for something they didn't say.
And whenever someone says "dog whistle," what they really mean is "I'm putting you in this box based on my preconceived notions." I judge people on their words and actions. We all have biases, but calling someone a bigot is such a terrible thing, it should require a high standard of evidence, not based on biased inferences.
And those who do the dog whistling always deny it.
It’s like “prison is full of innocent men if you ask them”
Are you seriously trying to drive off one of the better contributors to the site because he made a negative comment about people having sex with animals? Really?
Are you seriously trying to drive off one of the better contributors to the site because he made a negative comment about people having sex with animals? Really?
Nah I said I was glad he walked his comment back.
Whenever I hear someone say "dog whistle," I get what that means and what they think about what they think what was said actually means, and normally it's a terrible assumption and accusation based on flimsy evidence.
Maybe the presumption is correct, but what if it isn't? It's a terrible charge to call someone a bigot, and to do so on a maybe, based on incomplete information...that's a horrific thing to do to someone.
It seems to me that a lot of people simply assume that those they disagree with on some issues disagree with them only because of bigotry, hatred, etc. That's definitely not true. People hold different value systems that shape their opinions, and most often, those value systems have nothing to do with hatred and the like.
But here's something we (I hope) can all agree on...pedophilia is abhorrent and dangerous and those that are pedophiles are a danger to children. I think that we all share these beliefs.
But there has been a public movement attempting to normalize and allow children to consent to sex with adults. There are news stories about this. Obviously, this is sick and abhorrent. There is an ODU professor that believes we shouldn't use the word "pedophile," but instead, "minor-attracted persons."
Is this something that society should move the line on at all? I would hope not.
Now consider that the individual that made the so-called "dog-whistle" might've done so entirely because he saw a news article or story about this singular issue...something that has historically been anathema to our societal moral compass. You don't even have to go back to the 90's and someone making this kind of argument, and this professor is not the only one, would lose their reputation, their job, and social standing immediately.
So whatever reason that someone might believe that beastiality would one day become acceptable in our lifetime (a belief I don't share), it absolutely doesn't mean this person doesn't believe in equality on other issues. This is not the same thing.
Whenever I hear someone say "dog whistle," I get what that means and what they think about what they think what was said actually means, and normally it's a terrible assumption and accusation based on flimsy evidence.
Maybe the presumption is correct, but what if it isn't? It's a terrible charge to call someone a bigot, and to do so on a maybe, based on incomplete information...that's a horrific thing to do to someone.
It seems to me that a lot of people simply assume that those they disagree with on some issues disagree with them only because of bigotry, hatred, etc. That's definitely not true. People hold different value systems that shape their opinions, and most often, those value systems have nothing to do with hatred and the like.
But here's something we (I hope) can all agree on...pedophilia is abhorrent and dangerous and those that are pedophiles are a danger to children. I think that we all share these beliefs.
But there has been a public movement attempting to normalize and allow children to consent to sex with adults. There are news stories about this. Obviously, this is sick and abhorrent. There is an ODU professor that believes we shouldn't use the word "pedophile," but instead, "minor-attracted persons."
Is this something that society should move the line on at all? I would hope not.
Now consider that the individual that made the so-called "dog-whistle" might've done so entirely because he saw a news article or story about this singular issue...something that has historically been anathema to our societal moral compass. You don't even have to go back to the 90's and someone making this kind of argument, and this professor is not the only one, would lose their reputation, their job, and social standing immediately.
So whatever reason that someone might believe that beastiality would one day become acceptable in our lifetime (a belief I don't share), it absolutely doesn't mean this person doesn't believe in equality on other issues. This is not the same thing.
Well luckily the guy came back and said he didn’t actually mean what he typed.
Quote:
In comment 16134267 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16134242 GF1080 said:
Quote:
Sy you're a moron. Lost all respect for you after that dumb ass take. And those that agree as well.
Why would someone be so triggered by someone else speculating that something may become more socially acceptable in the future? Why are people more angry at him than the dude who raped a dog? You guys are almost proving his point...
Because the insinuation is obvious -- we've legitimized gay relationships and this indicates we are on the same track for having sex with animals. And through that insinuation, you are drawing an equivalency.
You are so out of line dude. So out of line.
Everything you said was wrong but you want to believe that because that is the way our world works now. Fight fight fight.
There was ZERO thought about what you are so sure that was about - unbelievable arrogant statement by you.
I apologize for jumping to a conclusion re your statement. My bad. Truly. I see these types of statements made frequently when it comes to the struggles amongst that LGBTQ community and made an assumption. I was wrong and again, I apologize.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
3rd paragraph is what I meant to say.
Quote:
In comment 16134346 The Jake said:
Quote:
the connection between “bestiality will be legal soon” and the struggle of the LGTBQ community for equality, then you either don’t know your history, are a bigot yourself, or are just naive.
I could be wrong, but I think this is bullshit. The historical refrain from the anti-LGBTQ crowd was that "polygamy would be legal soon." I've never heard "beastiality = gay sex" until it was inferred in this thread. Now Sy has made clear that was not his meaning at all. What's left?
The animal references have become more frequent and popular recently as a way to take individual identity (typically regarding pronouns and gender fluidity) to the extreme and absurd end of the argument. This often plays out like, "If we let this person who was born with male genitalia identify as a female persona, what's next? Identifying as a cat or a dog?" and that is very much the way that this sort of thing is used to fuel an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. We did see exactly this example play out a few months ago when there was a completely fabricated story making the rounds on several politically-charged media outlets that there was a school allowing students to identify as cats and use litter boxes instead of modern plumbing. That story was fake. The sentiment it encouraged was very real.
And that, I presume, is why so many posters reacted to Sy's post the way that they did. Because humans fucking dogs isn't acceptable and never has been and never will be acceptable. There's no basis in reality that this sort of behavior is becoming more acceptable. But the implication that "it's becoming more acceptable" is usually a dog whistle about other things that are becoming more acceptable, such as fluid gender identity. I'm not saying that was Sy's intent, but it was a misleadingly phrased post if that wasn't what he meant by it.
+
Not everything is about you.
and people who use dog whistle 99% of the time is because they view everything from an identity/victim-hood lens.
when I see that phrase I picture the person on a couch and a Sigmund Freud character asking "is the white supremacist in the room with us now?"
And as for the topic....
There is not a hell hot enough for this SOB to spend eternity "blowing off steam" - sadly his punishment will likely not fit his crime.
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Then argue with those who have actually said that. Don't argue with someone who said nothing remotely of the sort because you "think" he "implied" that. It's basic reading comprehension. Why don't you identify as a literate person?
That’s not even a dog whistle, that’s just a bigot whistle.
Whenever I hear someone say "dog whistle," I get what that means and what they think about what they think what was said actually means, and normally it's a terrible assumption and accusation based on flimsy evidence.
Maybe the presumption is correct, but what if it isn't? It's a terrible charge to call someone a bigot, and to do so on a maybe, based on incomplete information...that's a horrific thing to do to someone.
It seems to me that a lot of people simply assume that those they disagree with on some issues disagree with them only because of bigotry, hatred, etc. That's definitely not true. People hold different value systems that shape their opinions, and most often, those value systems have nothing to do with hatred and the like.
But here's something we (I hope) can all agree on...pedophilia is abhorrent and dangerous and those that are pedophiles are a danger to children. I think that we all share these beliefs.
But there has been a public movement attempting to normalize and allow children to consent to sex with adults. There are news stories about this. Obviously, this is sick and abhorrent. There is an ODU professor that believes we shouldn't use the word "pedophile," but instead, "minor-attracted persons."
Is this something that society should move the line on at all? I would hope not.
Now consider that the individual that made the so-called "dog-whistle" might've done so entirely because he saw a news article or story about this singular issue...something that has historically been anathema to our societal moral compass. You don't even have to go back to the 90's and someone making this kind of argument, and this professor is not the only one, would lose their reputation, their job, and social standing immediately.
So whatever reason that someone might believe that beastiality would one day become acceptable in our lifetime (a belief I don't share), it absolutely doesn't mean this person doesn't believe in equality on other issues. This is not the same thing.
I think people say things sometimes that happen to be the same things that bigots say. And the non-bigot lacks the bigoted intent, but the words share a commonality.
I think that it's unfair to besmirch someone's character because they made an unintentional error with a phrasing that could be misinterpreted because of the commonality that the phrasing shares with the intentionally bigoted phrasing.
I think it's perfectly fair to point out to the person who unintentionally said something that might be misinterpreted that the way they said it could be seen as very similar to the way that other people say things who intentionally mean something else by that phrasing. Pointing that out isn't dragging anyone's character and/or reputation through the mud, IMO. In fact, I'd say that it's quite the opposite.
And I think that if the person who unintentionally made a comment that could reasonably be misconstrued to mean something else recognizes how their words were misinterpreted by others, they can choose to walk that back or further explain themselves, as Sy did here. Or, they can stand by their words and simply deny the intent. That happens quite often as well.
Specific to this particular thread, let's keep in mind that all of this stemmed from the suggestion that there is an upward trend of humans copulating with animals, and that there is an increasing level of acceptance among others regarding that practice. On its face, with no agenda, that's a pretty silly (and baseless) comment to make. Inferring an agenda might have just been the way that some were able to make sense of it. That doesn't make it right to do that to anyone, particularly a valued member of the BBI community, but I think anyone who suggests that tolerance for bestiality is culturally on the rise probably should at least get some ribbing for it.
Quote:
In comment 16134410 KDavies said:
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Then argue with those who have actually said that. Don't argue with someone who said nothing remotely of the sort because you "think" he "implied" that. It's basic reading comprehension. Why don't you identify as a literate person?
I didn’t insult you, why are you insulting me?
Quote:
In comment 16134410 KDavies said:
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Then argue with those who have actually said that. Don't argue with someone who said nothing remotely of the sort because you "think" he "implied" that. It's basic reading comprehension. Why don't you identify as a literate person?
The comment in question, while not strictly saying "because we allow gay marriage/trans rights/whatever this is where we are going", it repeated a long-rejected slippery slope argument that beastiality is where permissive policies would take us. If people can't see this and the bias underneath, they are not paying attention. Also, an apology of "it's not what I meant" and imply that others are way off, is a non-apology. An apology would be something like 'wow, I had no idea that this slippery slope type of argument has created a permission structure for bigotry. I was not aware, I now understand why others reacted the way they did and I apologize.'
Quote:
In comment 16134412 RicFlair said:
Quote:
In comment 16134410 KDavies said:
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Then argue with those who have actually said that. Don't argue with someone who said nothing remotely of the sort because you "think" he "implied" that. It's basic reading comprehension. Why don't you identify as a literate person?
The comment in question, while not strictly saying "because we allow gay marriage/trans rights/whatever this is where we are going", it repeated a long-rejected slippery slope argument that beastiality is where permissive policies would take us. If people can't see this and the bias underneath, they are not paying attention. Also, an apology of "it's not what I meant" and imply that others are way off, is a non-apology. An apology would be something like 'wow, I had no idea that this slippery slope type of argument has created a permission structure for bigotry. I was not aware, I now understand why others reacted the way they did and I apologize.'
Oh, give me a break with your PC, thought police bs. So, first it is Sy said A, so he implied B, C, and D. Then he explained that he did not imply B, C, and D. So he should apologize because people can't read? And not only should he apologize, but he should apologize using the exact words you said? This is the most comical crap I have ever seen. The oversensitivity of some of you is ridiculous. I guess the NFL has succeeded in reaching out to a more feminine audience.
Quote:
In comment 16134412 RicFlair said:
Quote:
In comment 16134410 KDavies said:
Quote:
if you are trying to figure out what Sy meant, just ask him. He answered and it was clearly not what some posters acting in bad faith were claiming.
Personally, I chuckled at his comment and took it as an off-handed joke. I didn't remotely think of consenting sex between homosexual adults. I thought more of the ODU professor as well, the attempts to break down the historical norms of children having the ability to consent, etc.
Those that are falsing accusing Sy of equating bestiality to homosexuality between consenting adults are in fact equating bestiality to homsosexuality themselves, as that is where there mind goes when someone makes a comment such as Sy, rather than any number of myriad other social declines he could have been thinking of himself when making that comment.
Your second comment willfully ignores that the anti lgbtq crowd has done that quite often for a long time.
Then argue with those who have actually said that. Don't argue with someone who said nothing remotely of the sort because you "think" he "implied" that. It's basic reading comprehension. Why don't you identify as a literate person?
The comment in question, while not strictly saying "because we allow gay marriage/trans rights/whatever this is where we are going", it repeated a long-rejected slippery slope argument that beastiality is where permissive policies would take us. If people can't see this and the bias underneath, they are not paying attention. Also, an apology of "it's not what I meant" and imply that others are way off, is a non-apology. An apology would be something like 'wow, I had no idea that this slippery slope type of argument has created a permission structure for bigotry. I was not aware, I now understand why others reacted the way they did and I apologize.'
Not everyone sees the world through your lens and those like-minded to you, and they don't have to speak in any sort of way to appeal to your hyper-sensitivities and narrow world-view. To demand such behavior and speech is arrogance. You don't seek to understand this person, you seek to blame him for inferences your biases caused you to make, and you don't want to confront those, so it must be his fault.
Sy has been more than kind here, when my answer to a post like yours would not be nearly as kind.
Keep this thread open forever lol.
So with that said -- bestiality being normalized in society is a hell of a conclusion to jump to. I'd be curious why and what evidence supports that.
Keep this thread open forever lol.
Everything is bigotry. How do you even get through life if you are so breakable?
Sy, I speak for myself but I suspect most of us didn't see anything anti-civil rights in your post. And even if some people don't apologize to you, and I'm glad at least one or two have, but please don't let the few easily offended sour you on how much you are appreciated here.
Quote:
while arguing there isn’t any bigotry happening here is fantastic stuff.
Keep this thread open forever lol.
Everything is bigotry. How do you even get through life if you are so breakable?
You’re being laughed at dude. Fake tough guy talk lol.
I haven’t insulted you, are you that triggered?
I haven’t insulted you, are you that triggered?
You are the one triggered and calling everyone a bigot. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. "One day bestiality will be widely accepted." "OMG you hate gay people, you bigot"
Again, how do you get through life being this overly insensitive and illiterate?
Quote:
Why do you keep insulting me?
I haven’t insulted you, are you that triggered?
You are the one triggered and calling everyone a bigot. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. "One day bestiality will be widely accepted." "OMG you hate gay people, you bigot"
Again, how do you get through life being this overly insensitive and illiterate?
Fake quotes now? Insults? A “I know you are but what am I” attempt?
Yeah you’re triggered.
More fake quotes?
I didn’t say anything about apologies guy.
We'll see ...
Keep this thread open forever lol.
Genuinely curious, here. Why do you think the statement below, particularly how the bolded was written in its context, is an example of bigotry?
I'm genuinely not trying to stir anything up here, I'm really looking for the perspective of why you think it's a bigoted statement. I think it speaks to the heart of my earlier post. I mean, genuinely do you really believe that's a bigoted statement, and if so, sincerely, why do you believe that?
I see you need an education about an apology is:
1) I am sorry if my remarks offended you, KDavies, they were off base...
2) I am sorry that you are such a misogynist...
The first is an apology but is insincere, the second is a non-apology but is sincere.
Since my comment was quoted, I feel the need to elaborate. I was going with a bit of hyperbole, and then I stopped short because I knew it was a path that would not be received well. By no means do I THINK that humanity is bound for the acceptance of bestiality. My comment was more tongue in cheek because of some of the things that are happening in our world. I didnt go further, because that violates the rules here.
By no means was I suggesting that same sex relationships being accepted would lead to us accepting human-lower animal species relationships. I have 2 family members and multiple friends that are gay/queer and I respect the hell out of them for the way they have navigated the world prior to us figuring out that its really not a big deal.
If you want to call me a bigot, fine. I will treat it as though you just called me a spoon because it means nothing to me. But denying that society has become much more radical in what is deemed "acceptable" is naivete or simply being obtuse.
Im done. Flame away.
Im done. Flame away.
Honest question, what has has become accepted that has caused society to become more radical?
There wasn't an accusation of being soft. I'm trying to get to a serious point here. Say I'm an alien trying to understand human values and mores, I'm asking RicFlair, but feel free to answer, how you would explain this exchange as an example of bigotry.
I think KDavies' angle here is brilliant. Basically, "if you guys think Sy was being bigoted in his post, you're crazy - let me show you what real bigotry looks like!"
At least it's clear that Sy is not a bigot, and we still got someone whose ears perked up at the dog whistle anyway.
Sy is not bigoted against gay people simply because he jokingly said that bestiality may one day be socially acceptable. He may be bigoted against bestiality and those who partake. (Perhaps that is what has some triggered?)
I am not bigoted because I commented on the oversensitivity of some. I am happily married and have four daughters. My five favorite people in the world are women. If I do have a bigotry, it's against those who look for victimhood where it isn't. Which is going on here.
Quote:
Being soft and equating that with being feminine is pretty clearly bigoted.
There wasn't an accusation of being soft. I'm trying to get to a serious point here. Say I'm an alien trying to understand human values and mores, I'm asking RicFlair, but feel free to answer, how you would explain this exchange as an example of bigotry.
OK, take this ...
comical crap, oversensitive, ridiculous = feminine. How is that not misogynist?
Quote:
But denying that society has become much more radical in what is deemed "acceptable" is naivete or simply being obtuse.
Im done. Flame away.
Honest question, what has has become accepted that has caused society to become more radical?
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Quote:
Being soft and equating that with being feminine is pretty clearly bigoted.
I think KDavies' angle here is brilliant. Basically, "if you guys think Sy was being bigoted in his post, you're crazy - let me show you what real bigotry looks like!"
At least it's clear that Sy is not a bigot, and we still got someone whose ears perked up at the dog whistle anyway.
Nowhere did Sy equate bestiality with homosexuality. Nowhere.
Those that equated bestiality with homosexuality were those who falsely ASSUMED Sy was doing so. So, if you maintain the position that those who equate bestiality with homosexuality are bigots, then you are bigots by your very definition since you were the ones who equated bestiality with homosexuality, not Sy.
Quote:
In comment 16134470 TrevorC said:
Quote:
But denying that society has become much more radical in what is deemed "acceptable" is naivete or simply being obtuse.
Im done. Flame away.
Honest question, what has has become accepted that has caused society to become more radical?
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Lolol.
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Well WAP doesn’t imply date rape so not sure the comparison is equal when discussing potential outrage.
I get the idea of what you’re hinting at with point two, and if a similar comment was made about guns or a certain orange fellow, this thread would have been deleted long ago.
Quote:
In comment 16134471 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
Being soft and equating that with being feminine is pretty clearly bigoted.
I think KDavies' angle here is brilliant. Basically, "if you guys think Sy was being bigoted in his post, you're crazy - let me show you what real bigotry looks like!"
At least it's clear that Sy is not a bigot, and we still got someone whose ears perked up at the dog whistle anyway.
Nowhere did Sy equate bestiality with homosexuality. Nowhere.
Those that equated bestiality with homosexuality were those who falsely ASSUMED Sy was doing so. So, if you maintain the position that those who equate bestiality with homosexuality are bigots, then you are bigots by your very definition since you were the ones who equated bestiality with homosexuality, not Sy.
Leave Sy out of this. We've moved on to how you think being sensitive, ridiculous, and comically crappy equates to being feminine. And then used the classic, "but some of my favorite people are [insert discriminated class here]" as your defense.
Not surprisingly, your big brawny brain full of manhood couldn't figure that out. Unless your whole schtick here is satire, in which case, bravo. Jordan Klepper's got nothing on you.
Quote:
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Well WAP doesn’t imply date rape so not sure the comparison is equal when discussing potential outrage.
I get the idea of what you’re hinting at with point two, and if a similar comment was made about guns or a certain orange fellow, this thread would have been deleted long ago.
And neither did Baby Its Cold Outside...a song that was that was written with the composer's wife and is going on 80 years old is suddenly about date rape, not Christmas. Yet WAP completely objectifies women and is entirely vulgar is considered cool. That was I really didnt want to go further. But I also didnt want to avoid the question and it was a quick answer. I am truly done with this. I will leave it to RicFlair to continue on his crusade to label people bigots.
Nobody said that. I was merely pointing out a double standard. I cracked up listening to that song because of nasty Cardi B's lyrics are.
Lol, but infer whatever you want to.
Quote:
In comment 16134489 TrevorC said:
Quote:
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Well WAP doesn’t imply date rape so not sure the comparison is equal when discussing potential outrage.
I get the idea of what you’re hinting at with point two, and if a similar comment was made about guns or a certain orange fellow, this thread would have been deleted long ago.
And neither did Baby Its Cold Outside...a song that was that was written with the composer's wife and is going on 80 years old is suddenly about date rape, not Christmas. Yet WAP completely objectifies women and is entirely vulgar is considered cool. That was I really didnt want to go further. But I also didnt want to avoid the question and it was a quick answer. I am truly done with this. I will leave it to RicFlair to continue on his crusade to label people bigots.
Lolol
Quote:
In comment 16134477 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16134471 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
Being soft and equating that with being feminine is pretty clearly bigoted.
I think KDavies' angle here is brilliant. Basically, "if you guys think Sy was being bigoted in his post, you're crazy - let me show you what real bigotry looks like!"
At least it's clear that Sy is not a bigot, and we still got someone whose ears perked up at the dog whistle anyway.
Nowhere did Sy equate bestiality with homosexuality. Nowhere.
Those that equated bestiality with homosexuality were those who falsely ASSUMED Sy was doing so. So, if you maintain the position that those who equate bestiality with homosexuality are bigots, then you are bigots by your very definition since you were the ones who equated bestiality with homosexuality, not Sy.
Leave Sy out of this. We've moved on to how you think being sensitive, ridiculous, and comically crappy equates to being feminine. And then used the classic, "but some of my favorite people are [insert discriminated class here]" as your defense.
Not surprisingly, your big brawny brain full of manhood couldn't figure that out. Unless your whole schtick here is satire, in which case, bravo. Jordan Klepper's got nothing on you.
OK. I apologize. It's a very masculine trait to accuse someone of implying something they didn't, and continue bitching about it when they say they didn't mean it. And complain that their apology wasn't a real apology. I hope this post isn't interpreted as bigoted against men.
Quote:
In comment 16134491 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16134477 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16134471 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
Being soft and equating that with being feminine is pretty clearly bigoted.
I think KDavies' angle here is brilliant. Basically, "if you guys think Sy was being bigoted in his post, you're crazy - let me show you what real bigotry looks like!"
At least it's clear that Sy is not a bigot, and we still got someone whose ears perked up at the dog whistle anyway.
Nowhere did Sy equate bestiality with homosexuality. Nowhere.
Those that equated bestiality with homosexuality were those who falsely ASSUMED Sy was doing so. So, if you maintain the position that those who equate bestiality with homosexuality are bigots, then you are bigots by your very definition since you were the ones who equated bestiality with homosexuality, not Sy.
Leave Sy out of this. We've moved on to how you think being sensitive, ridiculous, and comically crappy equates to being feminine. And then used the classic, "but some of my favorite people are [insert discriminated class here]" as your defense.
Not surprisingly, your big brawny brain full of manhood couldn't figure that out. Unless your whole schtick here is satire, in which case, bravo. Jordan Klepper's got nothing on you.
OK. I apologize. It's a very masculine trait to accuse someone of implying something they didn't, and continue bitching about it when they say they didn't mean it. And complain that their apology wasn't a real apology. I hope this post isn't interpreted as bigoted against men.
Have you figured out who actually said the apology shit yet?
This is so funny. Everyone is past Sy's comment now except you. Now it's about you. And if your flailing attempts to defend yourself continue, you might accidentally grow a vagina.
For someone who keeps throwing insults like “illiterate” around, I figured you would have been able to comprehend it when I posted “I’m glad Sy walked back his earlier comments”.
Between that and continually thinking I’m the one who said the apology shit, the “illiterate” insult is getting funnier.
"bigoted";
a "f*^&ing coward";
and told to go F himself
But yeah, let's pretend it didn't happen.
This is exactly what I meant by different perspectives and worldviews.
It is sociologically accepted fact that women, in general, are more emotionally-driven in their communication than men. It is generally well-understood by laymen and professionals that women are generally more sensitive to theirs and others' emotions than men.
And in fact, this is not a insult, right? This is why many of us men need and value women in our lives to balance us.
However, men perceiving other men for communicating in a sensitive way, like women do, is not something men generally respect coming from their gender peers. Many men do not want their male friends to act like their wives and girlfriends from an emotional sensitivity standpoint.
Here's why it's not bigotry. It's not saying "you're communicating like a female and I don't respect females and their emotional intelligence and sensitivity, and the value that brings to my life."
It's instead saying, "You're communicating like a female and I don't respect men who communicate the way females do."
A counter-argument might be, "why wouldn't you respect a male that acts or communicates in a 'female' way?" I think this is an example of bias, not bigotry, because bigotry implies hatred, where someone may not respect an individual while at the same time affirming the validity of their personhood and their deserving to be afforded the same rights as anyone.
And if you really think about it, men by-and-large DO NOT respect men who they perceive as "acting" like females.
It's just human nature. If they did, the biggest Hollywood action stars, or male movie stars in general, wouldn't almost always feature men we perceive to be extremely masculine, such as the Hemsworth brothers, Jason Momoa, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Samuel L. Jackson, Vin Diesel, Mark Wahlberg, etc.
That doesn't, however, imply a lack of respect of the person's individual dignity, though. One can believe in a person's dignity even if they are "feminite" while not valuing the way they present themselves.
And this is the heart of the issue.
Many on this board will feel the above is a sign of patriarchal mysogyny and bigotry, while they binge watch The Sopranos.
What if we instead stopped calling each other bigots and instead recognized that we are all a product of the social norms we were raised with, and understanding that valuing, say, traditional gender norms, as an example, does not also mean the people that do so hate those that are non-conforming, or do not value their dignity as people.
Certainly, there are those that exist that do not honor the dignity of those that are different from them, but thankfully, these people are the vast minority. There are far, far more people that are in the above category than the latter category.
"bigoted";
a "f*^&ing coward";
and told to go F himself
But yeah, let's pretend it didn't happen.
You're deflecting. It's you they're saying that about.
People react to things how they feel about them.
Its a microcosm of how politics...the media and social media are on course to destroy us as a civilized society. Ive been on here since Pete's corner. Ive seen the best and worst of BBI. I can say with a high level of certainty that if this same exact thread was started in 1995 it would not have devolved into this disaster. Believe me that says something. BBI had its rogue characters back then. This is why we stick to football here....we are all better off.
Quote:
In comment 16134489 TrevorC said:
Quote:
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Well WAP doesn’t imply date rape so not sure the comparison is equal when discussing potential outrage.
I get the idea of what you’re hinting at with point two, and if a similar comment was made about guns or a certain orange fellow, this thread would have been deleted long ago.
And neither did Baby Its Cold Outside...a song that was that was written with the composer's wife and is going on 80 years old is suddenly about date rape, not Christmas. Yet WAP completely objectifies women and is entirely vulgar is considered cool. That was I really didnt want to go further. But I also didnt want to avoid the question and it was a quick answer. I am truly done with this. I will leave it to RicFlair to continue on his crusade to label people bigots.
C'mon Trevor, at least give the artist the credit. Stand-up comedian Tom Cotter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd0ZuhZnroA
Hey...back to the topic, anyone know if this happened doggystyle? I mean that would be just ...too dark!?!
Quote:
a "f*&%ing moron";
"bigoted";
a "f*^&ing coward";
and told to go F himself
But yeah, let's pretend it didn't happen.
You're deflecting. It's you they're saying that about.
Uh, no. Those were comments directed at Sy well before I said a thing on here. What the heck are you talking about?
Hey...back to the topic, anyone know if this happened doggystyle? I mean that would be just ...too dark!?!
I heard the only position used was the Dirty Santa.
Quote:
In comment 16134494 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
In comment 16134489 TrevorC said:
Quote:
Ive got a fairly innocuous example. Its acceptable that cancelling "Baby Its Cold Outside" because it implies date rape while WAP was like the number 1 song in America is what I mean by how society has fallen in line with those that actually seek to be offended.
I would give a more sophisticated example, but I dont want to get in trouble. People's priorities are screwed up and as such the decisions being made on a variety of issues have been damaging. That's all.
Well WAP doesn’t imply date rape so not sure the comparison is equal when discussing potential outrage.
I get the idea of what you’re hinting at with point two, and if a similar comment was made about guns or a certain orange fellow, this thread would have been deleted long ago.
And neither did Baby Its Cold Outside...a song that was that was written with the composer's wife and is going on 80 years old is suddenly about date rape, not Christmas. Yet WAP completely objectifies women and is entirely vulgar is considered cool. That was I really didnt want to go further. But I also didnt want to avoid the question and it was a quick answer. I am truly done with this. I will leave it to RicFlair to continue on his crusade to label people bigots.
C'mon Trevor, at least give the artist the credit. Stand-up comedian Tom Cotter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd0ZuhZnroA
Haha, I saw a clip of him, I think from the same show based on the jacket, but it was a clip when he was talking about flight attendants (he called them Sky Bitches, Sky Skanks, Wing Nazis) cut him off from drinking on the flight....because he stuffed a screaming bbaby in the overhead compartment. Hahaha.
I swear to you, I didnt get it from him. I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about it. I definitely didnt put it together all by myself, but it rang true with how I felt about stupid John Legend's version of the song.
People react to things how they feel about them.
It's an example of how most men expect interaction with other men to be. It's also by-and-large, the general truth.
I know that intellectually being sensitive is not an inherent weakness, right? I'm an extremely emotional person, I don't communicate it all the time and particularly not with my male friends. I would also describe myself as a fairly sensitive person. I have an immense sense of empathy, particularly those that have deep mental and emotional struggles. And in some ways, I at the same time feel that it is a strong part of what I value about myself, and in another sense I feel that it does make me "less masculine." Where the later part comes in is our upbringing, our instinctual programming, etc. It's both nature and nurture.
And understanding that men and women are different, and that while being different, and that women are stronger than men in some areas (generally), and vice versa, shouldn't be controversial, first, and I"m not saying that anyone is making that claim.
But the way most men are hardwired, we do feel that being emotionally vulnerable and sensitive is a feminine quality. Think about how much of women's communication is emotionally-based as opposed to men. There's the old stereotype of the man watching the game in silence, happy as a clam (as many of us do), and the woman complaining to him, "we never really talk anymore." That's a real thing. We're different, again, generally speaking.
But we're talking about being angry and disengaging with people because of a lack of understanding of one or the other...on one side...you are not appealing to my hardwired gender norms I'm accustomed to that expect of a man, and therefore I do not respect you, and on the other side, "you are not ignoring your centuries of ancestral programming and life-long, deeply embedded social mores you grew up and learned from your parents, therefore I do not respect you, and worse yet, that makes you a bigot, and I do not associate with your kind."
Hmmm. Doesn't sound very productive to me. Sounds really divisive and shitty.
Sounds like tribalism, too. "You look different than me, my people shall endeavor to wipe your people off the face of the earth!"
"You don't believe in my religious faith, my people shall endeavor to wipe your people off the face of the earth!"
This is the state of our world, I believe, and it seems to me there are a lot of forces seemingly invested in this modern form of tribalism that we apparently haven't evolved from very much.
Quote:
In comment 16134517 KDavies said:
Quote:
a "f*&%ing moron";
"bigoted";
a "f*^&ing coward";
and told to go F himself
But yeah, let's pretend it didn't happen.
You're deflecting. It's you they're saying that about.
Uh, no. Those were comments directed at Sy well before I said a thing on here. What the heck are you talking about?
Originally, sure. And that seems to have been cleared up a while ago.
And then since then, you came galloping in on your white horse thinking you were coming to Sy's defense when all you've really done is expose some things about your views that could be very easily interpreted as sexist and - borrowing from Jim's distinction above, because I think it's valid - biased (and maybe not necessarily bigoted, as I had earlier claimed).
What's odd is that you still seem to think any of this is about Sy's post anymore, rather than the way that you attempted to use the concept of femininity as an insult. The latter is what I'm referring to when I say that you're deflecting. Sy's comment, for better or worse, has been apologized for, as have most of the reactions to it. That you have become so entrenched in defending Sy's initial comment, well after the explanations and apologies were already issued, is curious to me. I won't jump to any conclusions about that, and I'll reserve the questions I'd have if one of my friends was vehemently defending a statement's unintended interpretation long after the intention had been explained by it's source.
They are working on it very as well as the disgusting MAP shit for pedos.
I have really strong friendships with people that believe pretty polar opposite things as I, and our conversations are among the most rewarding conversations I have. And yet, I can do a lot more in this regard and be a lot more welcoming at times to those from "another tribe."
I have really strong friendships with people that believe pretty polar opposite things as I, and our conversations are among the most rewarding conversations I have. And yet, I can do a lot more in this regard and be a lot more welcoming at times to those from "another tribe."
Well said. That’s precisely the problem. I heard someone say x and y, so if someone said x, they also believe y. It’s asinine. Goes against all basic logic
You were equating what you saw as disgusting, cowardly, pathetic behavior with femininity in your attempt to defend Sy, and doing so long after the thread had accepted Sy's explanation and acknowledged the misunderstanding.
If you don't see how this is now about you, I don't know what to tell you.
And I'm going to be serious, as well. I very much appreciate it, and believe me, I've been guilty of what I've been writing here about more times than I can count, and I endeavor to do better all the time. And I still do sometimes let the worst of me get the better. But I'm trying more and more to be mindful of it.
But you saying that, it's truly appreciated.
Quote:
I defended the truth. Sy didn’t say or imply what some of you are outright lying about him. It’s disgusting and cowardly behavior. Just over a month ago Sy was doing his annual huge contribution to the site and the he gets people spreading lies and slandering him. It’s pathetic. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you
You were equating what you saw as disgusting, cowardly, pathetic behavior with femininity in your attempt to defend Sy, and doing so long after the thread had accepted Sy's explanation and acknowledged the misunderstanding.
If you don't see how this is now about you, I don't know what to tell you.
I quoted his comment above, and this is what I'm saying...he actually equated oversensitivity to femininity. And that's something men understand from our hardwiring. He might have use the other adjectives elsewhere in separate contexts, but he only used "feminine" in the context of his evaluation of of the oversensitivity of the poster he was replying to. I don't think it's fair to characterize this comment in a different way than what was presented.
Quote:
In comment 16134552 KDavies said:
Quote:
I defended the truth. Sy didn’t say or imply what some of you are outright lying about him. It’s disgusting and cowardly behavior. Just over a month ago Sy was doing his annual huge contribution to the site and the he gets people spreading lies and slandering him. It’s pathetic. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you
You were equating what you saw as disgusting, cowardly, pathetic behavior with femininity in your attempt to defend Sy, and doing so long after the thread had accepted Sy's explanation and acknowledged the misunderstanding.
If you don't see how this is now about you, I don't know what to tell you.
I quoted his comment above, and this is what I'm saying...he actually equated oversensitivity to femininity. And that's something men understand from our hardwiring. He might have use the other adjectives elsewhere in separate contexts, but he only used "feminine" in the context of his evaluation of of the oversensitivity of the poster he was replying to. I don't think it's fair to characterize this comment in a different way than what was presented.
Thank you. I was equating over sensitivity as a feminine trait. Not confrontation, name calling, cursing at, or internet bullying done to Sy.
But who new a thread about guy fucking a dog would cause me to explore my own biases and think deeper about how we interact and perceive each other?
In a way, I'm glad that guy fucked his dog. Thanks for taking one for the team, Lassie.
*Disclaimer*: The last paragraph above is sarcastic, and its intention is to be humerous, I am not actually glad that sick-o fucked his dog. I feel bad for the dog, and hope it receives a loving, sex-free home.
*Disclaimer Two*: In the previous "Disclaimer I mentioned a "sex-free" home. This was not meant that I hope the dog gets free sex, or that this Collie has previously paid for sex from anyone, such as a paid gigolo, for example. This phrasing was meant to mean I hope this Collie finds a loving home where it will not experience any further sexual abuse. By "loving home", I mean that I hope this dog experiences relationships with new owners that fosters an appropriate loving relationship with their pets, one that does not involve anal or vaginal penetration.
*Disclaimer Three*: In the above Disclaimer Two, I mentioned that I hope this dog does not experience any further vaginal or anal penetration. This is not meant to imply that I hope this dog does not have access to appropriate health care. If a licensed, professional veterinarian perceives it is necessary to examine the dog's vagina or anus, and some penetration is required to do so in the course of normal medical care, I hope that the dog does receive this care, as the health care needs of our pets are a critical component to responsible pet ownership. And I hope that bitch enjoys it.
It may not have been what you meant - and I appreciate you for admitting that - but comments like that give bigot lowlifes like Matty cover.
It may not have been what you meant - and I appreciate you for admitting that - but comments like that give bigot lowlifes like Matty cover.
Dude, stop. That train has left the station and calling someone I assume you do not know personally a bigoted low-life based on the above makes you look waaaaaaay worse to a lot more people than what you perceive Matty to be. A LOT WORSE.
Quote:
In comment 16134559 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16134552 KDavies said:
Quote:
I defended the truth. Sy didn’t say or imply what some of you are outright lying about him. It’s disgusting and cowardly behavior. Just over a month ago Sy was doing his annual huge contribution to the site and the he gets people spreading lies and slandering him. It’s pathetic. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you
You were equating what you saw as disgusting, cowardly, pathetic behavior with femininity in your attempt to defend Sy, and doing so long after the thread had accepted Sy's explanation and acknowledged the misunderstanding.
If you don't see how this is now about you, I don't know what to tell you.
I quoted his comment above, and this is what I'm saying...he actually equated oversensitivity to femininity. And that's something men understand from our hardwiring. He might have use the other adjectives elsewhere in separate contexts, but he only used "feminine" in the context of his evaluation of of the oversensitivity of the poster he was replying to. I don't think it's fair to characterize this comment in a different way than what was presented.
Thank you. I was equating over sensitivity as a feminine trait. Not confrontation, name calling, cursing at, or internet bullying done to Sy.
You used “feminine” as an insult. Textbook sexism and misogyny.
And I don’t know why you or anyone is defending Sy’s initial comment, even sy didn’t defend it, he said he didn’t mean it.
But who new a thread about guy fucking a dog would cause me to explore my own biases and think deeper about how we interact and perceive each other?
In a way, I'm glad that guy fucked his dog. Thanks for taking one for the team, Lassie.
*Disclaimer*: The last paragraph above is sarcastic, and its intention is to be humerous, I am not actually glad that sick-o fucked his dog. I feel bad for the dog, and hope it receives a loving, sex-free home.
*Disclaimer Two*: In the previous "Disclaimer I mentioned a "sex-free" home. This was not meant that I hope the dog gets free sex, or that this Collie has previously paid for sex from anyone, such as a paid gigolo, for example. This phrasing was meant to mean I hope this Collie finds a loving home where it will not experience any further sexual abuse. By "loving home", I mean that I hope this dog experiences relationships with new owners that fosters an appropriate loving relationship with their pets, one that does not involve anal or vaginal penetration.
*Disclaimer Three*: In the above Disclaimer Two, I mentioned that I hope this dog does not experience any further vaginal or anal penetration. This is not meant to imply that I hope this dog does not have access to appropriate health care. If a licensed, professional veterinarian perceives it is necessary to examine the dog's vagina or anus, and some penetration is required to do so in the course of normal medical care, I hope that the dog does receive this care, as the health care needs of our pets are a critical component to responsible pet ownership. And I hope that bitch enjoys it.
This is easily the post of the year at the halfway point, IMO. Write that newsletter, Jim!
It may not have been what you meant - and I appreciate you for admitting that - but comments like that give bigot lowlifes like Matty cover.
So now the problem is bigotry against pedophiles? What a group of people to defend
Quote:
this introspective rambling of mine, but I hope it is received with the positive intentions in which it was written.
But who new a thread about guy fucking a dog would cause me to explore my own biases and think deeper about how we interact and perceive each other?
In a way, I'm glad that guy fucked his dog. Thanks for taking one for the team, Lassie.
*Disclaimer*: The last paragraph above is sarcastic, and its intention is to be humerous, I am not actually glad that sick-o fucked his dog. I feel bad for the dog, and hope it receives a loving, sex-free home.
*Disclaimer Two*: In the previous "Disclaimer I mentioned a "sex-free" home. This was not meant that I hope the dog gets free sex, or that this Collie has previously paid for sex from anyone, such as a paid gigolo, for example. This phrasing was meant to mean I hope this Collie finds a loving home where it will not experience any further sexual abuse. By "loving home", I mean that I hope this dog experiences relationships with new owners that fosters an appropriate loving relationship with their pets, one that does not involve anal or vaginal penetration.
*Disclaimer Three*: In the above Disclaimer Two, I mentioned that I hope this dog does not experience any further vaginal or anal penetration. This is not meant to imply that I hope this dog does not have access to appropriate health care. If a licensed, professional veterinarian perceives it is necessary to examine the dog's vagina or anus, and some penetration is required to do so in the course of normal medical care, I hope that the dog does receive this care, as the health care needs of our pets are a critical component to responsible pet ownership. And I hope that bitch enjoys it.
This is easily the post of the year at the halfway point, IMO. Write that newsletter, Jim!
I generally made my self giggle writing that, lol. Unfortunately we got derailed with the mudslinging again.
Good one.
It occurred to me that home might not work if he's married, but he doesn't appear to be.
Very strange all around.
At least if he's got little nuts they won't be smacking into the dog too hard
If you are a new poster, I apologize. I’m always skeptical though.
If you are a new poster, I apologize. I’m always skeptical though.
I think he used to post as TrevorB
If you are a new poster, I apologize. I’m always skeptical though.
Nope, brand new. I read the board a ton over the past couple years and wanted to partake in the chats but they got really really toxic with the DJ stuff. I post a lot because it's a new thing for me to do. Im sorry if you think it off-putting to have someone post so frequently right off the bat. Just bored I guess.
Quote:
What was your handle before? No disrespect, but it’s always funny to me when there is a new poster who starts a thread introduction saying they are a longtime lurker to then post an absurd amount.
If you are a new poster, I apologize. I’m always skeptical though.
Nope, brand new. I read the board a ton over the past couple years and wanted to partake in the chats but they got really really toxic with the DJ stuff. I post a lot because it's a new thing for me to do. Im sorry if you think it off-putting to have someone post so frequently right off the bat. Just bored I guess.
No need to apologize and I’m sorry for the implication. Just have seen so many dupes over the years, haha.
Quote:
In comment 16134610 Sean said:
Quote:
What was your handle before? No disrespect, but it’s always funny to me when there is a new poster who starts a thread introduction saying they are a longtime lurker to then post an absurd amount.
If you are a new poster, I apologize. I’m always skeptical though.
Nope, brand new. I read the board a ton over the past couple years and wanted to partake in the chats but they got really really toxic with the DJ stuff. I post a lot because it's a new thing for me to do. Im sorry if you think it off-putting to have someone post so frequently right off the bat. Just bored I guess.
No need to apologize and I’m sorry for the implication. Just have seen so many dupes over the years, haha.
I get what you mean....that's lame. My impression of dupes is they are just attention craving trouble makers who can't enjoy a good thing. But its natural for you to be on guard for it.
Not too much bothers, especially here.
It may not have been what you meant - and I appreciate you for admitting that - but comments like that give bigot lowlifes like Matty cover.
Wait, that post by LauderdaleMatty makes him a "lowlife bigot" because he's concerned about normalizing pedophilia?
holy shit. it's worse than I thought.
I'll wear the "lowlife bigot" badge of honor too if that's entry point.
Just so I know, is that a dog whistle too?
Quote:
Look at LauderdaleMatty’s post.
It may not have been what you meant - and I appreciate you for admitting that - but comments like that give bigot lowlifes like Matty cover.
Wait, that post by LauderdaleMatty makes him a "lowlife bigot" because he's concerned about normalizing pedophilia?
holy shit. it's worse than I thought.
I'll wear the "lowlife bigot" badge of honor too if that's entry point.
Just so I know, is that a dog whistle too?
No, in addition to MAP pedophilia (I legit don’t know what that means) LauderdaleMatty states “they” are working on normalizing sex with dogs in addition to the pedophelia thing. So long as you’re able to interpret LauderdaleMatty’s chicken scratch posting it’s pretty obvious what he said. “They” are working on both of those heinous acts. And let’s not forget Daniel in Kentucky going all in on Sy’s post, care to defend him as well?
As a person whose family works with dog rescues it broke my heart just reading title though, so I felt like "how bad could the comments be"
I underestimated. by a lot. in ways I did could not possibly even imagine. I'm out.
You people can parse words to see intent where it may or may not be and again I will say be perpetually aggrieved. Enjoy it, relish it, take offense to everything. There is some way you can make yourself into a victim if you stare at the words long enough.
As a person whose family works with dog rescues it broke my heart just reading title though, so I felt like "how bad could the comments be"
I underestimated. by a lot. in ways I did could not possibly even imagine. I'm out.
You people can parse words to see intent where it may or may not be and again I will say be perpetually aggrieved. Enjoy it, relish it, take offense to everything. There is some way you can make yourself into a victim if you stare at the words long enough.
You sound offended lol.
Link - ( New Window )
No, I’m not offended by anything.
My point with “they” is pointing out how LauderdaleMatty knows the same people are pushing both beastiality and normalizing pedophelia. Based on a single quote here.
Ultimately, while Sy’s post was not intended for how some took it there were still a few who went all-in on it. And that alone is mind-blowing.
And to be clear, by "sexuality" I refer not to sexual preference or orientation, but to pornography promiscuity
Quote:
now pronouns are offensive?
No, I’m not offended by anything.
My point with “they” is pointing out how LauderdaleMatty knows the same people are pushing both beastiality and normalizing pedophelia. Based on a single quote here.
Ultimately, while Sy’s post was not intended for how some took it there were still a few who went all-in on it. And that alone is mind-blowing.
Wouldn’t “they” in this instance just be sexual deviants? Most every normal human beings agrees pedophilia and bestiality are absolutely disgusting, and violative of the rights of those who cannot legally consent to sex with an adult human.
It's the three or so people who misread his joke and thought Yup! The bestiality really is on the verge of being accepted.
If you live in a world where beastiality is on the verge of being accepted in polite society, you're living a different world.